The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement here as to whether or not ordinary editing can resolve concerns or if this topic is inherently unsuitable for an encyclopaedic list. Skomorokh, barbarian 13:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dictators[edit]

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

Inherently POV title. To pluck a few examples: I think one can find at least some who say the following are not dictators: Maumoon Abdul Gayoom (who, I might add, lost power in an election after this list was written for Conservapedia); Hugo Chávez (a debate that belongs, perhaps, here - not in trite capsule form telling us how he "banned The Simpsons"); Ruhollah Khomeini (not quite so simple); Slobodan Milošević, Getúlio Vargas (repeatedly won elections and allowed an opposition, even if autocrats), and so forth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is ... well its not neutral and needs cleanup. We can't just delete it, this list might be useful as a first source or guide to research. --WngLdr34 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the sentiment, but there's a conundrum here. If we find a reliable source with, say, a table of dictators, then we privilege that POV over others. And if we find dozens of sources each labelling every one of these individuals "dictators", then we are left with a mass of disparate POVs in entirely different contexts all rolled up into one list, and are also going to be privileging one set of POVs over another. Either way, I don't see how this could be done neutrally. A far better solution is to have coherent articles on each of the individuals discussed, and therein, in the proper context, paraphrase whatever relevant remarks a reliable source or sources have had to say about a particular individual being a dictator. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inherently POVed (I can't help but parrot Biruitorul here - though I assure him it's more a case of "great minds think alike") and not that useful for structuring the many and diverse interpretation of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Maybe it's not a case of "opinion" in n cases, nut it is so in n+1, and n+1 may turn out to be the POVed majority on such flawed lists. Focusing on just those cases that are, for the sake of argument, beyond doubt as a means to preserve the list is just not constructive in the long run. Also note that the corresponding category was deleted and deleted and deleted. Dahn (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree, this is inherently POV. I did a spot check of some of the people listed. Out of the 14 entries I checked 3 of the articles called the person a dictator. One of them it was only in the title of one of the references, no where in the text of the article was the word dictator used. This is just a subjective listing of people who someone calls a dictator. I do not see any hope that this will be a neutral listing. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking again at this again in the new day, I just am not sure my recommendation is correct. I still have concerns about the POV nature of this list, but is that a reason to delete it, I am not sure that it is. I think the lede needs to be reworked with a very specific inclusion criteria so that the list can be cleaned up and only those people who are dictators are left. That is the major problem with this list, the inclusion criteria is so generic that it is easy to justify a large # of questionable people on the list. I believe the first step should be the article on each person. The person should only be listed on this page if the consensus on the article is to call them a dictator. I will start a section on the article's talk page to discuss this. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators for the previous AfD. See also List of modern day dictators (deleted), a category deleted, and, on a lighter note, with many of the same arguments, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supermodels Wizzy…☎ 10:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As already said, unavoidably POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the last AFD should have been closed keep, I don't understand why it was not. Well researched article, which may need cleanup. Why not change the name nominator, and remove the questionable sections to talk first, instead of putting this entire article up for deletion? Ikip (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was involved in this the last time it came up. The problem is that people want to add George W. Bush and others - there is no good reference to say who is or is not a Dictator. Wizzy…☎ 09:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then through consensus we can make sure the article doesn't have entries like George W. Bush. There are vandals and fringe editors on many pages, that is no reason to delete those pages, it just means the community must be more valiant. I would be happy to help vigousously police this article with you Wizzy, and I will remove any names right now you feel are inappropriate. Partial protection from new editors is another option too. Ikip (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I contacted all of the editors about this AFD who participated in the last AFD. Ikip (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, off course, it is well-researched, it is 95% original research New seeker (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The examples the nominator cites can be addressed by editing. There is probably no reliable, third-party source that would claim that people like Hitler or Stalin were not dictators. So they can be in such a list. That there are people on it where there are no such sources only means that those should be removed or sourced. Not that the whole list needs to be deleted. So Why 09:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree that most every reliable source will cal Stalin or Hitler (or Mao, or Mussolini, or Idi Amin, or Ne Win) "dictators". I merely contend that the appropriate course is to discuss that in their respective biographies, not to have a list combining disparate POVs that will (because of the absence of a single standard on what constitutes a "dictator") forever be subject to shifts in what entries are included and why. