Talk:Authoritarianism/Archive 1

Spain under Franco
Could a source be given for the claim about economic success, and something less vague and subjective than "noticeable" be used to describe it? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I politely ask that the statement "For example, the Roman Catholic Church can be accurately described as authoritarian; however, in modern times it lacks the means to use force to enforce its edicts and is not a totalitarian establishment." be changed. It suggests that the Roman Catholic Church would use oppressive means if it had the power to do so. Such a suggestion is entirely a matter of oppinion.


 * I think it is clear that in the past the Catholic Church did use oppressive means to enforce edicts. However you are right that it the reason for the change is not the absence of 'the means to use force', but rather the modern perception that the use of such force is unacceptable has led to a change in the willingness of the Church to use force and hence led to a change in policy.  I will npov the article accordingly.  Ppe42 11:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I believe the section titled "Actions of authoritarian governments" is completely unnecessary in this piece. The author of it seems hung up on two current liberal agendas in the United States, namely gay rights and striking down of the Patriot Act. The section is something that in as little as 10 years will look sadly pithy, dated, and agenda driven, which should never be true of an honest definition. In fact, using the logic of these "examples of authoritarianism", any government that has any kind of law is "authoritarianistic" so long as someone wishes to break that law without facing enforcement. The examples used under democracy, indeed show democracy (or in this case, the US Republic)in action by its very definition... majority rule. I am not trying to defend democracy, I am just noticing unrelated agendas in this section. I would bet money that the bit was written by an outspoken gay liberal American, frustrated by the current state of his country. Any takers? (Personally I feel that England's government structure is better (in theoretical terms) than that in the US, though I think it would be better still if the royal family played a larger philosophical role.)

-JR

Should discuss other relationships that are authoritarian. For instance parent-child relationships. Corporations are also very highly authoritarian as they are coerced cooperation. Thanks.

No title
"Another country once considered authoritarian is Spain, under Franco. Some considered Totalitarian are Cuba and North Korea."

My god aren't Nazi Germany and USSR under Stalin more obvious examples than Cuba and North Korea ?

Ericd 21:15 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the article classifies these as totalitarian, rather than authoritarian. I think these two articles should be merged: totalitarianism is simply the extreme case of authoritarianism.


 * -- Anon, 217.158.106.24


 * I'm not sure IMO totalitarianism has a strong ideologic support while authoritarianism is more pragmatic.


 * Is authoritarianism equal to non-democracy or not is an absolute monarchy a form of authoritarianism ?


 * Ericd 22:04 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * What would be your classification of an enlightened despotic ruler who allows for e.g. freedom of religion and to speak your own language, versus someone who does not, like Franco or perhaps Constantine (in the interests of forcing some national unification of a disparate population) or someone who wants to dictate all the aspects of your life and mold you into a drone to do his bidding such as Hitler, Stalin or Mao?


 * The first can approach a democratic rule in that it caters for the interests of everyone and is flexible (more libertarian) while the last is completely different. The rarity of totalitarian regimes suggests these are significantly different from authoritarian regimes to be classified differently. IMHO.


 * Truly libertarian regimes are rare (do they exist for long at all?) because every community needs some sort of rules and enforcement in order to endure. Otherwise it risks destruction from within.
 * A society without any rules and enforcement is known as Anarchy. This is different from a Libertarian regime. Also I believe that the phrase "Theocracies are always Authoritarian" should be changed to something less absolute. Finally I believe that a connection to Fascism should be made as these two go greatly together. Bengaska 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anonymous (194.65.100.7), 4:15 July, 2003 (UTC)

"Giant Flying Brick Vandalism" I will put it back in order. Find the culprit. Hadrian

A number of related pages have just been edited by the same, anonymous user (81.52.217.7), all illiterately, some PoV. I've just reverted this article to the last unaffected version. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've just tidied the English of the article, and found this sentence: &ldquo;In addition, critics of the thesis of developmental authoritarianism point to India, which had impressive of social forces that forced a transition to democracy.&rdquo;  Something's obviously missing from it, so I've removed it until I (or someone else) can rewrite it so that it makes sense. It was also inserted oddly between two sentences concerning S.E. Asia, so it would need to be moved somewhhere more sensible. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brave new world predicted
Wikipedia is Big Brother, you sit there editing the past to conform to what is commonly assumed to be correct, you've started the end of human civilisation and freedom! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.31.9.88 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia
Im a french student living in indonesia. I've lived in Indonesia for 15 years now and doubt that indonesia is an authoritarianist nation. It definitely used to be under Suharto's regime, but it is no more. This is a free country and probably the only free and democratic country in south-east asia. Thailand is authoritarianist though, well at least if people believe that Thailand is free country, then Indonesia   should also be considered a free country. Could someone change the map since I don't have the technical ability to do it... Thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.158.114.248 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you took that book 1984 a little to seriosly. (anonomus) Oops I meant to put this on the one ubove.(anonomus) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.252.43.252 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
I removed following text: ''However, this can be contested because even allegedly individualistic societies such as liberal democratic states show authoritarian tendencies where individuals are ranked in social hierarchies and democratic decisions are made by powerful leaders. Authors such as Noam Chomsky have commented on this asserting that presidential elections are funded by concentrations of private power and run by the public relations industry.''

First sentence is original research, and second is irrelevant to the subject. The source, as I can see, doesn’t support claim in the first sentence, nor it mentions "authoritarianism". -- Vision Thing -- 20:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The above is actually a common POV, and WP:CITE is not an offical policy, while WP:NPOV is. 72.139.119.165 21:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

hi boys its matt clarke

How about the broader meaning of authoritarianism?
Authoritarianism is also a large factor in the development of belief systems. Reliance on authority as a source of knowledge leaves societies open to all kinds of distortion of the truth.

The obvious 1984 (George Orwell) reference to Doublespeak is only caricaturized portrayal of our current reality - media tells us what's going on - and we believe them.

The Internet is a force for moving towaard more first-hand access to info - but credibility of all netinfo is questionable! Where does that leave us? I'm not sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robdashu (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Amending wrong edit
I delete all parts of definition concerning "source of power" which were added by me previously. I found I wrongly interpreted ideas of Dr. C.W. Chan from the University of Hong Kong at that time. He only defines dictatorship in terms of "source of power" but I incorrectly mixed up the concept of dictatorship and authoritarianism. The contrasts should be democracy to dictatorship, and liberalism to totalitarianism. Salt 10:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Electoral authoritarianism
This article mentions democratic authoritarianism. I am far from an expert on the issue, but I wonder if the name of this type of authoritarianism shouldn't be changed. There seems to be a growing body of literature that refers to such regimes as "electoral authortarianism." The Journal of Democracy had a series of articles using the phrase "electoral authoritarianism," including Elections Without Democracy: Thinking about Hybrid Regimes. The International Political Science Association held discussions on electoral authoritarianism. Also, there have been a number of books published on the series, such as Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Applying the theroy to country studies, there is The Fujimori Legacy: The Rise of Electoral Authoritarianism in Peru. I think that the basic idea is that many scholors believe that such regimes shouldn't be called "democratic authoritarianist" or democratic anything because in reality they don't deserve to be called democracies. All in all, someone might want to at very least add the phrase to this article, and perhaps even start an electoral authoritarianism article. --Descendall (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Authoritarianism and the Economy
In the late 20th-century political elites in East and Southeast Asia argued that countries with authoritarian regimes were more likely to be economically successful than democratic countries. Examples given to support this argument were South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, and Taiwan all of which were authoritarian and experiencing a period of rapid growth.

The belief that authoritarian governments were likely to economically out-perform democracies was reconsidered in 1997 during the Asian financial crisis.

There are of course many instances of authoritarian nations that have not encountered rapid economic growth. A good historical example is Spain in post-war Europe. More recent examples of poor economic performance in nations with authoritarian regimes are Myanmar and Zimbabwe.

Despite the Asian financial crisis the idea of developmental authoritarianism remains an attractive route to economic expansion in many developing nations. The Communist Party of China, which presides over the world’s fastest growing economy, uses this concept today as justification for its authoritarian rule.

While the link between political authoritarianism and economic growth may not be precisely understood, thinkers in anarchist and anti-authoritarian traditions have examined the "economy" itself as a realm of authoritarianism. In particular, similarities between business corporations and the state have often been highlighted. Both institutions are hierarchical, collective entities with clearly delineated chains of authority and command.

The Middle East and Middle Asia
The 21st century has the Middle East region with the highest concentration of authoritarian nations in the world. This is usually explained by reference to the region's cultural specificity (for example Bernard Lewis - Islam and the West) or its political economy.

It is true that historically the region has experienced an authoritarian tradition as exemplified by the Ottoman (13th Century to early 20th Century) and Mamluk (13th Century to early 16th Century) Empires; however, using culture to explain the region’s current political situations is rather a blunt tool. Cultural explanations fail to allow for regional diversity, are unable to account, or indeed allow, for progression and via their narrow focus fail to see the correlates between this region and other developing nations such as the People's Republic of China which have only relatively recently become members of the global political economy.

A Political Economy Approach
Political economists argue that the predominance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East can be explained by reference to the regions economic development. Internal and external factors need to be considered and the interaction between them if a coherent argument is to be made.

External factors include a consideration of the regional and national impact of colonialism and the point at which each of these nations joined the global economy. Internal factors such as indigenous social structures and pre-existing modes of production also need to be explored.

Colonialism
The territorial boundaries of most Middle East nations were determined by Colonial powers in the inter-war period following the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. Roger Owen argues that this is an important factor when considering the relationship between the state and its citizens. Clearly an imposed nationhood does not carry with it a presupposition of unity. Colonised nations were required to contribute to the economy of their governors. Stability and therefore control of the populace was an important feature of the state infrastructure. In the Colonial period, ‘typically, some two thirds of public expenditure was security related.’ (Owen. 1993. p10). The historical legacy of colonialism for the citizens of Middle Eastern states was therefore one of imposed unity, economic exploitation and a state intent on controlling rather than consulting its populace.

