Talk:Political strongman

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political strongman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Section sizes

Section size for Political strongman (12 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	839	839
Functions	3,078	3,078
Politics	1,702	1,702
History	1,825	1,825
See also	188	188
References	18	3,232
Citations	32	32
Bibliography	22	3,182
Books	429	429
Journals	686	686
Web sources	2,045	2,045
Further reading	1,652	1,652
Total	12,516	12,516

On 4 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Strongman (politics) to Political strongman. The result of the discussion was moved.

This list is a terrible idea[edit]

People have been bringing up the issues with this list on this talk page for over a year, enough has been said about it that I'd feel comfortable just deleting it but I'm sure it would just get put back up again. This list is so loaded and ripe for people looking to equivocate their least favourite politician in the free world with dictators (on this talk page we've simultaneously had people arguing that Donald Trump should be removed and Barrack Obama should be added, and people arguing the reverse) that if not removed then it's going to have to be perpetually protected and curated by someone. AARPterrorist (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of academic articles making the case that Donald Trump is a "strongman," but plenty of others that say he is a wannabe. I would make the case that he fit the description of a "bossism" government. The Republican Party showed absolute fealty to his administration and that culminated into Jan. 6th and 147 House Republicans refusing to certify the transfer of power (this number would have been higher if not for the attack on the US Capitol). Nonetheless he is removed from the list with every entry, in spite of citations. It reminds me that Wikipedia, for all the good it brings, fails to accurately address political questions. Look no further than the Wikipedia description of the Republican Party where it still asserts that a majority of the party is traditional conservative and free market instead of protectionist. It is outdated and cannot be changed. That is my two cents. This analysis is as a nonpartisan as possible but I believe it does Americans a disservice. Dionysus240 (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Strongman (strength athlete) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Benjamin Netanyahu[edit]

@Beyond My Ken The article states this is a list of those classified by political scientists as strongmen which Netanyahu definitely has been Watch Atlas791 (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided is from Reuters, and "strongman" is only used in the headline, and then only in terms of his "strongman image". There is no statement by a political scientist that he is a strongman, and the article (as opposed to the headline) doesn't even use the word, just talks about the public perception of his being "strong" on security issues. There's a heck of a lot more to being a "strongman" than just having an image of being strong about national security. The source simply does not provide any evidence of N. being a strongman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough Watch Atlas791 (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern[edit]

This looks a lot like the long-deleted "list of dictators" article. Sure, such a thing should exist somewhere, but not in Wikipedia mainspace. —Sesel (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]