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not a valid reason for deletion though. If we call them dictators in all other articles, how is it more POV to list them? Compare this to List of current monarchs for example. The term "monarch" is equally POV because it has no standard as well. Is the Pope a monarch? Are only people with crowns monarchs? Only those who rule a monarchy? What about the Co-Princes of Andorra? Such lists have their place, they are encyclopedic. Issues with inaccuracies are subject to editing, not deletion. Regards So Why 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The term "monarch" is equally POV because it has no standard as well. That's simply not true. In fact, the assertion is ridiculous. Countries have constitutions that describe their ruling systems, which are either explicitly indicated as monarchies or outlined in such a manner as to fall in the universally accepted description of monarchies from an institutional point of view. Very few dictatorships are formalized into organic laws, and usually not even there explicitly so. The two cases you mention are a flawed analogy. For one, they compare two supposed exceptions with an infinity of uncertainties, and claim that it's "the same thing". It's not. The dictators list relies on a subjective denominator that has been used and reused in conflicting definitions; the lists of monarchs have not been interpreted either, particularly the ones where the object of the definition is occupying a certain throne. There simply is no comparison here. Furthermore, the exceptions you claim are in fact not exceptions, of any kind. Yes, both the popes and the co-princes of Andorra are monarchs - the world has this thing called elective monarchy. Finally, you are comparing controversies on the definition of "dictator" proven to exist in the outside world (among scholars etc.) with something you yourself believe is ambiguous (even when it really isn't ambiguous). Dahn (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yet you will not find the term "monarch" or "monarchy" used in our article Pope because the Vatican is not a traditional monarchy, but rather a dictatorship with elected leaders (like in Ancient Rome) or maybe an oligarchy (since only a few people elect the Pope rather than all members of the Church or all citizens of Vatican City. But that was simply an example of another list and its entries that might be disputed. We have an article about dictatorship that lists some of those on the list discussed here and defines the term. Your logic does not mean that the list needs to be deleted. It only means that it should only encompass people that have been universally accepted to (have) be(en) dictators. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and the likes have their place on that list. Chavez or Bush don't. Regards So Why 19:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know what I'll find and won't find in the wiki article on Pope, not do I trouble myself with that. In general, I think very little of arguments that rely on judgment calls made in other articles instead of references to the outside world. I note however that you will find "The politics of Vatican City takes place in an absolute elective monarchy" in Vatican. For just cause, because the main element your argument is missing is awareness of the notorious issue of the pope's separate powers as a sovereign, in addition to his powers as a church leader and, in theory, sovereign of sovereigns (something that the history of Europe revolved around down to the 19th century, and is represented in the three crowns symbol of the papacy). The pope is an absolute monarch of a state, but that is only one of his powers, and is secondary to his status as a pope. Whether or not the wiki articles address that or not is ultimately of little relevancy. So is the claim about what is being done in the article on dictatorship, for two reasons: an article can by definition expand on an issue without prioritizing a claim out of several; an article doing something stupid now is not a reason to replicate that stupid thing elsewhere. And yes, we know that the keep votes like to refer to the cases of Stalin and Hitler, but below, above and throughout, several users, including I, have presented many cases in which the application of the term is neither that obvious not that common. Pretending that there's nothing between, say, Mussolini and Chavez is simply absurd - everything is in there as far as that list is concerned, cases of people who have been deemed dictators by some sources but not by others. And in fact, to point yet another paradox, Chavez has been deemed a dictator whether you approve of it or not, just like others who are on the list have been deemed dictators by some but not by all - the difference is that you would think Chavez's inclusion is frivolous, based on your own POV. Incidentally, I myself think Chavez is a dictator, and I can cite just several sources who agree. The difference between my inquiry and your proclamation is that I know what is factual and