The Global World Economy
Colonial states were turned into the globe's producers of raw materials. They serviced and supported the capitalist economies of their colonizing country. Dependency Theory adherents therefore suggest that economic under-development in the Middle East is a result of entering the global economy in a subordinate position. In other words exploitation rather than cultural specivity.

A very different economically based theory is the "no representation without taxation" theory. This posits that people will generally only demand control over their government if they are taxed; so that a government which can fund itself and pay for civic services by exporting oil or other natural resources, rather than taxing the people, can survive as an authoritarian regime.

Indigenous Social Structures and Modes of Production
The authoritarian traditions of the Middle East have changed and evolved over time as the social, political and economic situation has changed. Political economists such as Nazih Ayubi argue that systems of patronage and clientelism are not the result of essential cultural traits but rather an outcome of articulated modes of production. The co-existing and articulated modes of production Ayubi refers to are those of capitalist waged labour and those indigenous to the Middle East for example artisans, merchants, crop-sharing.

Clientelism, which Ayubi describes as, ‘informal ties in which services (and some goods) are exchanged between people of unequal status’ (Ayubi. 2001. p169), as a concept has developed to accommodate these articulated modes of production in a macro-political setting. The resulting political structure is authoritarian corporatism. Political and economic power resides with the state which adopts the role of arbiter and mediates between a variety of social groups. With no class hegemony civil society becomes subordinate to the state.

--Neutralitytalk 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation
I'm confused. The criticism part seems to contain alot of A happens B happens... *hint hint* A caused B. I'm not especially happy about authoritarianism, I personally hate it but I don't know. The criticism part seems to be full of implications?

Lets say its a fact that melons are smaller under regimes with authoritarianism, and bigger under democracies.. then surely this does not automatically mean authoritarianism shrinks melons?

Little help here? Can someone explain to me please :) Annoying username (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Authoritarianism other than government
The intro today says:


 * Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of the state in a republic or union.

But this is a markedly narrow idea of "authoritarianism"; really only one use of the word. "Authoritarianism" describes a style of social behavior found in many spheres of life: notably in family and sexual relations, in corporate or workplace management, and in religion. The notion of authoritarian family structures is found in historical studies of the family (see pater familias) as well as in the psychoanalytic literature (Freud and Reich) -- and, of course, in feminist and anarcha-feminist literature (see patriarchy).

Or, put another way, authoritarian politics is not limited to the state, but is found in many other regions of society. --FOo (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI
If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"a bureaucracy that operates independently of rules"
This is an oxymoron! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

China
Why exactly is China singled out in this article, and is that one-sided rant really appropriate for wikipedia? Sounds like something from a Falun Gong adherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.63.125 (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the paragraph was long. But I'd really like to see other sections just as long.  Really, in our modern world of 2012, there are probably about 50 governments which can be viewed as authoritarian, overly so and unnecessarily so.  I'd like to have mid-sized paragraphs about any or all of them.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

previous China section
"The government of China is generally considered to be a modern authoritarian government. China is ruled by one party only, known as the Communist Party. The President of the People’s Republic of China in 2012 is Hu Jintao, who has held this position since 2003. However, the president is essentially a figurehead as he enjoys symbolic significance, but is both voted in by the National People’s Congress (China’s parliament)  alone and acts according to the decisions made by this single group. The National People’s Congress also holds the exclusive authority to remove the Chinese President from power.  Policies in China are created in high-level meetings, in which the general population has no input into the choices that are made for them. The government of China keeps watch over the Chinese internet meticulously, looking for anything that may be considered politically sensitive. They also block major social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter, as they are concerned that citizens may use these sites to organize public demonstrations. Furthermore, some citizens who have posted information on the Internet that is pro-democratic have been harassed and are sometimes even imprisoned. Another measure that the government of China has taken which many argue infringes on the rights of its citizens is the enforcement of the one-child policy of 1979, which limits each couple who are ethnic Han Chinese living in urban areas to one child. While this was done for purposes of population control, it has led to the killing or abandonment of many female babies (so that the couple may instead have a son to carry on their family name). Also, there have been multiple consequences for parents who have more than one child, including fines, pressure to abort, and forced sterilization. "


 * One thing I used to know from the 1980s was about Guatemala. Anything like a trade union or an agricultural coop, or any dissent, was viewed as unaccepted.  And whether the powers-that-be really believed such were "communist," they sure played the label game during the Cold War days to get military funding.  And much of what happened was just rank prejudice and squelching of various indigenous groups by the dominant Hispanic culture.  And there was a rebel army.  So there was some kernel of truth about armend insurrection, but exaggerated and overblown response.  The official Guatamalan army became the prime human rights abusers.


 * I hope things have improved in Guatamala. I really don't know.  I kind of think, things were so bad, can't really have improved that much.  But human beings are resilient and can sometimes be quite remarkable.


 * Time permitting, we can use sources like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.


 * Okay, coming back to China. Well, population-wise, it is the worldest largest country.  And for that, if for no other reason, it's worth covering in some detail.  Plus, we do have some information.


 * I added back most of the above paragraph with some editing. I say, let's keep most of the China information, and at the same time, try and add some other countries and areas of the world.   FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Democracy is authoritarian
Democracy as in rule by the people means that the individual has to submit to the will expressed by the collective. This means that democracy is inherently authoritarian. Amakan (talk • contribs) 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Under that definition, any form of government, except anarchism, is authoritarian. As law, as opposed to agreements, require submission and is enforced by force, not reason. [User:rxantos] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxantos (talk • contribs) 06:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tyranny by the Majority
"In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians.[1]"

How does the introductory statement make a distinction between authoritarianism by the majority and authoritarianism by the few?

The statement indicates that authoritarianism only originates through the impetus of internal government.

Authoritarianism is a degree of constrictive government management, but its is often substantiated upon the opinions and attitudes of a demographic. GeMiJa (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * GeMiJa, could you maybe point me to some reference material that elaborates on what you've brought up here. I want to make sure that I understand what you're talking about since your comments above are brief while the topic is quite broad. — Zujine |talk 04:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

First phrase nonsense ?!
This is also a form of goverment where you will be slapped unconcious in front of your own momma for not voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.119.153 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

China under Mao Zedong
The Peoples Republic of China today is in fact an authoritarian state, but China under Mao Zedong was a totalitarian state.--Anders Sjolfdjord (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Religion and authoritarianism
The article should maybe show the controversial relationship between religion and authoritarianism. Many authoritarian countries such as medieval France, the Byzantine empire, Spain's Franco, contemporary Iran and tribal India are or were known to have relation-based nationalism and authoritarianism. ADM (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a totalitarian State.--Anders Sjolfdjord (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Biased and Western Point-of-View Article.
This article is quite biased, and apparently seems to categorize any non-Westernized/Democratic state as "authoritarian", which is what the inclusion of monarchies entails. The sections titled "Examples of states which are currently (or frequently) characterized as authoritarian: "Characterized" by whom? I've lived in Saudi Arabia, no one regards the House of Saud as "authoritarian". And how come the Islamic leaders of Iran are regarded as "authoritarian" but not the deposed (and not insignificantly pro-Western) Shah? And why is the "gender" section even here? Does every Wikipedia article have to include a feminist interpretation now? But seeing as how most Wikipedia editors tend to be Westerners I'm sure if I remove something you're just put back in. Because "West is Best" and all that jazz.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are both extremly repressive States, the first one is an absolute Monarchy and the second one is a totalitarian State with pseudo-democractic elements.--95.114.39.216 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Southern States of the USA until the late sixties
The Southern States of the USA were also Racial Democracies.--95.114.13.246 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Very good point mate but we have to find references    kazekagetr  07:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Examples of authoritarian states]
The citations for a lot of these countries are very opinionated and demand review.

An example is Egypt's citation which is this news article reporting an unfair trial which took place which saw the execution of a great many of Mohamed Morsi's supporters. This is barely relevant and certainly cannot be listed as the citation to prove the validity of Egypt being on this list of examples.

I am not disputing whether or not Egypt should be on the list of example Authoritarian states (because I do agree with it being there), I just think this source should be fixed as well as for other countries which may have similar, faulty sources. Apologies if this was the wrong way to start this discussion or bring this to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selim (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"rule of man over the rule of law"
This is nonsensical! Law is man-made, any "ruling" proclaimed by anyone with the power to do so (which is another dubious problem) is both a rule by "man" and by "law." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only explanation I can think of is that the leaders aren't bound to the law of the land, but even then it's not necessarily true. The entire Characteristics section seems to contain a bias that violates the Neutral Point of View and should probably be flagged, several philosophers advocated authoritarian rule, especially for larger states, Montesquieu being particularly notable for suggesting that democracy only suited smaller states, Monarchism was most suited to medium sized states, and Despotism was most appropriate for large states. See Despotism Pongley (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel, personally, their is a difference between 'legal' and 'lawful'. DeadFire999 (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2015
Add United States Of America under Barack Obama to Authoritarian countries, this is due to Mr. Obama's blatant lies to the people he claimed to serve, and the federalization of the police with their complete disregard to the life of those they swore to protect.

DeadFire999 (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see our neutral point of view policies, as well as our policy for citing sources. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  01:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Far too many images
There are far too many images on this page, and I have removed some. See WP:GALLERY: "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." Here, there is no real encyclopedic value to having 7-8 mugshots of various autocrats in addition to another 4-5 elsewhere in the article; it does not add to the reader's understanding of authoritarianism. A few photos are good, but we don't need a dozen. Neutralitytalk 00:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

well i think that removing others and puuting bashar assad with a large pixel is non-netural unlike your user name. we could remove gallery but the other pictures stay for the illustrative purposes. kazekagetr 00:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Authoritarianism and democracy
The section "Authoritarianism and democracy" is very unclear.

The beginning of this section says that authoritarianism and democracy are not opposites. Much of there rest of the section, however, compares democratic and non-democratic states, which would only be relevant if the two were opposite. 128.156.10.80 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Become an editor. You may want to make an explanatory reference to "authoritarianism and democracy?"

Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was a totalitarian state
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was a totalitarian regime.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you pointing this out to suggest that it should not be included as an example of an authoritarian state? — Zujine |talk 05:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly this is my intention.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia
Republic of Macedonia is not an Authoritarian state, the citations are only to two newspaper articles. Non of them showing the authoritarian rule, Yes Macedonia have a political crisis, and large debate on the new buildings and statues, but there is a debate. Please remove Republic of Macedonia from the list as there is no evidence, and no real source of such a claim.

But Montenegro is an authoritarian state.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Montenegro?
Montenegro is an authoritarian state too.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015
Monte Negro under Milo Đukanović (Milo Đukanović, last Balkans autocrat) http://www.dw.com/bs/%C4%91ukanovi%C4%87-posljednji-autokrat-balkana/a-16888850

Real50 (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. a boat   that can float!   (happy holidays)  14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Russia, Macedonia and Armenia are not authoritarian States
Russia, Macedonia and Armenia are all not more authoritarian than Hungary under Orban, Montenegro under Djukanovic or Turkey under Erdogan. We can entry Russia, Macedonia and Armenia form the list too.--Gregori van Dannebourg (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Enough with removing RTE from this article. Like i said in my previous edit summary ''All those leaders or countries define themselves as democratic. It is the general view thats makes them Authoritarian. In fact RTE has the most references on that list. Please dont edit with POV. Drop that EU candidate or official statements thing. or None of these countries has a formal statement which says the regime is authorian it is a popular opinon. And being an EU candidate doesnt makes you fully democratic. Please stop removing referenced texts''

The main reason behind 2013–14 protests in Turkey is the authoritarianism of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan you can check the references on this article. ,, , elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 12:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In this regard, I don't think you're not neutral, Melih. We cannot evaluate whether Erdogan's authoritarian, by looking at comments from columnists foreign and biased media reports and reviews after the Gezi Park protests. It can not be decided by looking at the his policy after the protests. That a sufficient number of resources, it does not make reliable. Turkey take place between North Korea, China and Cuba as examples of authoritarian regimes, is just injustice and unacceptable. Also you violated clearly WP:3RR in 24 hours period! – Maurice Flesier (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

well mate first Of all biased according to who? cause these media outlets are finest among their collagues. and scondly no matter what, these sources are reliable and i am sure that admins will agree to taht. btw he\she was vandalising the page.

oh yea and also if he wasnt authotorian, why do turkish polls indicate that some people was in The gezi park protests because he was authotarian? kazekagetr 00:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * A small part of sources which indicates Erdoğan's authoritarianism.-- Reality 10:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And why do you come here after tweets of Culture and Tourism Minister who is member of AKP? Please don't be troll and read WP:NPOV!-- Reality 10:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Melih look at the title: Examples of authoritarian states,this is a topic related to the regime of the countries. Erdogan's personal authoritarianism can not be added to this article and list. Please take a look at the regimes list of countries. Single party regimes: Syria, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, China, Azerbaijan. Theocratic states: Iran. Monarchies: Saudia Arabia, Bahrain, Combodia, Coup d'état governments: Egypt, Burkina Faso. Which regime has adopted by Turkey? There are dozens of politians on that list that should be there before Erdogan. Nursultan Nazarbayev, Islam Karimov, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, Yoweri Museveni, Emomalii Rahmon, Omar al-Bashir, Idriss Déby and more. This controversial subject connect to just Gezi Park protests is not satisfactory and not enough to keep him here.


 * Yes, I'm asking you the same question Reality006. Why do you come here after 1 june 2013 seeing the minister's tweet? Erdogan was added this user single-sided and deliberately and I saw it when he made first edit. – Maurice Flesier (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Its not 'just' avout Gezi park protests, theses protests 'support' that he is authoritarian but not just that, there are also these references from 'reliable' sources. All those references comply with wikipedias reliable source policy. You are violating WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT now mate. And like Reality  said. You are here after that tweet. Looks lıke you are trying to finish what those IP vandals started. Also i ve updated all references, now 11 refs are valid and all say that Erdoğan is authoritarian. BTW Turkey is just like Azerbaijan dont you think? You can't talk against gov't or high rate of jailed journasilst or low ranking on World Freedom Index or high corruption. kazekagetr 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Recep Tayyip Erdogan is mentioned in "Authoritarianism and democracy" section in this context none of the guys above i.e. Nursultan Nazarbayev... fits to this section since unlike Erdogan they do not claim to have an advanced democracy in their countries. There are objective and reliable sources for his authoritarianism emerged within democracy. Also feel free to add any of the other authoritarian leaders to article if you have reliable sources and he fits to the context. Removing Erdogan is nonsense. --Abbatai 06:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually Turkey was never a real Democracy, Turkey before Erdogan was a Semi-Democracy at best, except for the time between 1923-1946, in this period Turkey was an authoritiarian regime, the time between 1946 until 1950, in this period Turkey was a Pseudo-Democracy and also the temporary periods of Military Dictatorships.--Anders Sjolfdjord (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Another wiev: in that part of the article, we refer to " Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World report." In that report, Turkey's ranks are all higher than all of the countries named below. I think we need more than a few opinion news links for that. I suggest we remove Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Turkey from this list, depending on the Freedom in The World Report. 3210king (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You can remove Russia, Macedonia, Armenia and Venezuela from the list too, this states are illiberal Democracies but not authoritarian regimes.--Gerhardt Rauchfeldt (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Error?
Under Gender and authoritarianism, it says


 * In countries with higher levels of gender equality, men held more authoritarian views.

That can't be right though, or it would be a counterintuitive finding that would need further explanation in the context of that section. I suppose this is an oversight error and it should rather read


 * In countries with higher levels of gender equality, men held less authoritarian views.

--85.197.48.25 (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done nyuszika7h (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Authoritarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919050732/http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/europe-and-central-asia/eurasia/belarus
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130102104633/http://groups.northwestern.edu/njia/?p=85 to http://groups.northwestern.edu/njia/?p=85
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224195621/http://www.tfd.org.tw:80/docs/dj0301_new/099-126-Sangmook%20Lee.pdf to http://www.tfd.org.tw/docs/dj0301_new/099-126-Sangmook%20Lee.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Pluralism in totalitarianism?
I'm utterly surprised and sceptical to read in this article that a defining feature (!) of totalitarianism is pluralism of all things. While there might be or have been totalitarian systems that allowed a degree of pluralism (though I'm very sceptical that there were or are), the assertion that "limited pluralism" does not characterise totalitarianism at all strikes me as extremely dubious; quite unbelievable in fact, and completely at variance with anything I've ever read anywhere else. (The cited source, unfortunately, is behind a paywall.) What kind of "pluralism" should there have been in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union? Where pluralism could have been found in Castro's Cuba eludes me as well. At best, the way this is being phrased is massively misleading, uses a completely idiosyncratic definition of "pluralism", or more likely is just bunk that quite possibly results from a complete misinterpretation of the source. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If what really is meant is what I now suspect is meant (in which case the wording is just very awkward and prone to misunderstanding), I suggest relabeling the row and having it say: Pluralism – No – Limited. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding and Removing States from Partial List of Authoritarian Regimes
I removed Armenia and Hungary from the list of authoritarian states. Armenia is an illiberal democracy rather than a true authoritarian regime;the OSCE holds that the country has had freer elections beginning in 2008 and Freedom House categorizes it as a partly free state (Not Free states are considered authoritarian under Freedom House's guidelines). I'm not sure how Hungary, a democratic member of the European Union, got onto this list - it was likely vandalism and was in no way justifiable. In reducing the number of states on the list I decided to add a couple more: Cameroon, Kazakhstan and Sudan were all put on the list, all being ranked as Not Free by Freedom House and recognized as authoritarian states by Amnesty International. Finally, I added a bit of information to the entry on Thailand which only recently became authoritarian and has a rather interesting form of government at this time. Mentioned that it was currently ruled by a military junta which overthrew the popularly elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra. If anyone has questions please contact me on my talk page! RememberToForget (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Philippines - President Duterte and/or Marcos (at least during the martial law era of his regime) must fall under this category, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.240.237 (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017
Hello,

Could you please add a link to this article: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

It would also be interesting to add something based on this article and citizen concerns for the changing dynamics of our country. Our awareness of our own tendencies toward authoritarianism is something important to our future. Awareness of our own tendencies leads to better choices as a country.

Thank you so much for your time! Shannongeis (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per this Washington Post article, which confirms using this cite would be circular sourcing. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 02:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

US as an authoritarian country?
Based on certain sources, the US can be considered an authoritarian state either during the George W. Bush era, or under the current leader. The proposed change is controversial, so I am putting it here for discussion and get a consensus. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 21:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The first source you provide is a 2016 article by Amanda Traub, published in the Vox (website). It is mostly speaking of members of the American public (and voters) who hold authoritarian views on a matter subjects, and which were apparently flocking to Donald Trump as the political candidate who more closely matched their views. While a fascinating article with some decent sources, it speaks more about authoritarian tendencies in the American public than actual policies of the American state. In a minor sample of the article, a political scientist studying authoritarianism is used as a source for the following:

"...a psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear." These voters apparently feel threatened by changes in status quo within the United States, by other (outsider) groups gaining prominence or influence, and by perceived external threats to their safety. They are seeking leaders who can maintain the status quo, reverse the changes which they dislike, prevent their rivals from rising to prominence or influence, and deal decisively with any perceived threat on the horizon. Fascinating, but I was quite reminded of the Know Nothing movement of the 1850s and a long-standing presence of Nativism in American politics. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Authoritarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060625203811/http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/g/gDf5Ty/6%20ray%20demo%20peace%20FIRST%20PROOFS.pdf to http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/g/gDf5Ty/6%20ray%20demo%20peace%20FIRST%20PROOFS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Jordan and Morocco

