Talk:Dictatorship/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Dictatorship. 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.

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Johnzl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Benevolent Totalitarian Dictatorships

Dictatorship in no way implies "authoritarian" OR "totalitarian". Dictatorships are merely governments led by one person, not following the herity of monarchal rulers. There are Benevolent and Totatalitarian Dictatorships, but "Dictatorship" should never be used to show suppression of rights.

Indeed; I believe Hans Hermann-Hoppe argued that democracy can actually be inferior to dictatorship. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Somebody should redact the human rights article!

Removed this:

Ironically, several dictatorships include the word democratic in their official names, such as Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The irony is a lot more complex than this reader realizes.

And much more dubious than this commentator realizes as well. The alleged status of Communist regimes as 'dictatorships' is a matter of debate, however the notion that the term of 'democratic' is befitting of these regimes is factually incorrect. The citizens of North Korea are unable to vote and ellect political movements which embody an alternative to that representing the current regime or the system of the country, and are actively persecuted by the current regime if they commit to such alternative movements underground. This makes the country unqualified to be considered a democratic republic in anything but the name, which makes the two words dubious in the context of North Korea's full & official title. 80.201.97.60 10:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Democratic should be included in dictator page since it is an example of how dictators attempt to hide the fact that only the dictatorial leader of the country will lead the country even though there are 'democratic' elections.

The average citizen would be intimidated into voting 'for' the dictator for fear of imprisionment, torture, or death. See Iraq for a good example.

Other dictatorships allow multiple parties on the ballot all of which are hand picked by the dictator to nominate the dictator as leader.

Other methods include fradulent counting of votes and other election rigging.

The conception of the term "democratic" under Communist regimes refers to more than just voting. It's viewed more in a class or an socio-economic sense than political.

172

That part about communits regimes gravitating to socio-economic equality would be a welcome addition to the general info on North Korea, Soviet Union, Cuba and other communist countries past and present.

Such an addition would make the article biased, given the rather large gap between theory and practice the recent history of Communist nations has forced us to take into consideration.

stating facts is not bias, and it is a fact that communist states often have lower inequality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.107.186.224 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep it relevant

This is about the system of government, not the person running it. That information belongs in dictator. Some of the text needs to be removed so we dont repeat ourselves. --Jia ng 23:46, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have moved the following from the article. I don't see much relevance, nor can I verify the authenticy of the quote - google find exactly two hits which are wikipedia mirrors. As I side-note: similar quotes were inserted into Computer science and Afterlife and reverted as nonsense. andy 07:30, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Being in power is like a lady".If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.

Navin Kumar

This is an essay

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)

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)

172 Rewrite

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)

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)

The lists by Wallechinsky certainly aren't "oringinal research." Are you suggesting that the regimes cited are *not* correctly categorized? If so, I'd like to see some citations to defend that position.

Merge dictator ?

Merge because it's a fork. Santa Sangre 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

no, why should we do that? 62.179.207.247 19:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that dictators should be seperate. In the dictators section you can have historic dictators, in dictatorship just have the history of this form of government. Just like the pages for the other types of governments.

As with over govermental pages the position, in my opinion should be left seperate.

19th century

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)

Wikipedia Integration

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

Present Day

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)

The map

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)

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)

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)

Article Not Inclusive

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)

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro-USA dictatorship = Democracy?

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)

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)

Distinction between Dictatorship, Monarchy, and Despotism

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)

No, monarchy and despotism is not another word for dictatorship. Stalin and Hitler are dictators, but not monarchs. British Queen is not a dictator, but monarch. Monarchs, typically inherit position by hereditary ascension and use system of aristocratic titles. Napoleon was both monarch (self-proclaimed Emperor) and dictator. "Despot" is a more general word and may also carry meaning of economical oppression.Chelentano (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

@Chelentano and Fusion7: 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)

Merge with "autocracy"

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)

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)

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)

Sorry, forgot to sign--told you I was new to this! UncleGee (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology and Definition

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)

Was Lenin a dictator?

Could someone explain to me (with references please) why is Lenin listed here? Was he ever a dictator? For example, here dictatorship of Lenin is described as a myth. Perhaps, the dictatorship of proletariat may have caused this confusion. I understand he was one of leaders of the revolution, a founder of a state, and a charismatic person. But then a number of American presidents may qualify as dictators. (Igny (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

Even though I disagree with your last sentence (and I'm sure there's an entire potential flame war that could erupt over it :-)), I agree that Lenin isn't a dictator. He led the Russian Revolution, but he was not a dictator. Stalin was the dictator. If you would like to change the article to reflect that, I would have no problem with it. By the by, even Lenin's own article doesn't describe him as a dictator. TN‑X-Man 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that I agree with my last sentence either. I would edit the article a bit later if noone raises objections here. (Igny (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC))

Of course Lenin was a dictator. Answer these questions 1) Who elected him? 2) Who had the power to remove him? 3) Who had the power to curb or control his powers or place any checks or balances on him? The answers to all these questions is NO-ONE.

