Talk:List of dictators/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

This article breaks each and every one of Wikipedia's policies

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether you like some of these dictators or not is your opinion. Whether you think a dictator is good or bad is your opinion. Just because the term dictator has a negative connotation to it does not make it a subjective term. According to its definition, all of these men are dictators.--66.176.252.176 03:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
So, with your logic, we should have a List of demagogs, List of oppressive rulers, List of unethical presidents, etc. Can you imagine the POV nightmare? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Jossi no offense, but you have simply stated that you do not like this article and that you want to make it better. I can go into any wikipedia article and make a list of things I feel it is violating and then hint on nominating the article for deletion, or simply ask to make it better. You have not made any specific points as to what you want changed, only theoretical ones backed by a few baseless claims. Please state clearly exactly what you want changed in this article. --Antispammer 17:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Jossi wants it deleted. There was a (very) long AfD for this article, and it survived. Jossi (maybe without knowing it) was merely re-iterating the points made at that time. The article has improved greatly since then (thanks Lulu and Jucifer and others for being the guardians), but the basic premise of Jossi (and others, including myself and 172) is that this article violates many (all ??) policies of wikipedia. Against my expectations, it has become a useful article. Wizzy…☎ 17:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If that is the case, that Jossi simply wants this article to be deleted, then it is a tremendous shame that wikipedia allows people like him to become administrators. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place for the people, not a place for elitist moderators to hide information. Jossi should go live in one of these countries where there are dictators to see how much he would like not having freedom of speech.--Antispammer 18:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I would kindly request that you lower your tone. You need to refresh your memory on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and remember that this project 'is not a place for advocacy of any kind. Having said that, please note that I am not interested in deleting this article at all. My interest is on articles that conform to Wikipedia policy. And in response to your "idea" of me living in a country repressed by dictatorship, you can check my userpage and see that I am well travelled. I lived in Argentina during the dirty war, and saw some of my friends abducted and killed by the military junta. So do go around preaching to the converted, assuming that you are defending here the oppressed, you are not. Be civil and try for once to look at this project not as a place to air your grievances or to push your point if view, but a place that maybe can show that there is a way to collaborate, even with people that are different than you and that profess different beliefs than you. Assume good faith, otherwise editing becomes a tedious and very ugly business. Read: WP:AGF. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As an example of an article that deals with similar information but that it is 100% NPOV see List of political leaders who suspended the constitution. These are verifiable facts. Calling XYZ a dictator is only verifiable if XYZ was called a "dictator" by a verifiable, reputable and named source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer: For the record, I personaly believe that most, if not all of the people listed in the article deserve to be called "dictators". My point is that we need to make this article an excellent example of a well sourced article that is based on WP policies. And at the moment it is far from it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no opinion at all on whether those listed "deserve" to be listed. I simply have an opinion that most have met WP:V (often by reference to the various articles on the rulers) and satisfy the criteria we have stated and refined. FWIW, I worked a bit on the List of political leaders who suspended the constitution, and encountered exactly the same types of concerns you express... and in fact think the criteria of that list are less well defined than for this one. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I challenge your statement that most people in the list have met WP:V. I checked one at random Juan Perón, and it does not pass that test. There is no mention of the term dictator in that article, only that he participated in a coup. I understand that many editors have worked hard at this article, and I respect that. I just want this article to conform to WP policy. Consensus cannot bypass policy and this article breaks WP:NPOV, WP:V abnd WP:NOR, as it stands. As for List of political leaders who suspended the constitution, each one of these is 100% verifiable, as either they did suspend or did not suspend their countries' constitution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I checked another one at random: Oswaldo López Arellano. Yes, he took part in a military coup. But this is not a List of people that participated in a coup d'etat, is it? And another one Sitiveni Rabuka, again, participated in two military coups, but does not fit the other criteria stated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Please note that I am not interested in a pissing contest about this article. I have made my point loud and clear. Will editors take up the challenge and make this article one that we can all be proud off? I leave that in your capable hands. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I still agree with Jossi. Jossi may be interested in taking a look at the AfD discussion thread at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. 172 04:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see that the no consensus keep succeeded by an extremely narrow margin. This means only one thing: the article needs fixing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. And perhaps another listing on AfD. Do you have any thoughts on that matter? 172 04:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The only way to resolve this is by formulating arguments to make this article compliant and get agreement. I would argue that if we tighten the criteria by basing the inclusion in a widely accepted definition of what a dictator is, rather than inventing one, we will be in very safe territory and one that will nor be easily dismissed or in danger of being original research. And of course, by providing reputable sources in each case that demonstrate the validity for their inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I favor another AfD, but it sounds as if your efforts are at least a step toward improving the article and in the right direction. 172 05:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks to me that there have been improvements in this article since it survived attempts to delete it. Jossi, do you feel that the article needs to have extensive citation for everyone on the list...by that I mean, aren't some such as Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini so widely considered to be within the widely accepted defition of Dictator to not need citation? I haven't heard of a lot of these folks...guess I need a little educating.--MONGO 05:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I cannot control whether this is renominated for AfD (though I'll still vote "keep"). But it really has improved quite impressively. See, e.g. this diff: [1]. It has a lot more names, but the names it has are also far better annotated and cited. I know this is partly tooting my own horn—but more so that of other editors who have done more—but I am really proud of the NPOV and encyclopedic quality we've obtained in such a contentious and hazard-strewn topic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that to nominate it now is too soon and would prefer that we continue to find a way to make this article more acceptable to those that previously opposed it. If we need to provide even more citations to support those listed then that may be achievable. It may require using off line sources though and will therefore not be readily available to all who read this article. I think that, as I said, the article has improved tremendously since it survived AFD. I encourage all to not edit war...please...you can yell at me if you want to but discuss things out here! I will do all I can to ensure article integrity and will probably end up making everyone mutually unhappy....much as I achieved when User:JamesMLane and I argued endlessly in the George W Bush article.--MONGO 06:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this article has improved tremendously since AfD. Jossi says :- I would argue that if we tighten the criteria by basing the inclusion in a widely accepted definition of what a dictator is - how do we answer that question ? Calling someone a dictator is mudslinging - and different people want to throw mud at different despots. I don't think that Kwame Nkrumah (for instance) is widely accepted as a dictator - but he does fit the criteria listed at the top of the page. Wizzy…☎ 06:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