 * there’s no such thing that I can’t delete sourced content. In my edit I explained why I removed it. First of all it is inconsistent with Freedomhouse’s reports that rate both countries as semifree (the section allegedly is ranking countries based on Freedomhouse), and is inconsistent with the criteria stated in the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Liechtenstein?
Should Liechtenstein be considered authoritarian? The current Prince Hans-Adam II did threaten to leave the country if a referendum on expanding his powers in 2003 didn't result in his favor...key phrase: "expanding his powers". See here for more details perhaps? And prior to that, the Prince already had enough power on his own, maybe? --CatmanFan (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Different meanings of authoritarianism
The references used, even the scientific ones, refer to different meanings of the word "authoritarianism". This is clear even if you only read the page, and even more so, if you check which countries are listed as authoritarian or something else or if you read the definitions in the sources. --Forp (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that we should choose one meaning as the "correct" one and remove the others, but we should add a section where this is explained. The different meanings include: 1. non-democracy, 2. illiberal non-democracy, 3. either of the preceding, excluding its extreme forms, 4. non-ideological non-democracies (cf. totalitarianism). So socialist states like Venezuela are not authoritarian in the fourth sense, but totalitarian, whereas they may be authoritarian in the three other ways. One way to do this would be to just to add a new section where this is summarized and then some clearly nonequivalent definitions are listed. Probably we should not even try to produce different pages for the different meanings, as there is a full spectrum of different meanings, and the definitions in sources, if any, are often just intuitive summaries and not the exact definitions they use. --Forp (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Authoritarianism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Authoritarianism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Fear and Faith in Paradise": From Arab Winter:  From Arab Spring:  

Reference named "euronews": From Arab Winter:  From Arab Spring:  From Karl Marx: "Juncker opens exhibition to Karl Marx". Euronews. 4 Mary 2018 

Reference named "The Jerusalem Post": From Arab Spring: </li> <li>From Arab Winter: </li> </ul>

Reference named "Arab Winter":<ul> <li>From Arab Winter: </li> <li>From Arab Spring: </li> </ul>

Reference named "Yemen’s Arab winter":<ul> <li>From Arab Winter: </li> <li>From Arab Spring: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hungary
Why is Hungary being considered authoritarian? There is nothing authoritarian about Hungary and it should be removed from the list. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not about whether you think it is or isn't. The section is about governments that are "frequently characterized" as such, and obviously if you know Wikipedia, it's based on sources. Again, saying that there is "nothing authoritarian" about it doesn't help you. Mellk (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But that characterization is purely political, those who are describing the Hungarian government as authoritarian are doing so purely because they don't like it, in a similar way, for example, many people describe the Trump administration as authoritarian, of course this is ridiculous and purely political, does it mean we should add the U.S. to the list? -- Pedro8790 (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Pedro8790 is absolutely correct. They are not authoritarian.  They are a democracy and the current government could be voted out of office in the next election.  The slate article is a pure opinion piece and Wikipedia does not use pure opinion pieces as a reliable source for facts.  The same applies to the Foreign Policy article.   And no Hungary is not "frequently characterized" as such by all of the members of the EU, which Hungary of which Hungary is a member.  You might not like the politics of the current government but that does make Hungary an authoritarian country by any stretch of the imagination.CharlesShirley (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Describing something as "authoritarian" is a judgment call, not a hard-and-fast "fact." That being said, there are cited sources here and you can't just ignore them because you disagree with those sources. If there are sources which dispute the characterization of Hungary as authoritarian, those can be included and we can note that the description is debated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring them. I'm pointing out that they are opinion pieces. We don't take propositions put forth in an opinion piece as fact. They article itself states that the examples come from Freedom House's report Freedom in the World and Freedom House specifically states--this is report, not an opinion piece and the source cited in the Wikipedia article--that Hungary is a "electoral democracy".  You haven't provided anything to support your claim.  You just reverted my edit.  Please do not engage in an edit war. -CharlesShirley (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article clearly states that the Freedom House report is merely one source among many potential sources. Additionally, this article discusses how democracies can be authoritarian. This article already cites two sources for the characterization of Hungary as authoritarian; I'm quite certain more could be found, but that would be WP:CITEOVERKILL. You need to gain consensus for your proposed removal of material that has been in the article since last May. You are the one edit-warring in violation of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Your bold removal has been reverted and it's now incumbent upon you to gain consensus for your stated position. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, you mischaracterize the article — the article does not claim the description as "fact." Instead, it says The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of states which are currently (or frequently) characterized as authoritarian:. We are not saying, in Wikipedia voice, that Hungary is authoritarian; we are merely noting, as multiple independent reliable sources do, that Hungary's government under Orban is "currently [or frequently) characterized as authoritarian." For all your demanding of sources, you have cited zero sources here and are simply propounding upon your personal disagreement with the sources cited. That's not how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I have pointed out that those sources are opinion pieces. You cannot use them to support something as fact--especially if a better reliable source exists. The reliable source that I have provided is not a one person opinion piece from Slate magazine. It is a report from an international organization that works in this area each and every day. Now, please note that you are edit warring and you are one edit away from being violation also. It is incumbent upon you to provide a reliable source that is not a polemic opinion piece from Slate magazine to support your ludicrous claim that a member in good standing of the EU is "authoritarian". Also, the vast majority of articles that make the case of Hungary as authoritarian do not state that Hungary is authoritarian now but that it is moving in that direction. You need to provide something stronger than "Well, they are moving that way" to overcome a report from an international organization. The section in the article says that it is "Examples" so we should place in that section clear and convincing examples of authoritarian AND not countries that might be sliding toward authoritarianism, supported by an article that state that Hungary is slip sliding in that direction, written as a polemic by one loud voice in Slate. You have not made your case. The consensus is on the side on leaving out Hungary until you can provide definitive reliable sourced support for your claim. -CharlesShirley (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are making an edit to Wikipedia that says Wikipedia believes Hungary is an authoritarian country and you are citing an polemic opinion piece from Slate magazine to put words in the mouth of Wikipedia. This is wrong in so many ways.  You are doing while you are edit warring. You are doing while completely ignoring the most solid reliable source that calls Hungary an "electoral democracy".  The article literally says these countries are authoritarian from the perspective of Wikipedia.  The whole section is a sham.  If the section going to exist then it should only include clear and convincing countries that are unquestionably authoritarian.  But you are going way beyond that you are not only claiming North Korea is one according to Wikipedia but that Hungary is a card carrying member of the EU and you base that absurdity on a screaming, polemic opinion piece from Slate and you ignore a reasoned report from Freedom House that calls Hungary an "electoral democracy".  It is a sham. -CharlesShirley (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am citing multiple reliable sources for the statement that Hungary is often characterized as authoritarian, as the article clearly states. Your personal disagreement with these sources is irrelevant. There is no such thing as "unquestionably authoritarian" — Wikipedia is not concerned with finding the WP:TRUTH, but with reporting what reliable sources say. Reliable sources — many of them — say that Hungary under Orban is authoritarian. I'm sorry that you disagree with these sources, but whitewashing them is not an option. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course this is now an authoritarian country. See here; there are even books about it like Hungary: Between Democracy and Authoritarianism. My very best wishes (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Villains Fandom...
Authoritarians were branded as totalitarians in Villains and Real Life Villains Fandom. 112.201.4.7 (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Gender and Authoritarianism
The "Gender and Authoritarianism" section reads as follows:

'''According to a study by Brandt and Henry, there is a direct correlation between the rates of gender inequality and the levels of authoritarian ideas in the male and female populations. It was found that in countries with less gender equality where individualism was encouraged and men occupied the dominant societal roles, women were more likely to support traits such as obedience which would allow them to survive in an authoritarian environment and less likely to encourage ideas such as independence and imagination. In countries with higher levels of gender equality, men held less authoritarian views. It is theorized that this occurs due to the stigma attached to individuals who question the cultural norms set by the dominant individuals and establishments in an authoritarian society as a way to prevent the psychological stress caused by the active ostracizing of the stigmatized individuals. '''


 * Is "individualism" somehow correlated with gender inequality? I don't think so, because there tends to be more individualism in the US than in conservative traditional countries, yet conservative traditional countries have less gender equality.

Naddruf (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2019
Please change Laurent-Désiré to Laurent-Désiré Kabila. It sounds redundant since the second "Kabila" soon follows, but without both "Kabila"s, the reader might think that the previous ruler's name was simply "Laurent-Désiré." 208.95.51.53 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, could you move up Saudi Arabia on the alphabetical list? It belongs between Rwanda and Serbia, but for some reason it's placed between Singapore and South Sudan.  208.95.51.53 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Trialpears (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Chas. Caltrop's edits
, can you please not re-insert your edits over the objections of other editors, with uninformative edit summaries? This is especially troubling when I left you a polite message on your user talk page asking for you to engage here, and you merely deleted it without comment. You're obviously entitled to do so, but you're not entitled to strong-arm your changes to the text over others.

In this edit, you not only delete well-sourced material, but you also do things like eliminate page numbers from references (why would you do that?), delete some well-sourced material (Cerutti, Ezrow & Frantz), and mischaracterize the source. For example, Svolik says that the authoritarian state lacks "free and competitive" elections, not just "elections." Your edit summary is totally baffling to me (there's no "weasel-word original research" or "POV" here). Neutralitytalk 13:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Free and competitive elections is the key part. That's the standard definition which can be traced back to Joseph Schumpeter and Robert Dahl, and is the minimalist definition in past and current scholarship. I prefer your version of the text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * A reply


 * Dear Colleagues

Original research does not count as encyclopaedic. Your edits are full of opinions; you mention a man but not his work and the source is not by or about him. What is the purpose of your edit war?.


 * Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Chas: I have no idea what you are talking about (what "man"? what "original research"? what "opinions"?). You are now flagrantly removing well-sourced content, reference page numbers, etc., and mischaracterizing sources, against consensus (two users have expressed opposition to your edits, yet you continue to make them). Knock it off, please. Neutralitytalk 15:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * A second reply


 * Dear Colleague

What is the purpose of your edit war? Covering your tracks bespeaks edit war games. Sudenly, YOU do not know what's up? Re-read your edit summaries.