(194.80.32.9 (194.80.32.9) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

1 the party and soviets 2 see 1 3 see 1

It seems you do not understand the history of the USSR. 86.107.186.224 (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Many people confuse Lenin with Stalin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.204.241 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is consensus in the fact that Lenin was not a dictator. I consider vandalism his addition to the list made by 194.80.32.9. I undid the revision. If you think on the contrary please first discuss that, with sources, in the Vladimir Lenin article. Alchaemist (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that I strongly suggest you stop sniffing the nail polish. I suppose next you'll be telling me that Hitler wasn't actually a dictator and that the Pope is a Muslim. [[1]]

(194.80.32.9 (194.80.32.9) 03:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll disregard the nasty comments, as I am not very fond of Lenin, but my opinion on him is not really relevant. With that source you made your first step into civilization. Now... just adding him to a list is not a big contribution. Wikipedia needs (ideally) coherence between its articles, and as such, Lenin cannot just be added here. Lenin's article is semiprotected, so perhaps you should register an account, contribute in other articles, and once you have autoconfirmed, then you'll be able to edit (with encyclopedic sources) Lenin's article, and if your edits survive, then, and only then, Lenin would be added here. Regards. PS: if anybody thinks I am loosing my time, keep in mind that this might be somehow constructive. Alchaemist (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Lenin is not a dictator. On November 8 , 1917, he was elected as the Chair of the Council of People’s Commissars by the Russian Congress of Soviets. The Congress was at that time a multi-party entity (6 political parties). The Russian Congress of Soviets had power to elect and reelect. Lenin served one and a half term, total 6 years though the last 2 years he had limited influence due to his illness. Note, that American president F. Roosevelt, served 3 terms, or 12 years. Chelentano (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the oh-so-clever figleaf of the 1917 Congress of Soviets. Lenin rigged that Congress and was proud of his efforts to do so. They delayed the Congress until some delegates had to leave, they packed the Congress with massive numbers of delegates from Soviets that they controlled, they refused to seat delegates from Soviets they didn't control. They initmidated delegates with force of arms. And lastly, were quite ready to completely ignore the Congress if it had (by some possibility) gone against Lenin's wishes. Lenin was an autocrat. He autocratic in Switzerland, and it only got worse when he began directing his own army, secret police, and death squads. He is the epitome of a dictator. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"They initmidated delegates with force of arms." - Could you provide a link to this info? Chelentano (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a source for this nonsensical angry drivel? 86.107.186.224 (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sire, can you return to whatever far-right anti-communist hellhole you came from and only return when you've read some books? 86.107.186.224 (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek

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)

Semi-protection request

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)

OK, one week passed, and nobody added comments here, also the article was vandalized about 15 times in the last ten days, so I am requesting the semiprotection. Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just some stats.... From the last 50 edits, approx 30 were IP edits, and approx 28 were vandalism. That makes it nearly a 60% of vandalism for this article. Alchaemist (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The protection request was turned down by tariqabjotu, he basically says The disruption is far from unmanageable. While yes, it's true that it can be managed, it requires an effort, and many times vandalizations stay there for a day or so, making this article to loose its credibility. IMHO unless others put their opinions in this section, things will not change. Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that this should be semi-protected. It is easy to semi-protect this article from vandalism. It's not about whether or not it's "manageable", it's about protecting the credibility of this fabulous online resource. Political issues are a very important thing to keep impartial, and I can see if political pages become the recipients of lasting vandalism, then all faith will be lost in wikipedia's credibility. mrout ^t 09:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am going to have to second the request to semi-protect this article. As you can see in the above topics (especially on Lenin) there is too much of a problem with opinions, rather than facts. I would much rather see this article edited by somebody contributing meaningful content rather then their opinion on who they believe is a dictator based on personal beliefs and opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguynameded (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah (Kuwait) & Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifah (Bahrain)

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)

Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vladimir Putin

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)

Image copyright problem with File:Saddam Hussein on his throne.jpg

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)

Citations

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

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Dictatorship.html

has the exact text for one of the opening paragraphs. Who copied who? If it's copied from the Princeton page, we can cite that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.254.43 (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

God as a dictator

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)

Alexander Lukashenko

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)

Electoral Dictatorship?