what is subject to interpretation, and claim no absolute solution to a thorny issue that not even people in some area of scholarship can agree on. That is the point of this discussion. a list of people who I or you or someone thinks are dictators is not. Dahn (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The above was only an example. No, such a list should only include such examples that are generally agreed to be dictators and not such examples like Chavez or Bush that are disputed. Would you please elaborate why this list, if it only included names like Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin, would have to be deleted? Regards So Why 21:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm afraid this is becoming an issue of logic. For one, who is to say what is "generally agreed" upon in thins case, maybe beyond Hitler, Stalin etc. The whole issue I tried to outline above is that the majority of inclusions you'd think belong there would be disputed, just like that, based on sources debating this in the real world. At the end of this process, you'd be left with a list with names not like Stalin and Hitler, but exactly with a list grouping Stalin and Hitler and some others, that you might just as well call "List of Stalin, Hitler etc." Because, as long as there's no special authority at all to decide who isn't and is a dictator, there's nothing in the title that would prevent users from adding a huge numbers of names that have been associated with the notion of "dictator". In fact, Biruitorul explained this paradox above, in more eloquent terms than mine: "If we find a reliable source with, say, a table of dictators, then we privilege that POV over others. And if we find dozens of sources each labelling every one of these individuals "dictators", then we are left with a mass of disparate POVs in entirely different contexts all rolled up into one list, and are also going to be privileging one set of POVs over another." The issue is not to satisfy my POV or his by removing those entries we prove are questionable, but not to create lists that provide no info beyond conflicting or whimsical POVs. And lastly, your type of questioning poses a Loki's wager on all of us and walks away smiling. Dahn (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, I agree that there are certain people that only are viewed as dictators by certain sources. But as you yourself agree, there are those who are universally agreed to (have) be(en) such dictators. A list with 10 entries is still a valid list and one could add the other names as "list of people labeled as dictators" or similar. The very idea that we need to delete a whole article because some people will certainly use it to push a POV is, frankly, ridiculous. Of course they will. But we can make that argument with every article. No, if someone uses an article to push a POV, then we punish them for it, not the article. If there are conflicting sources, we can point that out in the article (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship). It's not our job to prevent people from knowing such POVs, it's our job to clearly label them as such where there is encyclopedic interest to include them. If a large share, but not all, scholars say "X is a dictator", we can include X and add "note: Notable scholars Y, Z and A disagree". Or, to use your metaphor: Your solution to Loki's Wager is to simply take the whole of Loki because that way you will get the head for sure. But that way you also take what is not rightfully yours. Regards So Why 12:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are called Dictators in the news media aren't they? Its an appropriate list. The Parade section of the Sunday newspaper in America shows some of them every year on its worse dictators in the world list. Dream Focus 15:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we can verify that someone called them a dictator. If someone from the news media calls someone the greatest football player of all time, does that make it correct? Or is that actually POV opinion being stated by a third party? The media in Iraq didn't call Hussein a dictator, but ours did. Whose POV is right and whose is not? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone doubt that the former Iraqi leader was a dictator? His media was controlled by him, and he raped, tortured, and murdered anyone that spoke out against him as well as their family members to terrorize them more so. Coming to power by force, having fake elections or no elections at all to remain in power, makes you a dictator. Inheriting leadership from someone who had it before you, for a few generations at least, makes you a king. Dream Focus 16:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Again, it is a bad and unconstructive idea to start discussing from the cases where you think the term does apply and moving your way "up" (continuum fallacy). It is also a bad idea to appeal to what we may agree to in a subjective, if probably correct, assessment (argumentum ad populum). The point here is not about the "obvious" cases - which don't validate the list -, but about the fact that the term itself is inoperable in the long run, and that there is actually no set of given objective criteria that make one a dictator beyond doubt. Many inclusions or potential inclusions on that list may be what you find justifiable, but: a) wikipedia is not structured around an opinion; b) this does not anything for the others, which are debatable and debated. Invariably, these complex issues are best addressed by articles and sourced third-party statements in those articles, not by the pop culture theories of "I heard it through the grapevine" and "I saw it on the telly".