 * Regards

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Chas: The only one edit-warring here is you. We've made very clear what our concerns are:  Your removal of page numbers, unexplained removal of the Cerutti and Ezrow & Frantz sources, and mischaracterization of the Svolik source.  You've referred to "a man but not his work" (?) or "original research" but have not actually identified what your specific problem is. If you have a specific question, objection, or proposal, then you need to make it clear and actually obtain consensus before proceeding. Neutralitytalk 15:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Citing Communism as Authoritarian
National Communism (e.g. Stalinism) is Authoritarian. International Communism is not. I am inclined to change this citation. Muigwithania 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally, Communism itself, at least the society advocated by Karl Marx is not an authoritarian system at all. As a matter of fact it is described as a stateless society run by workers, sort of a collective direct democracy. Of course this has never been acheived and outside of the Anarchist experiment in Spanish Catalonia during the civil war never even attempted. Still the original reference to Communism was far to simplistic and vague, so I altered it. As a distinction should really by made between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. I realize that most communists see Leninism as being the practical application of Marxism, not all communists do. Examples being Left communism, Luxemburgism, etc. and of course governments led by Marxists that have supported political openness. (Canadianpunk77 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Marxism states that it begins as authoritarian (revolutionary socialism) and ends as anarchy (socioeconomic anarcho-socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.241.128 (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily so. During Marx and Engels' time, the vast majority of countries in western Europe were still authoritarian, and ruled for the interests of the elite minority. Switching over night from, for instance, an absolute monarchy in which 90% of the population are peasants, into a full fledged democracy would not have been remotely realistic. The only real democracies to speak of at that time were the United States and England, which Marx and Engels stated the conditions allowed for the possibility of communist revolution within the existing political frameworks of those countries.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pejorative term?
Would it be fair to describe 'authoritarianism' as a pejorative term, used only by people who are opposed to it? Or are there any groups or individuals that identify themselves as 'authoritarian'? Robofish (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Does something become pejorative because those who are described as such do not wish to be so described? — Zujine |talk 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually, yes; that's precisely how it works. 218.160.180.153 (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No. That would be the related, but distinct term "derogatory." Pejorative has only to do with the manner in which the speaker uses it, not the word itself. Many derogatory words (if not most) became derogatory as a result of frequent pejorative use. Contrariwise, some labels that were initially used pejoratively (e.g., Christian, queer) later were reclaimed by those that were labeled so.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020
In previous historical authoritarian regimes nazi Germany is missing 86.3.40.20 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 10:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Additions about fascism in the lead
has now reverted my addition about fascism to further confirm and verify fascism as a category. This has nothing to do about our dispute over communism and you also reverted other edits that had nothing to do with it. If I did remove again communism from categories, then you may have had a point, but I did not remove it again; I simply added sourced content to the lead to further verify fascism as a category. agreed with my edit, so again it is only you who is unilaterally reverting back despite one user agreeing with my addition and more users disputing communism as a category. Ironically, this is authoritarianism; you are reverting back and removing my addition about fascism despite being supported by another user and my removal of communism, despite now at least four users disputing its inclusion.--Davide King (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion is above, you don't need to open paralell talking sections and recurrently summarize your own thoughts, that are anyway presented above, along with reactions and answers.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC))
 * See continuation just for reference. The above discussion is about communism as category; this one is about my additions about fascism in the lead. This one seems to be solved as I did put the sentences in the main body. The main issue seemed to be about the addition in the lead.--Davide King (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reference to my talk page does not count much here. the issue have been already discussed above, but let's close this thread, beucase it has been already settled.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC))
 * I agree! I was just pointing out and making clear that I wrote you back there for anyone interested in following the discussion and wanting to reply to each of our points, etc. Unless someone believe it was lead worthy, then I agree this is no longer an issue.--Davide King (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Communism
A disagreement about property rights does not imply authoritarianism. Communists supports common property rights, so wanting to turn private property into common property does not make it authoritarian. By the same logic, capitalism is authoritarian because it denies common property rights, so whom do you think the common land belonged during the enclosure and the genocide of indigenous peoples? That was common property which was forcefully turned into private property. So what exactly is authoritarian about communism? Leninism and Marxism–Leninism may be authoritarian, but communism is not just that and communism itself does not advocate for one-part states and it is disingenuous to all communists and other socialists who fought that and died for it. At the very least, we would need strong reliable sources that link authoritarianism and communism, or that say communism is authoritarian, preferably avoiding anti-Communist ones. I think for the political ideologies to be listed as categories, we should only link fascism and Leninism (Marxism–Leninism, Nazism et al are already linked as categories at Totalitarianism and there is no need to repeat that here).

It would be more appropriate to use Category:Marxism rather than Category:Communism because Leninism and Marxism–Leninism are forms of Marxist communism, but I would oppose that for similar reasons. This is not like fascism which explicity makes it about authoritarianism or uses it as a core concept; and again, we would link scholarly sources that link Marxism as a whole to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism simply is not a core concept to communism or Marxism the way it is to fascism. This seems to be more based around the totalitarian twins concept. Davide King (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the presense at Totalitarianism does not exclude inclusion here, and just to shorthening to eninism contradicts the mother article.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , this does not change the fact we do need reliable sources that explicity reference to communism as a whole being authoritarian, not just Marxist–Leninist regimes. On Google Scholar, I could find it used in references to Marxist–Leninists regimes; and when they write of Communism, this is what they are talking about, not communism. There are more hits for "liberalism" "authoritarianism". Similarly, there are more hits for "authoritarian liberalism" than "authoritarian communism". Davide King (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is evidently associated with Communism as well, not the number of results are decisive necessarily on this, moreover the general defintion and description similarly supports inclusion.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , that is your own personal opinion and original research/synthesis. For example, what is this general defintion and description similarly supports inclusion? Since you are the one who wants to add the category, the onus is on you to provide sources that support communism as a whole being authoritarian rather than Marxist–Leninists regimes. Davide King (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This . No it it is not my personal opinion, you presented as well sources that mentiones Communism (and it is either funny for such an evident thing like the relation of Communism and Authoritarianism you wish to identify as OR as well). Sorry, not I am the one who wants to add the category, it has been longstanding part of the article, you have to reach consensus for removal.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC))