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)

Selfpublished source

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dictatorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dictatorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dictatorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hitler and Mussolini

Hitler and Mussolini were dictators, according to this article and to many authorities. So I restored this deletion.[2] 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)

According to the article Dictator, a dictator is to refer to a ruler who has no limited power, therefore Hitler was a Dictator. Not necessarily a person being democratically elected means that he is not a dictator, since he had no limits when making decisions such as concentration camps for Jews, blacks, communists, etc. It did not have a government with a defined period of time, the Nazi Dictatorship ended because of the death or flight of Hitler, but not because it had a time limit. With Mussolini the same could be said, he was democratically elected, but later he made concentration camps where communists were captured, one when he is president of a nation has limitations, and They had no limits in their decisions after being elected. By the way Mussolini replaced the ruler of that time because he decided to leave power, so the arrival to power of the Italian dictator was not very democratic. --Germanico5468504 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Imperialist involvement in post-colonial dictatorships

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)

I believe dictatorship should be recognized as a form of government in Wikipedia

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)

Left-wing dictators

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)

Portugal under Salazar on the Right-wing dictatorships of the 20th century section

This section includes several dictatorships which only lasted a few years. Portugal had an authoritarian right-wing dictatorship for over 40 years, so I think it should be on the list.

Bold removal from lead paragraph

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)

Based policies

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)

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)

Proposed merge of Authoritarianism with Dictatorship

The definitions given are nearly identical, and many polisci sources use the terms interchangeably (eg. Ezrow & Frantz 2011, Dukalskis 2021, or [3]). I searched Google Scholar for dictatorship vs. authoritarianism to see if some sources recognize and explain a difference, but instead I found more sources that use the terms interchangeably. If these articles are kept separate there needs to be explanation of differentiation between them. (t · c) buidhe 00:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There are example of authoritarianism that are recognized outside of dictatorships. Contemporary leaders such as Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro have been described as authoritarians, but few would argue that they're dictators. I think the problem is that the authoritarianism article lacks sufficient scope, and its description of authoritarianism as a "form of government" may be reductive. It's definitely worth considering the scope of these and other similar articles; despotism, tyrant, autocracy, and totalitarianism should probably be reviewed as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree used interchangeably The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Dictatorship article should be an overview about types of dictatorships". Authoritarianism is a theory and a system of government customarily linked with dictatorship. It is a principle based on obedience to authority, and opposes autonomy of individuals in thought and action. As a form of government, authoritarianism concentrates power in a leader or in a small elite not constitutionally accountable to the people. Unlike totalitarian systems, authoritarian governments usually lack a highly developed ideology." Moxy-

14:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Dictatorships are a type of authoritarianism but not the only kind. The original meaning of the word dictator came from Rome, where they would appoint one person in charge of everything in case of an emergency. This is not to be confused with totalitarianism, although the two very often overlap. Numerous authoritarian regimes don't just have one person in power; you could argue that America before they legalized the right of vote for all races and for women was authoritarian because it oppressed the voting rights of over half the population. One party states are another example of authoritarianism without one central leader (although they are sometimes called "one party dictatorships") My point is, the two are different, and although every dictatorship is authoritarian, not all authoritarian regimes are dictatorships. LilyLawliet (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Historians refer to dictatorship as a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism (with hybrid versions).^[1]

References

^ Allan Todd; Sally Waller (10 September 2015). Allan Todd; Sally Waller (eds.). History for the IB Diploma Paper 2 Authoritarian States (20th Century). Cambridge University Press. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-1-107-55889-2.

Moxy- 15:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Pretty different and really against this merge as both of pages adds much value to the encyclopedia. As the editor noted already "the two are different, and although every dictatorship is authoritarian, not all authoritarian regimes are dictatorships." That is nicely said and true, so that is it. 109.93.38.135 (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree with above, oppose as another case of merge-o-mania and the “it’s similar so it’s the same” fallacy. Dronebogus (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The two articles should be merged, but dictatorship should be merged into Authoritarianism rather than the other way around (as Authoritarianism is the term most commonly used by academics and there is some imprecision and baggage associated with the term Dictatorship). I disagree strongly with some of the remarks above about how the concepts are meaningfully different. The terms are used interchangeable. Thenightaway (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Dictatorship is a type of authoritarianism, but authoritarianism is not necessarily a type of dictatorship. Dictatorship is when ONE PERSON has power, like Stalin from the Soviet Union or Julius Caesar from Ancient Rome, unless specified otherwise. I remain against this merge LilyLawliet (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
That's not how most of the academic literature treats these terms. The type of regime you're describing is a personalist regime, which is a type of authoritarian regime / dictatorship. Dictatorship and authoritarian regime are interchangeable. Thenightaway (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Have added a section so the basics are seen by our readers....see sources for more information. .. Dictatorship#Authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Moxy- 22:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Geddes is unduly prominent