Let's take your statement: "Coming to power by force, having fake elections or no elections at all to remain in power, makes you a dictator. Inheriting leadership from someone who had it before you, for a few generations at least, makes you a king." The variables contained in this phrase alone would require a case by case assessment that is better addressed by referenced texts. There are plenty of people who were deemed dictators and did not come to power by force - Stalin, Hitler, Zhivkov, Ceauşescu, Antonescu, Tsedenbal, Pétain etc. In fact, the very concept of "dictatorship" was coined for people who were assigned the office by some form or collective or even participative and legitimate government (from Ancient Rome to the 19th century caudillos, this aspect of the name responds an entirely different political culture). In many cases, the power of a dictatorial regime is shared by a collective leadership, whose members are not individually known as dictators (as is the case with concepts such as junta, dictatorship of the proletariat, democratic centralism, Committee of Public Safety, Derg, The Colonels etc.). As for monarchies not being dictatorships and being "absolute" as the only such option, the example is notoriously questioned by institutionally monarchic dictatorships which were by no means absolute, and whose leaders were often known as dictators to the outside world: Napoleon, Carol II, Boris II to name just a few. The very term of absolute monarchy corresponds to a different institutional reality, and, in modern times, was only applied to states where the constitutional order did now allow for any representative bodies - Saudi Arabia, Selassie's Ethiopia, Bokassa's "Empire" etc.

In other words, the list we're discussing is a narrow interpretation of a very complex reality, ans such issues are simply not addressed by lists. Just how many times need we go through this? Dahn (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hugo Chávez a dictator? Oliver Stone says no. Pejman Yousefzadeh says yes. Whom do we believe? What about Vladimir Putin? A Russian casino manager says yes. McFaul and Goldgeier say no (or did, at any rate, in 2005). Do you really want to play this silly game? Or would you rather just keep it within the confines of the entries' biographies? There, provided reliable sources have something to say on the matter, at least the debate has contextual relevance; here it has none. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Biruitorul's nomination is on point. I don't see how it's possible to concretely define "dictator" when there are so many POVs from various sources across the planet. The discussion directly above me illustrates this well, and why a simplistic definition simply doesn't work. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many terms which have varying definitions, and this is no worse than any other political term. There's a definition on the page, and I think it's a pretty good one for Wikipedia purposes in making a list. The political question is more likely to be whether a person is considered a benevolent dictator. The actual contents of the page are almost all unambiguous. If Chavez is ambiguous, the question can be discussed, and consensus followed., The page does more than most such pages, is actually summarizing the evidence, and people can then judge as they choose. I think the concept of "inoperable in the long run" is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia--we deal with individual situations as they arise, not the fact that sometime in the future the page might become unmaintainable. The argument between dictator and king is besides the point. Is there any doubt Stalin was one, and Louis XIV was the other? There will always be borderline situations. There is one set of truly ambiguous cases in the list--Napoleon I and III. This is no reason to invalidate the list as a whole. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity here, as was endlessly pointed is not "borderline", it is at the core of the matter - this does invalidate the list as a whole, as I believe I have shown with my comments above. Let's also note that arguments such as those above mix the criteria for the definition: nobody is discussing the nature of dictatorships ("dictator" as a cuss), and whether or not it is PC to call someone a dictator; that is your straw man fabricated by the "keep" votes from the "delete" vote. What we are discussing is the institution of "dictatorship", and it was shown that the definition of this institution differs not in respect to benevolent or malevolent, but in respect to the attributes a national leader must use/usurp in order to be a dictator. As for the monarchs thing, note that I was answering to someone who claims, with the same optimism you display here, that there is an innate difference we all can see between an absolute monarch and a dictator. All of these are arguments from personal belief, and they don't address the issue. So is the absurd claim that we should vote on who is and isn't a dictator. Dahn (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the dictators that the nominator complained about are now removed from the article. Ikip (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note That is obviously not the issue. Dahn (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not the issue then why did the nominator make these names the central argument for deletion? My five minutes working on this article shows that there was no effort to improve the article before this article was put up for deletion. I am reading a lot of slippery slope arguments above. Example: "The point here is not about the "obvious" cases - which don't validate the list -, but about the fact that the term itself is inoperable in the