 * , no mention of communism; if it was such as obvious and evident as you claim, it would be easy to find, but it is not and there is no mention of communism. I also do not see what political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people has to do with a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state. One cannot simply easily ignore or disregard all the communists who rejected the Soviet Union and did that by 1918 already or even before October 1917, so it was not ipso facto; and if we had communism, we might as well add capitalism, conservatism, liberalism and socialism. After all, there is authoritarian capitalism, authoritarian conservatism, authoritarian liberalism and authoritarian socialism. I would support adding only fascism and Leninism because authoritarianism is considered a core concept and tenet of both. Davide King (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the sources that do mention communism are overwhelmingly referring to Marxist–Leninist regimes, i.e. one form of communism, not all communism; and I think that what they actually mean by communism is more important than merely mentioning communism as an euphemism for Marxist–Leninist regimes. If they use communism to mean Marxist–Leninist regimes, we should interpret that as references for Marxism–Leninism, not communism as a whole, i.e for Marxism–Leninism, not communism. All ideologies but fascism have a more authoritarian and less authoritarian strand. Davide King (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say the article mentioned it, you wished to know the general definiton. What you quoted is not mutually exclusive. Opposition always existed, but it does not annihilate general charachteristics. If you wish to add further categories that fairly meets inlcusion, just go on, it will be checked either. Even there would be a significant reference to Marxist-Leninism, it still does not exclude other types, even if you wish to interpret like so. Here the issue is not if something more or less authoritarian.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , then what was your point if it did not mention it? This is not Sky is blue. We do need an explicity statement from reliable sources that associate authoritarianism and communism and there needs to be some consensus among sources, preferably academic and scholarly ones. The fact it does not exclude other types should not be used as support to imply communism itself or as a whole is authoritarian. What you fail to realise is that we should probably only list ideologies whose core concept and tenet is authoritarian; authoritarianism is not a core concept of communism, just like it is not a core concept of liberalism and other ideologies, yet there have been authoritarian regimes of both. This is going nowhere, so I hope, , , and , who did recently commented on this Talk:Totalitarianism or at Talk:Communism, can express their thoughts. My view is that we should only list fascism and Leninism here and fascism, Maoism, Marxism–Leninism and Nazism at Totalitarianism. Communism does not have neither categories while Leninism does have Authoritarianism and both Maoism and Marxism–Leninism also have Totalitarianism. Sources do refer to Leninism, Maoism and Marxism–Leninism as either authoritarian or totalitarian, but my view is that for communism is more complicated and is distinguished from Marxism–Leninism, so we should do the same. Davide King (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You asked about it. I do not fail to realize anything, sources mention Communism, even if you wish to restrict their interpretation because some parts of it are referred more. What is apparent you try to soften anything contrary to Fascism, although all ideologies and their application had more x and/or less x strand, it reminds me again those struggles between the evaluation left-right ideologies and trying to deminuate one in connection of the other.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , as was noted below by, we do need reliable sources that make the connection and add them to the main body. You did not provide any. Until then, they should be removed. Davide King (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources mention Communism, as you presented, and Levivich is not totally right in everything what he describes, since Communism is mentioned by the examples.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , except as I noted, they refer to Marxist–Leninist regimes, not to communism as an ideology; and just because they use Communism as a word for Marxist–Leninist regimes, that does not justify using the Category for communism. However, it does justify it for Marxism–Leninism because that is essentially what they mean by it and this is what matters to determinate that. Davide King (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is your opinion and interpretation, although you even you said this demonstration is not exclusive (and both are ideologies as well).(KIENGIR (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , the same goes for you. You seem to conflate communism for Marxism–Leninism and Marxist–Leninist regimes. You also misinterpret sources that are explicity and clearly about Marxism–Leninism and Marxist–Leninist regimes as supporting your argument. For example, here you did misinterpret writing Aron drew parallels between Soviet communism [i.e. Marxism–Leninism], Nazism and Italian Fascism. Aron considers all three political regimes to be totalitarian. Notice how it says Soviet and political regimes? In other words, this and other claims I found on Google Scholar can be used to support the claim Marxism–Leninism is authoritarian and that Marxist–Leninist regimes were totalitarian; they cannot be used for the claim that small-c communism is authoritarian or totalitarian, so it needs to be put as category, because that is not what the sources say. The fact you may think that just because Marxism–Leninism is Communist, then communism is too or that somehow warrants small-c  communism category, is not supported by sources. If we have to, we should only put the authoritarian strands such as Marxism–Leninism and what sources actually refer to, not our own interpretation. Davide King (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say anything about the relationship between communism and authoritarianism, and for this reason, the article shouldn't be in Category:Communism. For the same reason, it shouldn't be in Category:Marxism–Leninism, or Category:Fascism. Surprising that the article doesn't say that fascism is a type of authoritarianism, but it doesn't, although Fascism does, and is properly in Category:Authoritarianism. Bottom line: categories should be supported by the body.
 * It doesn't matter if I think communism is or isn't a type of authoritarianism (isn't), it matters only whether reliable sources say it, and if so, we can add it to the article and then add the category. Until then, it and other unsupported categories should be removed.
 * Now, who do I see about getting paid my two cents? :-) Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 02:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comment. I essentially agree and I hope you can help us find and understand what reliable sources say. My understanding is that they do refer to fascism and Marxism–Leninism as authoritarian and consider authoritarianism to be a core principle or tenets but not to communism itself or communism as a whole (they do use Communism as an euphemism for Marxism–Leninism, yet they do distinguish between the two and we do and should do the same) but you are right that we should add them first to the main body and then as categories. It should be like we do for the lead; we need reliable sources that do confirm it in the main body. Davide King (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to read my reply. The article is a general description of authoritarianism, examples are relevant, which do not contradict current categorization.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , I did and I stand by my words because as correctly pointed out by, [t]he article doesn't say anything about the relationship between communism and authoritarianism, and for this reason, the article shouldn't be in Category:Communism. You seem to see the definition of authoritarianism and believe it to fit communism (that is original research and synthesis) but it is up to reliable sources in establishing a connection between communism and authoritarianism; and they only do that in relation to Marxism–Leninist regimes, not to the broader communist ideology. Davide King (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No way, you again misinterpret here the things again. What Levivich said, was partially fallacious and I described why. The article mentions Communism by the examples, so Levivich does not really got his two dollars, as well you should not invent any reason to systematically remove from articles the category of Communism (which are reinforced even the sources you refer of and you address to them your own interpretation admittedly).(KIENGIR (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , see my response above. How was 's argument fallacious? Neither this article nor Communism mentions or link communism to authoritarianism, so Levivich is right that the added categories need to be supported by reliable sources in the main body. Either way, we are wasting our time; we are obviously going to agree to disagree, so let's wait for other users' imput. I for one would like to hear Levivich's response about your fallacy accusation, so please reply to me only above and let's leave this space for Levivich and others' response. Davide King (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, let also others to discuss. Btw., I just explained, read back Levivich in case. The article body contains the examples, which contains the association with Communism.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Again, no mention of communism or something like "communism", just the usual Marxist–Leninist regimes. So the main body does support Marxism–Leninism, it does not support small-c communism. Nothing new. Davide King (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Man, this coronavirus recession has been tough :-)
 * Per WP:CATV, WP:CATDEF, and WP:DEFINING, the article should say, with sources, that "communism" is a defining characteristic of "authoritarianism" before we can put the article Authoritarianism into Category:Communism. Not that communism is an example of authoritarianism, but that it's a "defining characteristic".
 * Similarly, we'd need the article Communism to say, with sources, that authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of communism before can put Communism into Category:Authoritarianism.
 * Personally, I don't think there are RSes that say either, but I could be wrong about that. I don't see those RSes in either article.
 * I think RSes say that authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of Marxism–Leninism, and thus we can put Marxism–Leninism into Category:Authoritarianism. However, I'm not sure if sources say that Marxism–Leninism is a defining characteristic (not just an example) of authoritarianism, and thus I don't think Authoritarianism should be in Category:Marxism–Leninism. Same for Fascism.
 * This is like "all cats are animals but not all animals are cats". Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. I believe that is a correct interpretation of our guidelines. While there may well be some sources who consider even small-c communism authoritarian, there is not agreement among sources that it is a defining characteristic the same way it is for fascism. So please feel free to remove categories not verifiable in the main body. I would do that myself, but I am afraid KIENGIR is going to revert and I do not want to engage in edit warring, even though I believe the guidelines are clear and you are correct about that. Davide King (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed categories Communism, Fascism, and Marxism-Leninism as not being sourced in the body. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 17:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FTR I agree with the re-addition of Category:Fascism because it also came with an expansion to the article body about the relationship between authoritarianism and fascism. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 19:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I have to restore the previous state, because the argumentation is again fallacious and no consensus were achieved. I.e. Vietnamese Communist Party is mentioned along others which share Communism, etc. Just because both of you are cherrypicking categories you like, remove others you don't like, although as I described the article has a general definiton, and examples are following. Now, as you two agreed on Fascism (as generally this goes next to the wish to the systematic elimination of Communism), you modify the article accordingly, to post-justify the cherrypicking.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , no consensus was achieved to have it in the first place; there was no discussion before this one (on the other hand, there was one here which disputed it), so I suggest you to self-revert and discuss it. The Vietnamese Communist Party is Marxist–Leninist and may justify Marxism–Leninism as category but not authoritarianism as a core communist trait; on the other hand, you did unjustifiably reverted my addition about fascism. Finally, 's arguments seem to be backed up by guidelines, so you keep complaining (or using personal attacks to falsely and wrongly accuse us the systematic elimination of Communism when that is supported by the guidelines and lack of sources, or repeating that it is a fallacy does not take you or us anywhere. Davide King (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have actually read WP:CATV and I confirm that is indeed correct, so there is no fallacy. The only fallacy I see is you making original research and synthesis when sources and body do not support your claims. Davide King (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

, please do the right thing and self-revert. There was no consensus in the first place; I saw the history of the article and it was simply added and removed back and forth. There was no discussion or consensus, but there have been users who have disputed that. So I believe you should revert and that the onus is on you for why it should be added since you are the one proposing that to be added, despite not following WP:CATV and you misinterpreting sources talking about and referring to Marxist–Leninist regimes, making a original research and synthesis out of them as they are supporting communism as category rather than what they are actually talking about and discussing, i.e. Marxism–Leninism. The fact that Communists in countries such as France, Italy, Portugal, Nepal, Spain and others have either been part of the democratic process or had a role in re-creating it after fascism, or how communists took part in Chiapas, Manchuria, Spain, Ukraine and others without creating a Communist state easily disprove communism as a category (Marxism–Leninism et al? Sure). The same cannot be said of fascism, the only ideology whose core characteristic is authoritarianism. Davide King (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