We say "Political scientist Barbara Geddes describes three types of dictatorship" with no preface to put context on how or why we mention her taxonomy. I'm no political scientist, who is Geddes? If she is prominent in her field, maybe we should establish that, or else, we could mention several classifications and then expand on Geddes'.Forich (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

If Barbara Geddes is considered a reliable source, then I don't see a problem mentioning them. Unless there is a guideline or policy I am not aware of (no one knows them all). In fact, it may be better to mention said author instead of just saying "there are three types of dictatorship". Who is Geddes? A political scientist.

In my opinion, Geddes doesn't need to be prominent in their field to be a reliable source, nor there is need to write within the article about them. Although if you consider it better, that's your prerrogative and you can implement it.

Regarding your suggestion that "we could mention several classifications", I agree and I think it 's a good idea. Thinker78 (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I tried an improvement idea on the paragraph based on our discussion, please check it out. Forich (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you left out a word in your edit. Thinker78 (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

She is a preeminent scholar of authoritarian regimes. I don't see how a few citations to her academic work is WP:UNDUE. Thenightaway (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

She probably knows what she is talking about https://polisci.ucla.edu/person/barbara-geddes/ Polygnotus (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dictatorship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to take this review on. I just want to preface this by saying how happy I am to see this article nominated, given how vital the subject is to our collective understanding of the world. On first glance, it appears to meet the criteria for a GA rating. Stand by for further comments, as I'll be reviewing this section-by-section. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this one on, especially considering its broad scope. This was actually my introduction to working on vital articles, so I'm looking forward to building on it. I don't expect it to be an easy one, but I'll get started on going through all of your notes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead

Consider putting "or group of leaders" between a pair of commas for easier readability.
Consider adding link to Limited government for "limitations".
Do you have access to a paginated copy of Simon, et al (2019) or Huntington (2012)? No worries if not, as non-paginated copies are still linked here.
"Politics in a dictatorship take place between the dictator, the inner circle, and the opposition, which may be peaceful or violent." Unclear what "inner circle" means here. Also unclear how politics in a dictatorship includes the opposition.
Why is the "C" in "Communist"/"Communism" capitalised?
Consider rewriting the second paragraph a bit, as its sentences are currently a little stilted and don't lead well into the next, reading more like a prosified list. E.g. "Many dictatorships fell [...]. Many dictatorships still exist."
"Strong opposition groups can result in [...]" reads a bit strange. Consider changing to "The development of a strong opposition can result in [...]" or something similar.

--Grnrchst (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I've copyedited the lead and added information about the inner circle and opposition. I removed the citations entirely, as they weren't linked to anywhere in the body and appeared to be extraneous per WP:LEADCITE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks good! My only comment would be to maybe break up the first paragraph a little, as it's quite long. But this is much easier to follow as an introduction to the concept. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

Do you have any dictionary sources for the etymology other than the Oxford English Dictionary? Asking for the purposes of verifiability, as the OED website requires a subscription to access.
Is there a source for the rest of the text in this section? The sentence starting with "Typically" could particularly benefit from citing a source.

--Grnrchst (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking at this section, I've decided that it's better suited to dictator instead of dictatorship, and I've moved it to that article. The paragraph will still need work on that article, but dictator as a whole needs a rewrite; maybe that will be a future project. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. And yeah, the dictator article has needed a lot of work for some time. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Structure

"Dictatorship may also be defined as a lack of democracy." I don't think this is a particularly useful definition, especially not following the text that preceded it, which defines dictatorship in clearer terms. Consider removing this sentence.
Consider adding link to elites.
Consider bundling the multiple citations for easier readability.
"Scholars refer to a dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism." I think "scholars" here is a bit vague. Consider something along the lines of "Dictatorships can be categorised as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism."
Put a comma after "According to Juan Linz".
"Building on the work of Juan Linz". Consider replacing this with either "Building on Linz's work" or "Building on this distinction". If using the latter, then move this line to the end of the preceding paragraph.
Consider relabelling "University of Colorado at Colorado Springs" as simply "University of Colorado", for the sake of concision.
"has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized as depicted below:" The "and organized" bit reads a little strange. Perhaps "and organized them" might be clearer?
What do "Leader as function" and "Leader as individual" mean? It's unclear.
What are "Ends of power"? It's unclear.
Add link to Legitimacy (political) for "Legitimacy".
Do you have access to Totalitarianism, Social Science, and the Margins? Asking as currently a book review is cited instead of the book itself.
If you're going to have a paragraph defining totalitarian dictatorship in this section, you should probably also have one for an authoritarian dictatorship, as the latter is currently only defined in contrast to the former.

