Talk:Dictatorship

message: This article is more likely an essay. It has not the objectivity and clarity of an encyclopedic article.
* Etimology and definition for dictatorship
I think that definition need to more concise and it should be only one definition for the concept. Special particularities could be moved on chapter "Style".
* Style
"In the 20th century, the term dictatorship has come to mean a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in the hands of a dictator and sometimes his supporters" - It is exactly the political system of the Middle Age, only that the dictator called himself/herself in some other ways. Hitler wanted for his "Reich" to last for 1,000 years, as the Dark Age lasted in Europe. The term of dictatorship re-appears in the 20th century, the concept and the model is far more old. Speaking of "style", it seems there are so many styles of dictatorship.
* Types of dictator    ship
I am not sure that I understand what is the difference beetween "type" and "style".
These initials chapters should have a higher degree of abstractisation. And then, the concretisation:
* History of dictatorship
Based on the "types" and "styles" of dictatorship, I think the history of dictatorship will be more clear, complete and objective. This is the place for examples, and I suppose it could be a very good example of collaborative work in order to complete this history.
Or rather the article should refer only on the "modern" dictatorship. In its actual form, the article "Dictatorship" is contradictory with the article about "Napoleon Bonaparte". --Vasile 15:32, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Vasile, you're right on target here. This article was unsavable-- a mess like so many of the related topics, so I have replaced it with a passable, if brief, rewrite.  172 06:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an essay 

message: The old dictatorship page wasn't that good. The re-write done by 172 I think does improve things overall. However, I'm not sure about removing all the links to various examples of dictatorship. Really the whole idea of "dictatorship" is so nebulous. As the US Supreme Court said in regards to porn, its a definite "know it when I see it" type of thing. So having all the examples is useful.
:On the plus side, these lists help make the encyclopedia more navigable, with its Wikilink systes, but this one had to go. Since Wikipedia lacks a professional review board, and prohibits "original research," editors could never properly determine a way to categorize regimes throughout history, and make consident judgments on which ones are worth reporting as widely regarded as "dictatorships." There is also the issue of differences in the definition, depending on the source, which the new article is careful to work around in order to stay neutral. 172 06:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the single best way to measure the level of undemocratic tenure within any given regime is by the amount of annual fugitives fleeing the country on the risk of losing their lives, even though there is no immediate threat of military conflict within the country neither by internal nor external causes.  When a person is willing to risk their life and that of their children in order to emigrate from a country through any means required, it may well be indicative of the problems within their country of origin which seem to transcend the problems a person fiercely opposed to the Bush administration experiences while living in America, to give but one example. 80.201.97.60 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  172 Rewrite 

message: Merge because it's a fork. Santa Sangre 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense. Dictator covers the use of the title, in many historical instances, often not in a dictatorship, while most dictatorships used another style, or didn't even have an (individual) dictator but a collective, such as a junta or politburo. It might make more sense to merge in articles on specific types of dictatorship, although in time that could well become to long. Fastifex 11:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[dictator]] ?

message: I've removed this:
:In the 1860s, Queen Victoria of Great Britain expressed fears of dictatorial tendencies in her Prime Minister William Gladstone.
It doesn't seem enough to justify a section called "19th century". I'm not sure if this section is needed either. At the moment the article deals with Roman dictators and 20th century. If we add an overview of dictatorship throughout history, we might as well refer to History since some form of dictatorship has always been the rule much more than the exception. I don't think it would be valuable.  Someone should outline a structure for this article, something to start from. And the most important thing on a page like this is the linking to other pages such as absolute monarchy, Chinese Emperors, and so on. Not just a link in "See also" but some description. On the whole I think the best thing for this page would be to restart from scratch. Piet 12:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th century 

message: Stub articles were merged in per WikiProject Integration. Cwolfsheep 20:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Integration 

message: This article requires a section concerning present day dictatorships in the world.  We should be able to ensure political neutrality if it is made clear that the named countries are effectively dictatorships as the result of the actions of the current rulers who incorporated the principles of dictatorship and autocracy within their style of rule, and thus not neccesairly due to the imposed systems of these nations.  80.201.97.60 11:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present Day 

message: China and Saudi Arabia aren't dictatorships? Yeah, tell that to this guy. Also, the "former dicatorship" crap is useless, seeing as every country in the world before the 19th century was a dictarship. --The monkeyhate 20:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppression, even persecution, of free speech is not the same thing as totalitarian dictatorship. By the way, that guy didn't die, the gruesome images of crushed carcass some show as a sequel is from somewhere else. 71.222.152.8 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: China is not a dictatorship and this photo says nothing about politics. Try to occupy the White House and see what happens to you. The Communist Party is constantly evolving and consists of several groups with different ideas. It's like blaming the current leader for their predecessor. You are just trying to start an argument. --2.245.204.109 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map 