, you have been edit warring and reverting everything, despite being reverted back by two different users and having users who do dispute your rationale for the addition, for which there was no consensus in the first place (it was added and removed back and forth without any discussion). So I invite, , , , , , and whoever is reading this discussion to state their thoughts because you are being disruptive and falsely claiming to have consensus for the addition while rejecting mine and Levivich's call to follow WP:CATV's guidelines as fallacies. Same for Totalitarianism. Davide King (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you that Communism should be removed as a category, as Communism by definition - a classless and stateless society - is not authoritarian. Fascism, which is essentially authoritarian nationalism, clearly is. I will add that while Marxist-Leninist regimes (or Communist states) have been authoritarian, some Marxist-Leninist parties/orgs not in power, such as Communist Party USA, actually promote democratic values.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King,
 * I have to urge you to don't twist rules, you wall of text is following the same pattern, you try to explain yourself out by harming our policies. Yes, no consensus was achieved, as you say, hence you should have remained in the talk page achieve it and continue discussion, which has also other participants, and keep WP:BRD, until after everybody is expressing himself, this you fail recurrently, hence it is ridiculous that you accuse me about edit-warring (self-revert you should have done at every instance you ignored earlier warnings), since you are doing that, I acted per policy. The Vietnames party is a communist party, and again, if there is a dispute resolution I may restore the page to an earlier state, regardless what you add. No personal attacks have been made, I urge to avoid all misleading argumentation to justify your preferred version, and because of you I have to repeat something that is clear, since you admit the sources contain Communism, but you wish interpret and narrow it to just Marxism-Leninism, that is dubious (and better OR, contrary to your accusation). Regarding WP:CATV, you maintain a post-hoc argumentation, since the core did not contain anything about ideologies before the examples, so by this all categories related should have been removed per your argumentation, but instead you modified the article per your POV to post-justify and anyway dubious argumentation without consensus, that is against our policies accordingly (which you apparently don't know properly, not understanding status qou ante principle though, etc.).(KIENGIR (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , this is absurd. Now we have, and  who agree that communism as a category is problematic, you are the only one supporting that to be added; and yet you are unilaterally reverting every edit I made, including adding about fascism which has nothing to do about communism and which just further verify and confirm that the addition of fascism as category is actually justified whereas communism is not. As noted by C.J. Griffin, there are now even Marxist–Leninist parties who promote democratic values or otherwise reject the undemocratic nature of Stalinism and other Marxist–Leninist states, so probably only fascism is justified and verified as category. Again, you make the mistake of assuming that since sources say Communism, then they must be referring to small-c communism, when they are clearly discussing Marxist–Leninist regimes. Similarly, you conflate (Marxist–Leninist) communist parties for communism as if that supports adding communism as a category rather than Marxism–Leninism. Finally, since you yourself admitted that no consensus was achieved to have it in the first place as it was added and removed back and forth over the years without any serious discussion, then it should be removed as there was no consensus to add it in the first place; and whether you like it or not, it is not actually verified per WP:CATV. You are the one who wants to add communism as category, so the onus is on you for why it should be added and we should return to the status quo ante that did not include it. Davide King (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, absurd is you still do not understand what you did wrong (I did no "wrongly removed" anything). Bacondrum is not even present in this discussion. Reverting per policy to an earlier version is not an unilateral revert. The article contains in the examples many parties with different ideologies. I just reiterated what you said, that sources mention Communism, not even in an exclusive way. Again, you misinterpret what means consensus, still you don't understand it's meaning, like status qou ante or last stable version. With this you'll only achieve one thing the intermediary edits unrelated to the debate will be also rolled back. Sorry, Communism category has been part of the page before I appeared or even our debate started, so you totally misqualify what the current status quo ante means here.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , what you missed is that it was not always there in the first place. I checked the article's history and it was added and removed back and forth without any serious discussion or consensus. Addition of communism to category was bold, I and others disputed it and reverted it, so we should return to the version before the addition and what we should discuss is whether to add it, not whether to remove it, because there was no consensus or discussion to have it in the first place. By the way, Communism and Communist parties are two different things. Davide King (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not miss anything, just in the other page, you demonstrated again you still do not understand our policies (and you should not mirror repeat in all pages everything twice and mix the things). There is not disctinction about bold or consensus here, the last stable revision contains it.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , yet there is a greater number of users who dispute it and I still see no consensus or discussion to include it; and you did wrongly remove the sourced addition about fascism which has nothing to do with our dispute about communism, so please re-add that yourself. Davide King (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This your point of view, but policies tell otherwise (I could not wrongly remove anything). New consensus needs the agreement of all participants. Also have in mind in the lead we usually don't cite sources. Since I have never removed the category of Fascism, you don't have to concern on this.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , how is it my point of view when we have, and I who believe it should not be in categories versus you, who believe it should be? Again, you did wrongly removed my additions about fascism which was sourced and had nothing to do about our dispute over communism. You write in the lead we usually don't cite sources but in this case, we do; so what is your point exactly? What is your issue with my addition about fascism? Again, it is Levivich and I who support it versus you who does not. Davide King (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your point of view is what you replied me earlier, as you now again reaiterate it, saying I would wrongly removed something, which I did not (again please read back or understand what means resetting a last stable version. There is no rule it should only include "disputed" parts, however, given the structurally meant changes you introduced without consensus based on an unfinished discussion is as well debatable, not necessarily the content). Sorry, the lead is not for citing sources, it should summarize the article's content. Also I have to draw your attention the category of Fascism is present at the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , that still does not justify the reversal of my addition to the most stable version about fascism. That is supported by and I also did open a discussion about it just below this discussion. I believe it is lead-worthy because it also says scholars argue that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist. Davide King (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you again speak against policies, which confirm what I said. About how to edit lead and what should it contain and how, there are also other policies. I don't see this discussion very contructive as every time I have to draw your attention to somrthing you don't know, although you should at this point so far, or even earlier, before entering into a deep argumentation.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , what policies now? You are also actually wrong about WP:LEADCITE because it is based on a case-by-case analysis on whether to use refs in the lead or not; and the whole lead here is cited. Rather, the issue seems to be that you saw my addition as not lead worthy whereas I disagree. Either way, I did add it to the main body, so I hope at least this dispute is done. Davide King (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I was not wrong (also??), the cited section tells Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, and nothing was in the body, on he other hand necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus, so it is irrelevant if the other parts of the lead were cited.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC))
 * So you are saying that our lead here is full cited because nothing was in the body, then what was wrong with my addition there? It was also cited and was not in the body. It seems to be you think it was not WP:DUE or something. Because there was nothing wrong per WP:LEADCITE. It was sourced just like the rest of the lead because like the rest of the lead nothing was in the body, yet I do not see how that contradicts the body or how it is not relevant or a summary. I see nothing in the main body that contradicts that. Davide King (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not say what you invent now. I explained clearly what was my problem, and just because you think there was no problem, means you again did not interpret properly the policies described.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC))
 * See my response here just for reference.--Davide King (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I think Davide looks clearly in the right on this disagreement. Only the specific philosophies that are definitively authoritarian (as supported by the bodies of their respective articles) should go into Category:Authoritarianism, not the broader classes of philosophies that contain those; and most to the point here, the converse shouldn’t happen at all, Authoritarianism shouldn’t go into any category that authoritarianism itself isn’t defined by. So if Stalinism is definitively authoritarian but communism more generally isn’t, which I think is correct, then Stalinism should go in Category:Authoritarianism but Communism shouldn’t. And this article Authoritarianism shouldn’t go in Category:Communism or anything like that, because authoritarianism is broader than any narrow category like that. Authoritarianism isn't defined by its being communist, even if some varieties of communism are authoritarian (or even if all varieties of communism were authoritarian, it's still backward, because there are non-communist forms of authoritarianism too).

His understanding of WP:BRD sounds correct to me too: putting in the category was the bold move, that got reverted, and now there should be a discussion about whether to re-add it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So what do we do now? We have, , and I disagreeing with the addition and only KIENGIR supporting it.--Davide King (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest, the categorizations are anyway a huge weak point of WP, with plenty of mistakes and rapid changing by the corrections of it, for instance what you recommended would imply massive changes regarding categories, would you believe i.e. the category Marxism-Leninism does not contain the category Communism, but not even a subcategory of it? So first of all the categories on their own should be clarified and cleared, and only after any page categoriztaion maybe carried out safely, since anyway it is only a secondary appliance of them. On the other hand, be in mind that Davide King is conflating his many time erronous observations of the rules with happenings in other pages, at is has been already demonstrated (as well by the reference to his discussion in my talk page).
 * I mean, seriously? Then let's put category communism in category Marxism–Leninism and vice versa. The fact there are plenty of mistakes does not justify the addition of yet another mistake by adding communism here when that is not supported by sources or the main body; only authoritarian strands of communism are and we should simply add those; because that is what sources do too, they are referring to them, they are not saying that communism is a characteristic of authoritarianism and vice versa. As for your accuses against me, let's let speak their own thoughts.--Davide King (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I support it. However, I never argued like so just because of other mistake another should been done, again, the article's main body mentions Communism more times.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC))
 * would you believe i.e. the category Marxism-Leninism does not contain the category Communism, but not even a subcategory of it Your grammar is a little confusing here, but it seems to me that the article on Marxism-Leninism should be in the category Communism, and if there is a category Marxism-Leninism it should be a subcategory of the category Communism, but the category Marxism-Leninism should not contain the category Communism, nor should the article on Communism be in the category Marxism-Leninism. That's basic set theory: narrower sets are inside of broader ones. So the categories on Communism and Authoritarianism should neither be inside the other (because neither is a subtype of the other, though they intersect), and the articles on Communism and Authoritarianism should not be in the opposite respective categories (because neither is defined by the other), but if there is a subtype of communism like ML or Stalinism that, according to well-sourced claims in the body of its article, is defined by its authoritarianism, then that article should go in the category Authoritarianism, but that wouldn't mean that the article Authoritarianism should go in the category that corresponds to that main article (if such category exists). --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your understanding is quite correct, the the category:Marxism-Leninism should be the subcategory of the category:Communism (hence the category Marxism-Leninism should not contain the category Communism would became null and void by logic). The article of Communism fairly may be categorized with Marxism-Leninism. The rest of your deduction of category principles appear to be correct, but given the number of variables and factors any change should be clearly point by point described and discussed to avoid really any misunderstanfding.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Your writing makes it a little difficult for me to be sure I understand you, but it sounds like maybe you're not understanding subset relations. Category:Marxism-Leninism should be a subcategory of Category:Communism, but Category:Communism should not be a subcategory of Category:Marxism-Leninism; the relationship only goes one way. That last part is what I meant by "the category Marxism-Leninism should not contain the category Communism"; a category containing another category is the same thing as the latter category being a subset of the former.
 * Likewise, while the article Marxism-Leninism could maybe go into Category:Authoritarianism (assuming the body of the article supports ML being defined by its authoritarianism), that wouldn't mean that this article (Authoritarianism) should go into Category:Marxism-Leninism, because authoritarianism isn't defined by its being Marxist-Leninist; there's lots of other kinds of authoritarianism too. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok let's try to make it more clear, I am professional in subset relations, don't worry, everything depends on just how effective we may express each other.
 * "Category:Marxism-Leninism should be a subcategory of Category:Communism" -> YES
 * "Category:Communism should not be a subcategory of Category:Marxism-Leninism" -> YES, not applicable by category hierarchy
 * "That last part..." -> Obvious
 * "the article Marxism-Leninism could maybe go into Category:Authoritarianism" -> Already it have been like this, so nothing to do
 * "that wouldn't mean that this article (Authoritarianism) should go into Category:Marxism-Leninism, because..." -> Already the page have been in that category, any kind having authoritarianism may be linked to the article, tha't the principle of categorization.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Whether it "already have been" (is English not your first language? no offense intended, just curious if that's behind the communication difficulties) is beside the point, the question is whether it ought to be. And since you seem from the rest of your responses to understand how sets and subsets and members should work, it seems like that should be clear to you. Authoritarianism is not a kind of Marxism-Leninism, and so should not go in that category. On the other hand, if Marxism-Leninism is a kind of authoritarianism (which is plausible), it should go (or stay) in that category. It only goes one way, not both way. --Pfhorrest (talk)
 * For comparison: Christianity is a kind of religion, so the article Christianity should be in Category:Religion. But religion is not a kind of Christianity, so the article Religion should not be in Category:Christianity. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not my first language, but I think not necessarily linguistic problems we may have. I understand what you say, but the set-subset principle meant to work in Category:templates, that is not identical with page categorizations, so we have to handle the two issues separate in a way.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Davide King, it is quite unprofessional you list recurrently your alleged list of users who may agree with you - this was once erronous as well -, since by establishing consensus it is irrelevant. If you pinged so many users recurently, let's see what those would say who did not express their opinion yet and stay calm.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Now you are not even assuming good faith. It was a simple question, I did not even argue or imply that there is consensus; and then how exactly is consensus achieved according to you? At Talk:Totalitarianism, you and Rjensen seemed to be enough to establish consensus here.--Davide King (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it has nothing to with the assumption of good faith, simply I wish you to clearly understand the rules and principles (not according to me, but to WP). The case you refer is not as you describe, other editors could not estalish with me and Rjensen consensus regarding removal.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Could you please clarify how [t]he case you refer is not as you describe, other editors could not estalish with me and Rjensen consensus regarding removal? Again, it was just you and Rjensen and considering the controversial proposal (since communism rightly does not have neither Authoritarianism nor Totalitarianism as categories) and I do not see a clear or definitive consensus (the discussion is still ongoing); if there was one, I no longer see it there as the more users who took part found issue with it and with all due respect you cannot simply disregard and 's arguments as nothing special and fallacious, respectively. In my view, they are simpy and correctly following WP:CATDEF guideline as defining, not merely related.--Davide King (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This we discussed many times, but if you wish one more...You stated you and Rjensen seemed to be enough to establish consensus, that is a false statement, since you linked to a discussion which part involving us was about establishing consensus for removal initiated by a third party, that was NOT achieved. Again, you don't seem to understand fully categorizations and confusing pages in categories with categories itself, that was just discussed above, ot in the other page. I.e. sub-category relations are not identical by the two. I reflected to both user's arguments, so you cannot say I would disregard anyone you are recurrently pinging over (?). Btw. defcat is not contradicting what I explained to you.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Yet there was not a discussion to achieve consensus in the first place, so maybe there should be a request for comments? I believe WP:CATDEF is clear. By the way, I hope that for consistency's sake, since you believe that mere relation is enough, you will not have problem to add capitalism, nationalism and perhaps others? Since you believe I am confusing things, do not know the rules, etc., then I let, , , , , , , . ,  and anyone else to reply back to you. Maybe they agree with you or changed their mind; or maybe they can give you a better argument and points without making my same confusion. I think it is a waste of time discussing this between you and I only, so I will try to avoid write you back to leave those other users' space to express their thoughts. Davide King (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As expressed in the other page where you put an almost identical reply, we may only move forward if pages in categories and categories are not confused and their connotations are understood properly. This is essential.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC))
 * You said something about this earlier that I didn't understand and didn't have time to follow up on. Could you please explain what you mean again? Pages in categories and categories themselves are different things, of course, but nevertheless the same principles of set-subset and set-member relations apply. Which if any of these do you disagree with?
 * Category:Dogs should be a subcategory of Category:Mammals.
 * Category:Mammals should not be a subcategory of Category:Dogs.
 * The article Dog should be in Category:Dogs, and consequently auto-including in Category:Mammals, because Category:Dogs should be in Category:Mammals.
 * The article Mammal should not be in Category:Dogs, but should be in Category:Mammals.
 * --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What I clearly said they are similar but NOT identical, since pages may be put in more categories who are not necessarily are in such (type) of relation like some given categories itself (and their hierarchy). I agree all you listed, having noted not necessarily the Mammal page should contain the category:Mammals, it would depend on it's existence and/or the exact category definiton.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , I think category:Marxism–Leninism should be in category:Communism or a subcategory or whatever of that because it is related and I am fine with that. This is different from categories in the article which need to be a defining characteristics of the article and be supported by the main body; category:Communism is not supported to be in either category of Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism. Perhaps category:Communist states is. I would be interested in and others' reply; we really need more thoughts from more users to move forward. Davide King (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We already agreed that category:Marxism–Leninism has to be the subcategory of category:Communism, etc. The rest you reiterate what we have already discussed and disagreed, so I avoid repetition. As I said in other places, your proposal about Communist states category is considerable, but yes we need thoughts about it indeed.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC))