--Grnrchst (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I've copyedited this section. I agree that aspects of the table are unclear, so I've removed it and left a brief summary of Linz's classification. The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism seems to be Linz's own model rather than an agreed upon standard, so I have not expanded on it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks good! Just noted that Juan José Linz is now linked twice within the same section, so you may want to remove one of those links. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Formation

"The seizure group" reads a bit odd. Consider either "The group seizing power" or simply "The group".
The source "Geddes, Wright & Frantz 2018, pp. 3–13" has quite a wide page range cited for this section. Consider citing more specific page ranges for each sentence.
Per above, "seizure groups" reads a bit odd.
"After a dictator seizes power, a political party may be formed [...]" Does this typically happen after they seize power? I know many examples of the opposite occurring - an already existing political party acting as the model for the dictatorship that they later establish.
Again, the source "Geddes, Wright & Frantz 2018, pp. 26–31" provides quite a wide page range for an entire paragraph. Could you cite more specific page ranges for each sentence?
What is a "rule-change"? Is this referring to regime change or a self-coup?
"Between 1946 and 2010," this sentence currently accounts for 68% of dictatorship formations during this period. Does the source specify where the other 32% came from, or is it made up of many different causes that only account for small fractions by themselves?
Consider adding a link to banditry.
"Peter Alter suggests a value system perspective based on cultural & political nation, national consciousness, and nation-building." What does this mean exactly? How does this relate to the formation of dictatorships? The way it's worded currently it's unclear.

--Grnrchst (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the last paragraph entirely, as it was purely speculative and did not provide any information on how dictatorships are actually form. All other concerns in this section have been addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Good call. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Types of dictatorships

For the section header: consider the singular "Types of dictatorship" instead of the plural "Types of dictatorships".
"[...] focuses on where the control power lies." The term "control power" reads a bit strange. Consider rewriting as simply "where power lies", "where power emanates from", or something similar.
"According to this tradition" How is it a tradition? Isn't it a classification system?
"single-party dictatorships are controlled by the members of a political party" is it controlled by the party's membership or by the party leadership/the party itself? Asking as the membership of some of the largest political parties account for a large percentage of the country's total population. Do all of these members exert equal control over the dictatorship?
This section includes portraits of four living persons, with the implication that they are considered model dictators of each type of dictatorship. But currently no citation is provided that describes any of them as a "dictator", as a leader of a dictatorship or as characteristic of the specific type of dictatorship. This is a problem that has plagued the dictator article for a while, so I want to make sure we're keeping air-tight to Wikipedia's BLP policy here. If you can't find reliable sources describing these people as such, then please remove the images and try to replace with people that have been described as such in reliable sources.
Many of the citations throughout this section currently cite broad page ranges for a lot of information. Consider using more specific page ranges for each sentence.

Military

"one or more military officers". Consider removing the "one or more" qualifier and just have "military officers". Then correct the grammar: "holds" -> "hold", "determines" -> "determine", "exercises" -> "exercise".
Consider linking to democracy, oligarchy and oppression for their respective mentions.
"Military dictatorships in the past have been significantly more common in Latin America." This is already mentioned in the first paragraph. Consider removing.

One-party

This section seems to focus on communist regimes, but other forms of party dictatorship have existed. Consider adding more information on that ground, in order to provide a bigger picture.
"One-party states ruled by Marxist political parties [...]" Consider cutting this sentence down a little. The key point here is that party dictatorships can differ in ideology while being identical in function.
Add a comma after "civil service" for readability.

Personalist

What are "fruits of office"?
"According to a 2019 study, [...]" is it necessary to specify the study here, where other parts of the section haven't?
"its inner circle" Suggest changing the pronoun "its" to "their".
"Many scholars" Such as who? Only one source is provided.
"Without any checks and balances to their rule, such dictators are domestically unopposed when it comes to unleashing repression, or even starting wars." This repeats information already mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Consider removing this sentence.
Standardise the citation formatting for Van den Bosch (2021) and Geddes (2004), as they're currently out of line with the others. Find them ISBNs if you can.

Absolute monarchies

Consider linking to crowned republic for "ceremonial monarchy".