CIA installed dictators

I suggest a separation between CIA dictators and independent dicators. For example, an independent dictator would be for instance Fidel Castro, whereas a CIA dictators the ones installed by CIA in South America, Greece and other parts of the world.--tequendamia 16:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not, as that would be "original research" (or better yet more original research in a list that is already inherent original research). Historians often cannot agree whether or not there was CIA involvement in certain events, or, if involvement is confirmed, the scope and significance of CIA actions in the domestic affairs of other countries; given the "no original research" rule, rendering judgments on these matters is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors. 172 17:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Definitely would not, nor would I distinguish between leftist and rightist dictators or "benevolent" and "evil" dictators. And setting up a category for "CIA dictators" is both (as 172 says) "original (and inherently biased) research" and begs the question that CIA=evil or at least more evil than your garden variety dictator. Would we then have "communist-installed dictators"? BTW, 172, I know you've been back for awhile, but "Welcome Back" anyway. :) -- Cecropia 17:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, great to see you around as well! Also, I second the above. 172 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Just chiming in with all the others. A CIA-installed subsection is just plain silly. Of course the CIA has had some role in a number of coups, but that role has varied widely. I tend to think some editors bite at the bit called "original research" a tad too readily. Many of the facts are documented by outside scholars and newspapers. But CIA-influence is a graded category from none to basically-all (and changed over the rule of most dictators), and it's not particularly important to the underlying concept. We could arrange all the dictators from shortest to tallest as well (or have some cutoff for the "short" ones and "tall" ones), but doing so, however verifiable, would be irrelevant. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Lulu and others. Not a good idea to make this article more complicated that is already. My proposal stands:make the crtiteria for inclusion simpler, and obvious to the reader and then validate each and every entry against that criteria. Simpler is better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bye and best wishes

I have decide to give up on pursuing compliance of this article. My view was and still is that:

  1. a 63% of votes on an AfD for deletion, reflects poorly on the current article as it pertains to its compliance with WP guidelines.
  2. The criteria for inclusion is loose and there are no named sources for the definitions of "dictatorship". Consensus cannot bypass WP:NOR.
  3. A random check of a few notable names in the list shows that the process of inclusion of people in the list has been not rigorous enough to comply with WP:V

Having said that, I wish you good luck with the article. I take the opportunity also to wish you a happy new year and one in which we put our wits and energies to work on being more tolerant to each other rather than in attempting to being right, Cheers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read the tortuous and unfocused discussion above. My view is that:
  1. the vote failed to get the article deleted despite the spamming of over 40 users by the nominator and that was on a vastly inferior article anyhow.
  2. The criteria could not be any clearer, and you suggested no improvement. I have no comprehension of how you interpret NOR.
  3. you have merely asserted that this is the case, despite requests you never elaborated on your view. I find your insinuation that your "random attack" has more merit than the efforts of many users who have been through the entire list to require some contemplation on your part. Happy new year. jucifer 00:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
In fairness to Jossi, I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the criteria couldn't possibly be clearer. But the specific quotes he suggests do not, IMO, add any clarity. Jiang (and others in cooperation) really did an excellent job synthesizing the several sources and definitions.
I do tend to think that as names have been added, we've now become somewhat overly inclusive. When the list was small, and poorly annotated, a lot of editors made a very helpful effort to add names with annotations and details. But I think in that process, a few names that are inadequately supported got added (such as Peron, whom I took back out, as described above). At this point, we should probably let the pendulum swing back the other way; rather than mostly adding more names, we should turn a greater part of our attention to removing insufficiently supported ones and/or add external citations to support inclusion.
Obviously, I'm not pushing any radical like a demand to immediately remove everyone on January 1 (Jossi's unfortunate starting point) or completely rewriting the criteria. But incrementally, I think we should winnow the list to an extent. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I must agree...the word Dictator is perjorative to many so inclusion should be based on a fairly strict adherence to the working definition of Dictator. As I stated, so long as a "leader" fits into the definition and is widely accepted by numerous sources to have gained and kept power as described by that definition, then they should be on the list.--MONGO 03:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Source for Fidel Castro

Moved to /Fidel Castro

A totally biased article/list

I am amazed by the way we list people out there in the main page! Many people are listed in the list w/ no single reference to what makes them be called dictators. Am I alone (the only stupid) in this crowd or what?! Cheers -- Szvest 07:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