long run". Instead of deleting the entire article, why not work on cutting the article down to the "obvious" cases? By taking five minutes to remove these names, I negate these slippery slope arguments also. Ikip (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the central argument was (and is) that the term "dictator" is inherently POV and endlessly subject to shifting definitions, and cannot be presented in neutral form as part of a list. And removing the examples doesn't improve the list one bit - after all, you can find many sources indicating those individuals (Milošević, anyone?) were dictators. Or why isn't Putin on the list? Shouldn't he be? And if he is, are we sure we want him there? I don't think this is a game worth playing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - may I once again stress the origin of this list? It's from Conservapedia, uploaded there "before it was censored by Wikipedia's liberals". Not exactly a proud pedigree, is it? And I ask that as a conservative myself. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this relevant to the question whether we should or should not delete it here? Regards So Why 21:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, just sayin'. There's also that pesky little thing about deleted material not able to be recreated... - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, this page was originally on wikipedia, before it was deleted before. The AfD discussion on that deletion hashes out all the issues we are re-discussing here. Biruitorul's arguments are spot-on - this list does not belong here. Wizzy…☎ 13:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - have we considered the WP:WTA implications of this? "Dictator" - maybe not regarding Stalin, but certainly regarding Anwar Sadat or Alberto Fujimori - is a loaded word, one readily used in polemics by sources hostile to the individual(s) in question. If a reliable source calls someone a dictator, it may be all right for us to quote that source doing so, and attribute that opinion to it. But it's certainly not all right for us to have a whole list of people we happen to declare "dictators". Compare what we do here with what we do for another famous word to avoid, "terrorist": List of designated terrorist organizations. There, we at least make it clear we're presenting the opinions of six major countries plus the EU, and not simply designating people "terrorists" based on our own invented, endlessly contestable, standard. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per reasons given. Izzedine (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even Speedy Delete per previous AfDs and obvious recreation from an archived copy. Beyond that, it is entirely an NPOV violation that would nearly impossible to properly create without violating WP:BLP for every living entry. As others have noted, how do we determine, neutrally, who is or his not a dictator? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I admire the effort that went into this (and I hope that it continues to be part of Conservapedia), "dictator" would apply to the majority of the thousands and thousands of national heads of government throughout history. One might as well make a "list of evil men". Better that this stays on a site like Conservapedia, where point of view is a matter of black and white. Mandsford (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can someone please explain how this article got undeleted and recreated? The logs got me here but nowhere further. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fayssal, this is what prompted me to reverse my deletion Nancy ^talk 07:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nancy. Well, DGG said that in order to "simplify the procedure [he is] sending it to deletion review". I am still being confused since we are at the AfD now instead of Wikipedia:Deletion review. DGG, are you around? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It got here before I had a chance to do that, so I left well enough alone. The point is to have a discussion & get a decision. NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To me, the average Wikipedia reader should have an expectation that a list like this is supported by the detailed articles in Wikipedia. When I ckicked through to articles in the list, I only sometimes found information that this leader was a dictator or led a government that used any dictatorial methods. If the article about an individual does not give sourced facts that support he was a dictator, then my conclusion is that this list has a point of view issue. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with this article is to find a NPOV definition of a dictator. It is the same problem as that one man's rebel (or terrorist) is another man's freedoms fighter. Whay are the characteristics of a dictator? I would suggest that we might consider: totalitarian tendency (which probably excludes Oliver Cromwell); attained power unconstitutionally (but I am not sure about that); (What else?). What is the difference between a dictator and a monarch - except that monarch tends to be hereditary and may be subject to constitutional restraints on their power. I think the solution to this debate is Close as keep and continue discussion on talk page with a view to getting an article dictator with a clear definition. Having done that, it should be possible to edit the article into a robustly justifiable list. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is fine. Individual entries may be contested but deleting the entire list for this reason would be contrary to our editing policy. To resolve individual entries, we discuss them on the article's talk page and establish consensus by reference to reliable sources which we weigh according their authority, preponderance and quality. This is just what we have to do for all other articles which can be disputed in just the same way, if you want to be difficult. For example, see List of rivers by length or List of highest mountains which have numerous practical difficulties of measurement and definition. Per Voltaire and Ted Kennedy, "never let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Colonel Warden (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the main point: the problem is not individual entries (though many of them are certainly problematic); it's that "dictator" is a subjective standard over which there is much debate among scholars for a proper definition. There is no special authority to decide who is or is not a dictator, and we can't assume that role ourselves (which the list claims to do). - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars debate the scope of applicability for almost every useful descriptive term, we cant allow that to force us to delete such a valuable article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to give an example? For instance, the list of current monarchs is not under serious debate: scholars have agreed on what sort of typology constitutes a monarchical system. Same with parliamentary system, presidential system, semi-presidential system: not set in stone, but more or less agreed upon. Not the case with dictatorships. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivial to dispute the list of current monarchs as a moment's inspection reveals that this list contains Nicolas Sarkozy, not commonly considered royalty. He is there because he is nominally joint ruler of Andorra but this makes him a duumvir, not a monarch which, by definition, is a single person. No doubt there are more such corner cases in the list, such as the Sultans of Malaysia, who rule in rotation, and so on. One can nitpick like this about anything but it's not what we're here for. BTW, I was browsing a bookshop earlier and saw a book entitled Great Dictators. It was about Bokassa and the like. Writing extensively on this topic seems easy as there are numerous good sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have heard of the joint monarchs William and Mary, or of the concept of an elective monarchy, or of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (ruled over jointly by the King of the United Kingdom and the King of Egypt), but the fact that not all monarchies fit precisely one model does not make them non-monarchies in the eyes of political scientists. (See here, for instance.) I'd be curious to see any expert argue that the President of France is not the monarch of Andorra, or that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is not the monarch of Malaysia, etc. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a useful list for finding articles on different dictators. There are several books about dictators as a whole, this is very much an encyclopaedic topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories too are useful for finding stuff. But Category:Dictators has been deleted again and again and again. Sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it? And yes, of course books have been written on dictatorship. That's a valid concept in political science, and worthy of our attention. But a list of dictators, given the absence of a neutral standard for "dictator", is beyond our scope. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No new reason(s) for deletion since previous AfD have been given. Content disputes over list entries are not a valid reason to delete entire list. Deletion policy or precedents have not changed enough since last AfD to warrant hearing this case second time. jni (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, this is not primarily a content dispute; the crux of the matter is the lack of a standard, neutral, commonly accepted definition of "dictator" that we could be reasonably expected to apply here. (Note that none has been proposed, either.) Second, procedurally speaking, you've got it backwards: previously deleted material recreated in substantially the same form (and it was previously deleted) is subject to speedy deletion, not to the debate we're now having. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do not have a commonly accepted definition of emotion either but we still have list of emotions. Should we delete it as well? As for procedural matters, you are right: I remembered only after voting that the previous Afd of List of dictators was closed as DELETE against concensus with dubious comment "Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy." It should have been taken to deletion review as out-of-process deletion but apparently was not. Therefore I'm not deleting it per CSD G4 and recommend other admins to decline doing so. Letting this normal AfD process to run its course is likely the most efficient way to resolve this issue. jni (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is an important difference between list of emotions and this listing, consensus and contentiousness, the consensus supporting core policy outweighs the unverifiable assertions of editors of newspapers and talk pages. 