--Grnrchst (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's difficult finding sources for non-communist one-party dictatorships, but I added what I could. For the images, I've removed most of them throughout the article, as dictator would be a better fit for images of individual dictators. I'll try to find other images that better portray dictatorship as a whole. I've addressed all other concerns except for citations. I'm not sure what the best way to format them would be, because there are a few different types of sources. Some of them are from a book that's used several times using Template:Sfn, some are from a single page in a book where using Template:Sfn would create a redundant note, and some are from journals where the article's page numbers are listed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Changes to One-party state section look good! And aye, don't worry about the sources party, that's mostly just my own style preference. Let me know if you need help finding images, I can already think of a few that might be useful. -- Grnrchst (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Consistent citation formatting is one of my weaknesses and something I should work on, but yeah, it's not the main priority right now. Help with images would be great. I'm trying to find an image that captures the essence of each subsection without just resorting to a portrait, but the Nuremberg rally is the only thing that came immediately to mind. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok here are some suggestion images I have for this section. Per your thoughts, I attempted to find images of dictatorship rather than dictators. So for military dictatorships, I tried to find images of military power in practice rather than just grabbing images of their juntas. For party states, I found images that include party iconography and people gathered in either a rally or a congress. For personalist dictatorships, I found images of the image of the dictator being venerated, without their presence. And for absolute monarchies, I looked for images where multiple members of the royal family are included, to display succession.

Military

Estadio Nacional de Chile as a concentration camp after the 1973 coup.

Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo on a state visit to the Philippines.

South Korean marines arriving at the capitol during the 1962 coup.

One-party

The Totenehrung (honoring of the dead) at the 1934 Nuremberg Rally.

XVII Congress of the Trade unions in the Soviet Union (1982).

Communist rally in Addis Ababa during the 1980s

Personalist

People giving the Roman salute to portraits of Francisco Franco at a demonstration in Salamanca (1937)

People bowing to statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il.

Absolute monarchies

King Abdulaziz (seated) with his sons Faisal (left) and Saud, early 1950s.

The House of Romanov in 1892

--Grnrchst (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

These are exactly the sort of images I had in mind. I've added one for each type of dictatorship, and I also used another in the history section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

History

This is probably the section that I have the biggest issue with. It reads less like a historical overview of the rise of different forms of dictatorship throughout history, than a prosified list of dictatorships that have formed. I honestly think that this section needs a complete rewrite, in order to keep it focused.

Dictators in the Roman Empire

Are there any better sources for the Roman dictator than the ones provided? They're currently cited to web pages in the Spanish language. For the sake of verifiability, consider replacing them with reliable sources in the English language. You can find a host of them in the main article for Roman dictators.
"The dictatorship was revived 120 years later through a populist movement led by Sulla," This is a little misleading, as Sulla was the head of the aristocratic Optimates, while "populism" was associated closer with Caesar's Populares faction. Consider rewriting for accuracy.
"under whose dictatorship the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire." Again, this is a little misleading. The transition from the Republic to the Empire was led by Augustus, not Julius Caesar. Consider rewriting for accuracy.
Consider adding information about the various tyrants that existed in the Mediterranean during classical antiquity, as this would give a broader overview of dictatorship during this era.

Post-classical and early modern dictatorships

It reads as odd to me that the Kamakura shogunate is mentioned, but the Ashikaga and Tokugawa shogunates aren't (instead just listed as "other shogunates"). But maybe that's just me.
Is there a better source on the Lê dynasty than the citation in the Vietnamese language? For the purposes of verifiability, it would be better to cite an English language source.
Why is Dutton (2006) cited three times for the same information? This is quite odd. You could very easily bundle these together as "Dutton (2006), pp. 34–37."
Actually, consider cutting down the first paragraph for the sake of concision. I'm not sure it needs to go into this much detail in order to simply say that there were military dictatorships in Korea, Japan and Vietnam during various points in time.
Consider bundling the multiple citations in the second paragraph for easier readability.
How was Robespierre a military dictator? He wasn't a military officer, nor was the Committee of Public Safety a military body.

19th century dictatorships

"personalist strongmen dictators" This is one too many adjectives for my liking. Consider using simply "personalist dictator" for conceptual consistency.
The second paragraph reads to me like a prosified list and could easily be cut down into a single sentence without losing much necessary information. Consider cutting down for concision.

