Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family dictatorship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 KEEP. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Family dictatorship[edit]
This is problematic on two counts. First: it is assumed that there is a definition for the word "dictator", which in today's usage signifies an autocratic, tyrannical ruler - an inherently subjective definition. (Yes, one could re-name the ever-popular List of Dictators to List of people called Dictators or something, but time would be better spent at calling those rulers by their nominal title and instead discussing the political system in depth.)
Second: the fact that an autocrat might choose to pass on the anoint a family membe his successor is extremely trivial. Running a hgovernment racket is profitable and of course one chooses to keep the profits in the family.
Trivial, subjective stuff. Dr Zak 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Excellent scholarly work. Its only trivial to a trivial mind. I am not really sure what the objection is or what rule is being violated. The material is not subjective at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you asked: what is violated is the prohibition on original research because it isn't at all clear what a "dictator" is or who qualifies as a one. Someone below mentioned that calling Lee Kuan Yew a dictator might raise eyebrows, and if Fidel Castro qualifies depends strongly on who you ask. Thanks for listening. Oh, another thing: you said you are not sure what the issue is, yet vote on it anyway. Don't do that, it's silly. Dr Zak 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant when I mentioned Lee was that he was the kind of person whose inclusion or non-inclusion would prove controversial without an accepted definition of what a "dictator" actually is. That said, there is such a thing (and I'm pretty sure the Wiktionary entry is good, too), so that needn't be an issue. As with a great many other articles on controversial topics, however, this one would have to be watched carefully to make certain that someone with an axe to grind didn't argue that someone who wasn't accepted as a dictator should be included on the list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article you are quoting is very clear in that the term is inherently polemic, current in popular use only and unsuitable in serious political discussion. Dr Zak 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the article I quote does two things. Firstly, it sets out something approaching a definition of the term. Secondly, it explains that in popular usage, the term is thrown around a bit more liberally. The fact that a given term is misunderstood by the man in the street doesn't mean that it doesn't have a valid definition - there's no end of political and scientific terms which would have no definitions if this were the case. Our task, assuming this article is kept, is to make the definition abundantly clear (political scientists love definitions, so it shouldn't be hard) and then to make certain that the only people who turn up on the list are covered by the definition. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we talking about the same article at all? Could you point out where either dictator or dictatorship gives a definition that goes beyond "epithet for Heads of State with autocratic tendencies that we happen to despise"? Dr Zak 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly." It's not a great definition, no, but it is a different one from the definition in the next paragraph which begins "in popular usage". As I said above, what we have is something vaguely approaching a definition of the term. Our task is to take what's there and (with the usual reference to reliable sources) establish a solid working definition. Once we have one, it's a simple case of comparing those on the list with the definition. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, the article on "dictatorship" makes the following attempt: "dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state." Again, not an award-winning piece of prose, but a start. Both definitions are significantly less subjective than the words you've put into their mouths. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we talking about the same article at all? Could you point out where either dictator or dictatorship gives a definition that goes beyond "epithet for Heads of State with autocratic tendencies that we happen to despise"? Dr Zak 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the article I quote does two things. Firstly, it sets out something approaching a definition of the term. Secondly, it explains that in popular usage, the term is thrown around a bit more liberally. The fact that a given term is misunderstood by the man in the street doesn't mean that it doesn't have a valid definition - there's no end of political and scientific terms which would have no definitions if this were the case. Our task, assuming this article is kept, is to make the definition abundantly clear (political scientists love definitions, so it shouldn't be hard) and then to make certain that the only people who turn up on the list are covered by the definition. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article you are quoting is very clear in that the term is inherently polemic, current in popular use only and unsuitable in serious political discussion. Dr Zak 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant when I mentioned Lee was that he was the kind of person whose inclusion or non-inclusion would prove controversial without an accepted definition of what a "dictator" actually is. That said, there is such a thing (and I'm pretty sure the Wiktionary entry is good, too), so that needn't be an issue. As with a great many other articles on controversial topics, however, this one would have to be watched carefully to make certain that someone with an axe to grind didn't argue that someone who wasn't accepted as a dictator should be included on the list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you asked: what is violated is the prohibition on original research because it isn't at all clear what a "dictator" is or who qualifies as a one. Someone below mentioned that calling Lee Kuan Yew a dictator might raise eyebrows, and if Fidel Castro qualifies depends strongly on who you ask. Thanks for listening. Oh, another thing: you said you are not sure what the issue is, yet vote on it anyway. Don't do that, it's silly. Dr Zak 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the "trivial mind" comment really necessary, Richard?--Kchase T 08:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the words of Triumph the insult comic dog: "I kid, I kid.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