No, 63% voted to deleted this article in the AfD debate. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. 172 07:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You mean that I am late to school?! Interesting! Cheers -- Szvest 07:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It can always get relisted for AfD. Let me know if you are interested. 172 07:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect that would be treating wikipedia like a game, in which you just keep relisting an AfD in hopes of attracting more people to your side. You would also be disrespecting the hard work of many contributors and editors that have worked on this article, and have tried to keep it as neutral, encyclopedic, and as fairly contexualized and attributed as possible. Ofcourse, all the fine details of that take time, but alteast we have goals and are working toward them. I know some notes on this article may be far from reaching that goal but if you feel certain things should be changed then you should edit them yourself instead of destroying a piece of work, or trying to dictate what should be done (as Jossi previously postulated) without helping to fix the problems you dislike yourself.--Antispammer 19:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not try to dictate anything, maybe just to force some harder look at the article. I am very satisfied with the fact that a more rigorous approach to inclusions is being applied after my intervention. I wopuld encourage Szvest to be bold and improve the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect that would be treating wikipedia like a game, in which you just keep relisting an AfD in hopes of attracting more people to your side. Wikipedia is about the product (the encyclopedia) not the process (such as the rules governing AfD). Occasionally the two come into conflict. I strongly believe that one of those instances was when the request to delete this article was denied because of the meaningless technicality concerning the fact that the "delete" votes received 63% support instead of the needed >67% support. Precisely because I do not view Wikipedia as a "game," I have never been satisfied with the outcome of the AfD. I do not view the AfD as simply a "game" that I "lost," rendering me obliged to be a 'gracious loser' not reconsidering listing the page. Since the closing of the vote, comments on the talk page one after another have been reinforcing my view that under no format will this article ever be appropriate in an encyclopedia guided by NPOV and NOR. One user after another has expressed concerns exactly the same concerns about the article's inherent lack of neutrality that motivated the AfD, such as SqueakBox, UninvitedCompany, Jossi, CJK (regarding Fidel Castro), and now Szvest. Nevertheless, I admit that a lot of good, well-intentioned work has gone on since the vote closing. Some of the content is now even pretty interesting. The best place for the content here is a page linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject History called Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictators. That way, we can find a home for the content here, which may indeed be useful to Wikipedia editors, without compromising Wikipedia's principles of NPOV and NOR. I'd like to make a move along those lines through a compromise with the authors of the article. If such a compromise fails, another AfD listing may be necessary. 172 20:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Correction to 172 (this really is the fact): deletion consensus requires 75-80% delete votes. 67% is absolutely not consensus either. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that it is. 75-80% is needed for adminship, not deletion. I looked the matter up. Wikipedia:Consensus calls "consensus" "two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." BTW, despite my periodic pronouncements in favor of deleting the article (I'd still favor moving the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject History and out of the article namespace), I'd like to commend you on your work here again. You made this article much better than it would have been otherwise. 172 10:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Take a look through the AfD logs. Can you find one single page that was deleted with less than 75% support for deletion? (for this purpose, let's not count those that have, e.g., three votes total; say ones with at least ten votes). I have never seen that happen. Never mind the highly politicized topics, just look at the articles that pop up on high schools or indy-bands or the like (i.e. where the question is straightforwardly notability)... in all of those, 70% always leaves the article intact. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I respect the hard work people have been devoting to this article/list. However, following Jossi's comments, being bold can lead to a lot of different actions. Some may be accepted (like tagging [citation needed] at every inclusion lacking facts) while other may not be (like presenting the other face of the coin, polishing entries maybe). Maybe being really bold would be tagging it {{POV}} Cheers -- Szvest 23:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Tag of the week

I've just placed a "Long NPOV" tag. Please discuss that if you feel it was not worthy! Cheers -- Szvest 09:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