Pre-Cold War dictatorships in the 20th century

This section also has the problem of reading like a prosified list and could very well do with cutting down for concision. I hardly think that every single dictatorship necessitates its own paragraph. Consider rewriting to provide a broader overview of the period, rather than it reading as "This dictatorship existed. Also this dictatorship existed. Also this dictatorship existed." The process of how these dictatorships formed throughout Europe is neglected in favour of simply stating the existence of each individual one.
"the party chose Joseph Stalin to be its next leader," This is a massive oversimplification that neglects the lack of a formal process for Stalin being "chosen" as leader and the split between him and Trotsky's opposition. This could be rewritten as "power was consolidated by Joseph Stalin" for better accuracy.
"A Soviet government was briefly established in Hungary in 1919, but it fell the same year." Then why is it notable enough to mention? This could easily be cut, with nothing of value lost. (I will note that many other Soviet governments were formed during this time, but none of them are mentioned here)
"Benito Mussolini was the first fascist dictator." What exactly led to this? How did fascism become one of the main forms of dictatorship at this time? The broader process of the rise of fascism is far more important to discuss here than the specifics of individual regimes.
Again, the paragraph about dictatorships in Iberia reads like a prosified list. This needs cutting down to keep the scope of the article focused on the history of dictatorship, rather than listing every dictatorship that popped up at the time.
"Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were effectively ruled by the totalitarian dictator Joseph Stalin after the June 1940 Soviet invasion and occupation of the three Baltic countries during World War II." Citation needed for this. Or it could be cut in favour of mentioning that their domestic dictatorships were brought down by the implementation of Soviet rule.
"Several right-wing dictatorships also emerged in the Balkans during the interwar period." How and why? Again, this would benefit from a broader overview than simply listing the dictatorships that arose there during this time.
"During World War II, [...]" This whole paragraph is uncited, and again, reads like a prosified list. It neglects a broader overview of dictatorship during WWII, where it would really benefit from it - as this marks a turning point for the rise and fall of fascism in Europe.
Again, the section about dictatorships in Latin America simply lists the dictatorships that existed, without mentioning how or why they came to power in the first place. What caused a rise in dictatorships in this region during this time? Was it related to the events in Europe?

Cold War dictatorships

Once again, the issue of listing dictatorships without explaining the broader causes and effects of dictatorship during the Cold War persists. Why did this dictatorships arise? How were they distinguished from each other? What role did they play in the Cold War? Etc. I really don't think it's worth me giving any more notes on this section, as it would just be a repetition of this same point.

21st century dictatorships

"There are currently over 50 dictatorships around the world." According to whom? How does this differ from the 20th century? (Are there more or less than there were during the Cold War?)
The second paragraph falls into the same trap as the previous sections. Why have absolute monarchies been maintained in these countries but not others? How have one-party states been maintained in some states, but fallen in others? Etc.

This whole section appears to be the one that will present the biggest blocker to GA status, as it fails criterion 1 (Well-written) and 3 (Broad in its coverage). If you want me to put this review on hold until this section can be rewritten, or if you feel you can pull off rewriting this, then let me know. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Measurement

Why are the results of the Democracy Index detailed in length, when it isn't even mentioned in the first paragraph?
I don't think you need to list countries considered "flawed democracies", "full democracies", etc. This article is about dictatorship, so keep the results focused on dictatorships.

--Grnrchst (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not relevant, and I've already removed it once in the past, but it was restored by an IP user. I've removed it as off topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Good call. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Economics

More specific page numbers could be provided, but this is less of an issue in this section than in others.

--Grnrchst (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Added more precise page numbers for the Sfn citations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Legitimacy and stability

As before, a number of citations in this section provide large page ranges for a lot of information. As before, consider breaking up into smaller page ranges for each sentence.
"Before 1990" It seems odd to specify a year, considering the end of the Cold War occurred as a transition over many years. Think it's better to just say "during the Cold War" or something to that effect.
"violence is used to coerce all opposition to the dictator's rule," Is "coerce" the right word here? Wouldn't "repress" (as in political repression) be a better fit?

--Grnrchst (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Added more precise page numbers for the Sfn citations. Both of the other concerns are addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Examples

I see another user has added a lengthy "Examples" section that is just a long list of countries and their leaders. Clearly the sources they provided were unreliable, but without them you're just left with original research which sometimes violates BLP policy. I would strongly suggest removing this in its entirety. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I was ready to remove it entirely, but I wanted to hear a second opinion first. I've removed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

References

I'm generally of the opinion that citation formatting should be standardised for ease of accessibility. If you're going to have some citations using shortened footnotes, then I think most (if not all) of the other citations should follow suit. I realise this is a lot of work to ask, and it's really just my preference, so feel free to ignore this if you don't agree.
Also, the sources in the Further reading section still need formatting.

--Grnrchst (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Further reading section has been formatted, and I've removed some entries that were about specific dictatorships rather than dictatorship in general. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Closing remarks

@Thebiguglyalien: For the most part, I think this article is excellent and it largely meets the criteria for GA, with the suggested improvements. It really is just the History section that is bringing it down for me, which is a shame, as I think it clearly stands apart in quality from the rest of the article. If you want me to put this review on hold, until the history section can be rewritten, then let me know and I'll do so. Once the problems with that section are rectified, and other comments here have been taken on board, I'll be more than happy to pass this. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all of the concerns listed above, and the history section is ready for a second review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

What a lovely holiday present! I'll let you know my thoughts. -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

History (rewritten)

From the off, this is clearly far better-written and more informative than the previous version. Excellent work rewriting this so quickly!