message: Some political theories and government bodies have used the term "dictatorship" in other senses, such as the communist-socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat," referring to a government in control of a specific and not necessarily small or oligarchic group of people. In Chinese constitution, the term "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat" is used, meaning a democratic government in hands of the proletarians. Some other political theories call the exclusive democracy of Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, even modern democracies that exclude women/slaves as dictatorships of special groups. Although this form of government is not necessarily or is no longer practiced, it is an extremely influential concept that is not included in the article. 71.222.152.8 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Not Inclusive 

message: Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia 

message: USA is hyprocrite, she always put blame on China, Pakistan and Burma for lack of democracy, but why never blame Mikheil Saakashvili for his dictatorship over George .
(USA supports pro-American dictator Mikheil Saakashvili via Rose Revolution.)
203.218.176.220 04:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from this being semi-POV-pushing, there are plenty of cases where articles on individual dictators like Mobutu Sese Seko also include information about US support. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-USA dictatorship = Democracy? 

message: I think that this article, as well as the other ones I mentioned, fail to answer a question of mine that I think many others have: What is the technical difference between a monarchy, a dictatorship, and despotism. Aren't monarchy and despotism simply another word for dictatorship? Fusion7 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Years ago (above) you discussed, the distinction between dictator and monarch. I agree with Chelentano's basic distinction (though I still could see it being a bit more fleshed out). More importantly, I'm wondering if either of you ever found any solid sources differentiating the two, since I think those would do well on this page. Right now, the lead section reads "In the 19th and 20th centuries, traditional monarchies gradually declined and disappeared" without ever defining how "traditional monarchies" (let alone other monarchies?) are different from or similar to dictatorships. This would be helpful for readers. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between Dictatorship, Monarchy, and Despotism 

message: The very first line of this article states that dictatorship is a form of autocratic government. This is self-evident that the two articles refer to the same idea. I think they should be merged. Dust429 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Autocracy specifically refers to rule by one man. A dictatorship may involve several persons like in juntas.Ultramarine (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope. No merge. Since etymologically, the term historically has not had the identical meaning as it does today. Far from it.
Not sure this is the best place for this comment [my first ever post to Wikipedia--forgive me if I commit any faux pas], but regarding the following passage in the third paragraph of the article:
"In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life."
I disagree with the "...totalitarianism...opposes pluralism {government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions)."  I think it would be more correct to describe totalitarianism as opposing not a governmental form that allows such and such, but rather a system with minimal governmental control over anything.  Is this Libertarianism--I don't know, I'm not a political scientist.
The article should say something like, "...and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes ________ (minimal governmental control; people control every aspect of their lives)"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleGee (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with "autocracy" 

message: The article lacks etymology.
Only provides recent, modern tense of the word; being generally synonymous with despotism, brutal autocracies and tyranny.
The term had a different tense, for example, in the 19th century, and the era of writers such as Karl Marx.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.14.20 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology and Definition 

message: Recently this article was subject to vandalism. Between others, Chiang Kai-shek—China 1928-1931, 1943-1949, was added. I removed it not because I particullarly like the guy, but because such claim should be first sustained in this discussion, to colectively determine if he matches the criterion to be included in the list. Whoever thinks he should/shouldn't be in the list please present your reasons and sources here. Thanks! Alchaemist (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiang Kai-shek 

message: This article, specially its "Dictators List", is subject to a constant level of anonymous IP vandalism. Whenever somebody doesn't like a politician, president, whatever... they just add trash here. And the definition of somebody as "dictator" is really tempting. Personally I think, this article should be semi-protected, so only autoconfirmed accounts can edit it. I'd like to know if there is consensus on this. Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection request 

message: Removed Kuwait and Bahrain.
Why would somebody put the Khalifa and AL-Sabah in this list. I will delete them because it is just simply not true. Also other people on this list get them out of here like King Abdhullah of Saudi Arabia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.58 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah (Kuwait) & Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifah (Bahrain) 

message: Regarding what was stated by 208.105.67.58 in the previous section, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is a king in a monarchy, his power was inherited under monarchal rules, and finally I guess that most of Saudi Arabia supports monarchy after all. So I consider that he should be removed as well. He might be totalitarian, absolutist, whatever, but I think he's not a dictator in the strict sense. If you think the opposite, please elaborate here to support your statement. Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What made you assume that the biggest dictator in the world (and especially in a country where the dictatorship is a prominent reason for creating jihadi terrorists, like Bin laden) is loved by his countrymen? Your statement sounds like what Indian Prime minister Manmohan Singh said about GW Bush, that Indians loves that mass murderer. 122.160.141.4 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep your political rants out of the discussion. Provide some reliable sources to that effect and then we can begin to discuss your claims. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing to prove. If you are taking it politically, let it be. Even a right wing magazine, Economist puts Saudi as the 7th most authoritarian regime in the world. Saudi is the best example of a dictatorship, where the absence of democracy given birth to terrorists like Laden. Why you are taking side of terrorists and Stubborn authoritarians?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.32.15 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In countries where monarchs are titular head of state, they are no way dictators. In other cases please explain how a dictator differs from monarch? Without an explanation, don't play a dictator here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.32.15 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of dictatorship clearly states "the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. 117.211.32.15 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A definition it shares with absolute monarchy, but similar attributes does not make them the same phenomenon. You will need to find a reliable source for the dictatorship appellation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 