I think this article needs a permanent POV tag. For most articles, one would work to remove it, but I think it is impossible with this article. This is not to belittle the editors of the page - it is just the nature of the page. Wizzy…☎ 10:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That's why I was keen to specify "Long", Andy. It has to be permanent or else we would be the real dictators. Cheers -- Szvest 10:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Lulu, removing tags w/o discussion is ethically very bad. WP:POINT applies on both sides of the coin. Cheers -- Szvest 11:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Every single new editor to this page who happens by with a chip on her/his shoulder about the allegedly "inherently POV" nature of this list sticks on various disputed tags, purely out of WP:POINT. And in every case so far, they also refuse to state a dispute on the talk page. If you have a dispute with this page, state it below, and I'll put the tag back. If the page simply makes you feel uneasy, that is NOT a dispute in WP sense. What specifically is POV in the existing page, and how can it be corrected? Tell us that, and I'll be the first person to tag the article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 11:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Btw, if you actually have an issue with a name on the list, rather than just want to show how much better you are than us editors of the page, please take appropriate steps: put a {{fact}} tag next to a name that has a problem, and add a subpage for discussion of that person, with specific issues or arguments about their inclusion. We've done a lot of work, and a slap in the face is not appreciated. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 11:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems dictatorial to demand that a NPOV tag be here permanently. I also think that relisting this at Afd now as premature. I see the article as a completely different one than when it was up for deletion last. The criteria for inclusion of names on this list has been tightened dramatically and many more references are now here as supporting argument. I for one would oppose this for deletion, especially since so many improvements in NPOV have been implemented.--MONGO 11:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, it has nothing to do with the Afd! It has to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and specifically Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Szvest 11:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I have difficulty, since I am biased to believe that indeed Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin et al were dictators, so I see little reason to provide obvious supporting statements about them. The others listed certainly fit within the criteria for inclusion. Which names on the list do you have the most difficulty with?--MONGO 11:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Please use WP:Civil! Your authoritarian actions and statements are not appropriate. There are no new editors in wikipedia! I ask for references, sources and facts for every sigle entry in the list! Sounds weird?! No, this is an encyclopaedia. I hope now you got the list of all people listed in the article. I am against anything non-sourced, I don't care of I like the person or not. I am not defending anybody in the list but defending this place. I am not gonna tag [citation needed] for every single entry (as it is considered a homework for donkies). I am against everything in the article unless they are sourced. I am not accepting the idea that Mr Lulu thinks Mr X and Mr Y are dictators. Cheers -- Szvest 11:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Let's be specific: Anastasio Somoza García has a WP article that specifically calls him a dictator, and that characterization has been long-standing consensus of the subject matter experts who edit the Somoza page. Morever, on external citation is given to his obtaining power by coup, and two external citations are given to his characterization as a dictator. More specifically, Somoza's article supports both of our required list criteria explicitly. Do you dispute the inclusion of Somaza, specifically? If so, why? If not, you are not disputing all the names in the article.
If you are simply stating, "I am too lazy to check individual names, but I vaguely suspect some might have problems", that doesn't help us (nor merit adding a tag). I don't rule out that names are included inappropriately. In fact, I think it's likely. All WP articles have room for improvement. But we cannot tell where this improvement is needed until someone identifies it with specificity, not simply out of some braggodocio claim that they are better than all the editors who have actually contributed to this page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 11:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Lulu, my big problem is how do you categorize someone as a dictator? Faking elections? Never stood elections? Human rights abuses? Which kind of military coups are legit? It's about the critereon that I am talking about. Who defines that? I don't see Musharraf of Pakistan there though he led a military coup while I see a dozen others who just did the same thing!!! More examples (randomly as the list is much more longer that that):
  • J.M. De Rosas --- Governor of Buenos Aires 1829-1832, 1835-1852; Supreme Chief of the Argentine Confederation 1851-1852. Assumed dictatorial powers; exiled opponents. Only that????
  • C.A. López --- First Consul 1941-1944; President of Paraguay 1844-1862. (so????????)
  • Cipriano Castro -- Supreme Chief 1899-1901; Provisional President 1901-1902, 1904-1905; President of Venezuela 1902-1904, 1905-1909. Took over in a military coup. (Musharraf???)
  • Carlos Ibáñez del Campo --- Acting President 1927, President 1927-1931. Democratically elected to a six-year term in 1952. (Is this a joke?)
  • Józef Grzegorz Chlopicki - Held official title of dictator. (In his bio it says He held aloof at first from the November Uprising of 1830-31, but at the general request of his countrymen accepted the dictatorship on the 5th of December 1830. However, he saw the hopelessness of the insurrection and quickly resigned on 17th of January - So confusing)
Please Lulu! -- Cheers Szvest 11:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Please read the criteria stated at the top of this article. If a given ruler meets those criteria, they are appropriate to include; if they do not meet those criteria, they are not appropriate to include. Nothing else matters for inclusion. Neither faked elections nor human rights abuses are required criteria (though they are presented as frequent, i.e. non-required, characterisitics of those who do meet the required criteria). It especially does not matter how we might feel about a given figure. Nor even whether they were called a dictator by someone (though I'm thinking of proposing that as an additional required criterion). Of course there could be errors in the current page, but those need to be identified before they can be corrected. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 12:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Not sure why you don't see Pervez Musharraf. It appears in my browser, and has for a few days since someone added him (appropriately, I believe, though obviously if there is some question, let's discuss it specifically). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel sorry for anyone in the list. It's not my biz. I've got a wikibox on my userpage that states that I am politically independent and another one that states that I imagine nothing to kill or die for and no religion 2. I am talking about sources and references and whom to include and whom not. I've read many times the criteria and it just makes me more confused, Lulu. It includes:

  • commonly (but not necessarily) gained power through fraud - How many people who did that and are not included there and how many people who we don't know if they did or not and are included there?
  • may develop a cult of personality - same as above.
  • governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law - same as above. Cheers -- Szvest 12:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
It is true that we state three non-criterial features that dictators often have. None of that has any relation to list inclusion. If you stop the disruptive shennanigans, we could discuss whether it might be desirable to somehow more strongly distinguish the criteria from the non-criteria (though if you read words like "may" and "not necessarily" it's not all that hard to discern). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)