Should there be a request for comments about whether adding or removing Category:Communism from both Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism? Davide King (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see the catch because you already generated a wide attention to these issues, including as well recurrently involved/pinged eitors who did not even disappeared and edited, and for the general categotization issues/problems detailed above are a much more broader issue, out of this particular topic.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC))
 * , this does not change the fact that, unlike Totalitarianism, there was not even a discussion about it, there is no consensus to have communism as category here and several users have disagreed with your position, so I think a request for comments is absolutely warranted for both. Davide King (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you start again the already discussed and fallacious argumentation of yours, it's not really good. The category has been a long standing part of the article so it is consensus by all means of WP rules/principles. Read back the lenghty, overdiscussed discussion above and please do not reiterate already failed points.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC))
 * , the bottom line is that we have, , and I contesting the addition and only you supporting it. If this may not be enough to establish a new consenus to remove it, at the very least it is enough to have a request for comments. Davide King (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you start again mass pinging and talk on other's behalf. With Pfhorrest is relevant the categorization discussion by technical and logical means, etc., which cannot be ignored. Anyway I don't wish to start the same chatting already happened, anyone may read above, no need for repetition and flooding again the talk pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC))
 * I have trouble understanding you Keingir, but just to be clear, I agree with Davide here, and I think a more formal process like an RFC would be appropriate. (Honestly, my gut feeling is that there is pretty clear consensus here and WP:SNOWBALL applies to further processes, but if it makes things cleaner, I say go ahead Davide). --Pfhorrest (talk)
 * If you refer to SNOWBALL, I reiterate until the categorization principles and problems touched in our discussions are not solved adequately, no good solution could be the outcome.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC))
 * , I do not understand your issue with me. I pinged them because I wonder if they would reply back and find a solution together since I last wrote one month ago. They are free to write me that they do not want to be pinged by me, if that bothers them; and they are also free to write if I misrepresented their positions. Neither thing seems to have happened. You seem to think the discussion should be closed and we should move on, but I disagree and I simply wish that those users who agreed to remove communism would reply back so that we reach a consensus, whatever it is. My proposal regarding this is to remove any ideology as category. As we write in the article, Authoritarianism is considered a core concept of fascism and scholars agree that a fascist regime is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. While authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of fascism, scholars argue that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist. In other words, Authoritarianism can be put as Category at Fascism, but Fascism should not be put as a Category at Authoritarianism. This goes for all the other ideologies, hence my proposal to simply remove them from Authoritarianism. The only one that may be argued to stay here as Category is Fascism, certainly not Communism. Davide King (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Shortly, I reacted the other page. This proposal is again not a general solution to the categorization issue we discussed above, but follows the same pattern of your desired outcome, parent-subset relations problem we referred at one instance, the rest were broader, may be read above.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
 * , the so-called categorisation issue you keep referencing can be easily solved by making those categories (Communist states, etc.) as subcategories of communism. Davide King (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * At once instance this would solve one issue discussed, but not general issue or debate.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
 * , that would still be a start, no? Let us solve that first, the solution to the other issue may not be that far away. :-) Davide King (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't be bothered reading all of this, I'm only commenting because i was pinged...I generally agree with KIENGIR. Every single communist government that I can think of was authoritarian. Can anyone think of an example to the contrary? This is a farcical debate. Marxism-Leninism and its variants such as Maoism are the only other major ideology to be explicitly authoritarian other than fascism. it is laughable for them not to be discussed in this article and the lede (same with the far-left article) - adding it as a category shouldn't raise an eyebrow. Think of the breadth of authoritarian history encompassed in the history of communism - the cruelty of the Soviet empire, China, even the less brutal authoritarian regimes like Castro's Cuba or Vietnam still had mass repression, re-education camps, authoritarian single party rule. If you are serious and not just left-right partisans there are many good books written on the subject. This book, The Black Book of Communism, has contributions form many leading experts by Stéphane Courtois,  Andrzej Paczkowski, Nicolas Werth, Martin Malia, Joachim Gauck etc. Anne Applebaum's Gulag: A History won the Pulitzer Prize and it's a compelling though horrific read. François Furet's, The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century, The silent Steppe by Mukhamet Shai͡akhmetov, The Unknown Gulag: The Lost World of Stalin's Special Settlements by Lynne Viola, Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society: The Dynamics of Established One-party Systems by Samuel P Huntington, Mass organization, party, and state: Democracy in the transition to socialism by Michael Lowy and Imperium by Ryszard Kapuscinski (I know Kapuscinski is dismissed by some, but I find his writing and this book in particular highly compelling, it's a great book). I visited Kazakhstan many years ago and I was struck by how much the Gulag and it's legacy pervade the entire nation up to the current day, every place I visited could double as a memorial to the victims of authoritarianism (I distinctly remember a story of Chechen's being transported to the GULAG in a cattle train thinking ethnic Kazakh kids were throwing stones at them only to find the kids were actually throwing traditional dried horse milk yogurt balls...the nomadic children were trying to feed the prisoners.) It's such a beautiful, but sad part of the world, so much of it touched by the horrors of Soviet famine and concentration camps. I would have thought we long ago passed the point of putting our heads in the sand regarding the extreme criminality of Marxist-Leninist's. Denial is wrong. Bacondrum (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Need to be careful to distinguish ML from communism more generally. Anarcho-communism is an obvious example of a type of communism that is not authoritarian, so communism generally is not a kind of authoritarianism, and so doesn't belong in Category:Authoritarianism. I leave the discussion on whether ML more specifically fits better to others. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , firstly, you seem to be conflating communism (small-c communism) and Marxism–Leninism (capital-C Communism). Ironically, this distinction is explicity made by The Black Book of Communism, of all works. Secondly, you take The Black Book of Communism as "the be end it all discussion" when it is "one of the most controversial books" about communism and has been extensively disputed and criticised by notable historians and scholars, including some of its own contributors! Thirdly, no one is disputing that Marxism–Leninism is authoritarian; we are disputing whether Category:Communism should be retained or removed when communism includes non-authoritarian forms and we have no sources that explicitly states that communism as a political ideology, in all its forms, is authoritarian. If we add Category:Communism, we may as well add Category:Capitalism, Category:Conservatism, Category:Liberalism, Category:Populism, Category:Socialism and so on because they all add at least more than one regime that was authoritarian. We should only list ideologies that form a core of authoritarianism. No ideology is a core of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a core of fascism, but fascism is not a core of authoritarianism. Finally, I propose to remove any ideology to avoid any issues on which one to include and which one to exclude. Davide King (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)