message: Former Russian President Vladimir Putin was elected by people, served 2 terms or 8 years and left his position of president, according to Constitution. Yes, he is now a Prime Minister and still has huge influence, but I don't think he is a dictator in the strict sense. I believe, he must be removed from the list.
Chelentano (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vladimir Putin 

message: The image :File:Saddam Hussein on his throne.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with File:Saddam Hussein on his throne.jpg 

message: There are almost no citations for the article. Anyone able to find some?
Gordonlighter (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I've added God into the "fiction" section of dictatorships, in almost all religious context god meets the requirements of the definition of "dictator" or at best "autocrat".  Any ones personal opinions aside, it should be included as a valid example, well known to many.
:I have removed your addition, as it is unsourced and seems to constitute original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pool Keanu 2603:8000:E43E:539B:FDEE:5C2F:79FE:4CDF (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  God as a dictator 

message: What about this man?
Belarus has been called "the last true remaining dictatorship in the heart of Europe" by former and current European and American leaders.--DaleMartinWatson (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Lukashenko 

message: I can find no mention in the article about the largest group of authoritarian regimes the last 20 years, namely those that are self-described as "democracies", which celebrate contested elections, but where the playing-field is so tilted, and/or the voting is so rigged, that the outcome always and without exception is the re-election of the same person. Examples can be found in the 2012 book "The Dictator's Learning Curve" and include Belarus, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and more. --Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral Dictatorship? 

message: I deleted the section named history, as it only contained a quotation from a selfpublished book, which even if it hadn't been selfpublished, would have qualified as WP:UNDUE, considering that it was not a monograph on dictatorship, but apparently some kind of theological treatise. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selfpublished source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dictatorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120907114031/http://www1.fee.uva.nl:80/pp/bin/278fulltext.pdf to http://www1.fee.uva.nl/pp/bin/278fulltext.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dictatorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120211000722/http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=despotism to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=despotism
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dictatorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120211000722/http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=despotism to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=despotism
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hitler and Mussolini were dictators, according to this article and to many authorities. So I restored this deletion. The mere fact that there and other dictators were originally elected democratically doesn't mean that they never became dictators.  Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler and Mussolini 

message: The fact that nothing is mentioned about how imperialist powers have a hand in installing dictators in semi-colonial/semi-feudal states is just saddening. It's objective fact that countries like the UK, France, and (especially) the US had a hand in installing and supporting sympathetic dictators like the Shah of Iran, Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, Fulgencio Batista, Suharto, and so on. The article should at least acknowledge that there is a relationship between Western imperialist powers and dictatorships in less economically advanced societies. NyanThousand (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperialist involvement in post-colonial dictatorships 

message: We need a third theory in defining states, the terms "Republic" and "Monarchy" aren't enough though. I believe we should start changing the "Forms of Government.svg" image and subsequent articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.88.36 (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe dictatorship should be recognized as a form of government in Wikipedia 

message: Why there is no information about left-wing socialist dictators?
I second this
It goes into extensive detail about right wing dictatorships
but ignores all dictatorships that are communist or socialist such as China, The Soviet Union, Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, Many across Africa and South America and Even North Korea
It is difficult to feel that this lack of inclusion is in good faith
TheFinalMigration (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-wing dictators 

message: Here, I've WP:BOLDly removed the assertion in wikivoice saying, "In most dictatorships, the country's constitution promises its citizens inalienable rights and fair elections." from the lead paragraph. The wording has changed a few times, but that seems to have been added without support by user:Anonymous good guy (now blocked) in this August 13, 2021 edit. That assertion may or may not have merit and may or may not have due weight for inclusion in this article but, if it is to appear in the article, it needs support and needs supported elaboration outside of the lead section.Please discuss here if you disagree. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold removal from lead paragraph 

message: The first line of the article mentions "based" policies, I believe this is a result of what some would call trolling left unnoticed, but I still hold some doubt as it could refer to something I am unaware of? In which case I would ask someone to add a reference to what based could refer to.
Weebfourg (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also on the image on the right yeah its pretty obvious now but I am too scared to change it myself. Weebfourg (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based policies 

message: Since you are the creator... Would it be possible to have a section on the term's etymology?
Alas, this article is written from a liberal perspective, but it should say that there are other perspectives as well... For instance, Marxism believes all state formations are class dictatorships by their very nature. The Chinese Communist Party consistently refers to the liberal capitalist West as ruled by dictators. --TheUzbek (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Etymology is covered at Dictator. Regarding your other point, we write articles based on mainstream academic scholarship, not fringe views. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How is Marxism a fringe view? Better luck next time! ... You are correct; however, that is a fringe view in much of the Western world... TheUzbek (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: what does it means if a country is a dictatorship 41.115.34.218 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History