38 kilobytes of discussion with no improvement says a lot. cygnis insignis 19:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Referring to other Wikipedia articles to back up one's argument isn't recommended (since we're not a reliable source), but OK. The list of emotions makes clear that the entries are the POV of particular scholars, who then go on to list the entries. It doesn't make up a definition from thin air and then apply that definition (see WP:NOR for that). - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Category:Dictators has been deleted, and Category:Dictatorship is not for dictators I fail to see how this list can ever achieve NPOV status. Both the right and left wing love to label people from the other side dictators, and the also love to argue about it. This article does not and can not serve Wikipedia's purpose of creating an encyclopedia based on consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem lies in defining the list as including people who are "commonly regarded as modern dictators". A list of world leaders who have referred to themselves as dictators would be appropriate because this can be proven without a doubt in reliable sources, but this list is inherently subjective and therefore is a breach of NPOV. We can't define people to be dictators, nor can we set an arbitrary line as to who is or is not a dictator. That is beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. Them From Space 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPOV categorically does not require that this list be deleted, or even renamed as a matter of fact. The term Dictator is attributable to muliple significant reliable sources for many many figures. Contradictory opinions are not barred from the List, but FRINGE views are, and there is a difference. MickMacNee (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're saying, "let's call X a dictator because A said he's one; let's call Y a dictator because B said he's one; let's call Z a dictator because C said he's one". I find that a flawed argument. First, this is tantamount to mixing a large number of disparate POVs expressed in widely divergent contexts and forcibly applying them into this one list. We should have neutral agreed-upon definitions applied by scholars, which of course hasn't been done for dictators (in the sense that who is and isn't a dictator is still widely contested by political scientists). Second: what if one reliable source calls someone a dictator and another one specifically negates he's one? Whose POV prevails? Why not realise no standard quantifying dictators (as opposed to presidents, prime ministers and monarchs) actually exists? - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is my suggested replacement for this list: Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin. Please explain why this three element list is "inherently POV" or "against non-negotiable core policy that cannot be overridden by concensus". Would any reasonable man really contest labeling any of these people as dictators, that is, is there a valid non-fringe POV against their inclusion? If the list can be reduced, then there is no reason to delete it. jni (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, but first, what about Tito or Mao, and second, what would the point of such a list be? Surely at dictatorship we could simply write "individuals commonly regarded as dictators include Joseph Stalin,^[1]^[2] Adolf Hitler^[3]^[4]^[5] and Julius Caesar^[6]". - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The fact that my list so far includes only three members is beside the point. It can be easily continued to list the 10-30 really obvious cases that so sane person disputes without any NPOV problems whatsoever. jni (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your idea that we have to choose who is right, is just wrong. Your idea that we have to define ourselves what a dictator is, is just wrong. Your idea of what NPOV says, is frankly, just wrong. You can think my argument is flawed all you want, but it's based on what the policy actually says. MickMacNee (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't quite parse that statement, but the point remains: no neutral, agreed-upon definition of "dictator" exists in political science, and were one to exist, it would be original research for us to apply it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't need one, NPOV simply does not require it. Original research has got less than zero to do with the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then how do you propose identifying who is and is not a dictator? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - For example, Lincoln? cygnis insignis 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Plenty of references available to support putting him on the list. But don't expect the Wikipedia article about him to say he's one, because that's too controversial. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Does this constitute a systematic bias in our community? I've just thought of another nice fellow; one who has identified himself as the benevolent type. :-) cygnis insignis 05:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course it is problematic but surely a list of Dictators is encyclopedic? --Alchemist Jack (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the preceding discussion has shown, the notion is so contested that no, it's not a good idea attempting such a list. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (no prejudice against delete votes) but trim to modern dictators. Maximilien Robespierre and Oliver Cromwell don't belong there. NVO (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NPOV policy outlines what is possible in articles; context, attribution, verifiability, etc. This is list, a collation of names based on a highly subjective term, it is currently an unreferenced synthesis. Even if a citation for a list could be found, what reliable source would publish such a contentious list. As a self-identifying term, I can think of only one example:
A man went to a party dressed as a potato, someone said, "great costume, but did you know your ... "
His answer would qualify him for inclusion here, the rest of this is a joke. cygnis insignis 12:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.