Early dictatorships

"Republican phase of Ancient Rome" could probably be simplified to "Roman Republic".
Add link to Sulla's civil war for context.
Consider changing "life-long dictator" to "dictator for life"
Remove second full-stop after footnote 63.

Pre-Cold War dictatorships in the 20th century

I feel like this section could do with a punchier title. Not sure what to suggest right now though.
"power was exercised by soviet councils" - This reads odd, as "soviet" is the Russian word for "council". Use either "soviets" or "councils", but not both.
"Lenin consolidated power in 1922" - I'm not sure what this means. Is it referring to the formation of the Soviet Union? Lenin didn't really "consolidate" power in 1922, as by that point he was already very ill and had already banned factions, wound up the Red Terror and effectively won the civil war. I could maybe buy this if it said "Lenin had consolidated power by 1922" or something similar.
Add link to to Revolutions of 1917–1923.
Cut "at the end of the 19th century", as it makes the sentence internally contradictory with "at the same time". Keep it simply as "At the same time, nationalist movements were also growing throughout Europe."
Cut "Among the nationalist dictatorships of Europe were the fascist dictatorships". The subsequent sentences already go on to explain that.
Confused about "after seizing power in 1925". The March on Rome occurred in 1922. Please clarify.
"though the application of these reforms varied and was often inconsistent". Is this detail necessary? If not, then cut. The reforms speak to the character of the regime, whether or not they were applied consistently.
Add links to Francoist Spain and Estado Novo (Portugal) for context.
Clarify "others" to Western Bloc or something.
Consider cutting down "19th century dictatorships persisted [...]" to simply "Dictatorships persisted [...]"

Cold War dictatorships

Africa section is looking good!
Little context is given as to how the PRC and ROC split up in the first place. Consider adding a short introductory sentence about the Chinese Civil War.
"which involved the destruction of any elements of capitalism in China" The Cultural Revolution was also aimed at traditionalism. Consider adding this detail so "elements of traditionalism and capitalism" or vice versa.
"The Middle East was decolonized during the Cold War, and many nationalist movements gained strength post-independence." Could you go into any further detail on this? As it stands, the paragraph just goes straight into talking about Iran without connecting it either to decolonization or nationalism.
Add links to Eastern Bloc, Dissolution of the Soviet Union and Revolutions of 1989.
Operation Condor probably deserves a mention, as one of the main outcomes of dictatorship in Latin America during the cold war.
I'm wondering if this section could be restructured a bit more, in order to lean away from the continental classification and more towards the character of these dictatorships. Just for example, you could do a section on decolonization and how that affected the rise of dictatorship, another section on the Eastern Bloc and the rise of communist dictatorships and another section about the anti-communist bloc and the rise of right-wing dictatorships? This is just a thought though.

21st century dictatorships

Is there anything that can be mentioned about dictatorships in Africa, Middle East and Southeast Asia? These are the areas that dictatorships persist by-and-large, but the focus here is mostly on Lukashenko and Putin.

Anyways, this is much better than the previous iteration by a long way. This has gone from failing criteria 1 and 3 to passing both. With the above notes addressed, I would be more than happy to pass this review. Tremendous work @Thebiguglyalien: I hope you're proud of this! --Grnrchst (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Most of these should now be fixed. I like your suggestion about restructuring the Cold War section, but I'm not sure how it would be done. A lot of the dictatorships in a given region are tied to one another (e.g. it's difficult to talk about the Marxist dictatorship in North Korea without talking about the nationalist dictatorship in South Korea and vice versa). For the 21st century, I agree that there needs to be more coverage of other regions, but it's difficult to talk about present-day dictatorships without falling into the trap of listing individual dictatorships. I found and incorporated sources about MENA and Central Asian dictatorships, but it's surprisingly difficult to find good academic sources that talk generally about current one-party states or dictatorships in sub-Saharan Africa. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This all looks great! Thanks for taking this all on board and improving this. I'll go ahead and pass the review now. :) -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

@Thebiguglyalien: 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)

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)

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)

History

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

[ToddWaller2015-1] Allan Todd; Sally Waller (10 September 2015). Allan Todd; Sally Waller (eds.). History for the IB Diploma Paper 2 Authoritarian States (20th Century). Cambridge University Press. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-1-107-55889-2.

[1]