- Keep I really don't see a reason to delete either. Arguably communist dictatorships are a distinct phenomenon where power doesn't go through bloodlines. And political scientists argue endlessly about definitions of such words, but that doesn't mean we can't use them. If certain leaders are widely regarded as dictators, I'd say it's NPOV to list them as such in an article like this.--Kchase T 08:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, as this would appear to be a distinct phenomenon from your regular dictatorship in which power is just shared by a party. That said, a list like this could easily attract controversy (I'm sure there'll be some Singaporean editors who won't like the inclusion of the Lee Family here, for instance) either over what's present or what isn't, so it'll need to be kept an eye on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, describes an existing phenomena and for many of Europe's nobility it is much less than trivial. In most families the elder gets all and has to take care of the younger as he (sometimes she) sees fit. It can be a very lucrative racket Alf photoman 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, needs more sources. The political science term is personalistic regime and variations. --Dhartung | Talk 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone wants to write an article on personalistic regimes, more power to him. Handing the power of government over to a family member is but one facet of the phenomenon. By the way, sources are not optional here. Dr Zak 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is notable that some dictators do in various ways transmit their position to family members, and some do not, and it is useful having a list of the ones who do. DGG 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The information is very useful and deserves a place in Wikipedia. If the term "dictator" is too subjective to some, maybe a new name for the article can be agreed upon. I'd be agreeable to a redirect to personalistic regimes. Jsc1973 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Admonish nominator. Grace Note 09:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above. Possible abuse of AfD, unforunatly way to common on wikipedia. Travb (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There are no references to anything scholarly. This is a partisan political term at this point, and it even has invalid coinages in it ("personalistic?"). A Republic has no dictatorships, and dicatatorships do not abide by a republican model. This is the equivalent of saying "Anarchist beaurocracy." There is no scholarly standing. There is, however, partisan political standing. The first usage goes to references to the Kennedy's, and the right wing tossed it about in the US, then the left with the Bushes, and now the right with the Clintons. Until there are some real sources to real political science texts, this is just more partisan thuggery. Geogre 20:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of one case where it could have applied: Richard Cromwell, but the fact that he got chased off kind of proves that it wasn't a dictatorship after all. Silly stuff. Geogre 02:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Geogre, I can't find anythign scholarly to back this up. Those references which do exist use it mainly as a synonym for nepotism. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, term used by various geographically and politically unrelated sources, the New York Times, the Associated Press, the BBC, military history professors, Time magazine, The Australian. None of these are blogs or partisan soapboxes, and none of these refer to U.S. presidents, despite Geogre's assertions. — CharlotteWebb 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. All of those use the common adjective "family" with the noun "dictatorship," and none of them is a discussion of this as a political phenomenon. That they're not about our own fringe users is a sign of how utterly irrelevant they are. Geogre 13:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was no political phenomenon, mainstream media wouldn't be making widespread, un-coerced use of the term, but they are. And they are referring, in the most part, to the same political figures listed in the article. The second part of your comment looks like an attack on somebody, so I'll ignore it. — CharlotteWebb 13:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was no attack on anyone. You said that the references weren't to the U.S. fringe partisans, and I said that was proof of how irrelevant they are to the real press. Don't go looking for insults where none are intended. The fact that all of your references are to the Duvaliers is a demonstration of the echo effect of newspapers. When an organization like the AP uses a colorful term, that term will be picked up by other accounts. The same is true of the New York Times. It is not surprising that an account of Baby Doc is going to have the same usage of a common adjective with a common noun. It does not point to a phenomenon. The phenomenon here is that Baby Doc took over. There was no "republic" there. It was just plain old dictatorship. Geogre 17:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. All of those use the common adjective "family" with the noun "dictatorship," and none of them is a discussion of this as a political phenomenon. That they're not about our own fringe users is a sign of how utterly irrelevant they are. Geogre 13:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Quick! Someone should add Bush in there! </trolling> bogdan 22:21, 19 December 2006 (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.