Talk:List of totalitarian regimes

authoritarian franco era spain totalitarian? fidel castro a totalitrian regime?
no, this is a joke right? read http://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4888&context=etd or http://www.jstor.org/stable/157386?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Ukrainetz1 (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, if the Wikipedia articles say it's totalitarian, this list should reflect the article. Take it to Politics of Cuba, that says totalitarian. If you get consensus there, feel free to remove it from this list. Sjö (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * oops i realized i made a big mistake! it turns out that accroding to that sources which i mentioned and studing the subject further: yes cuba is a totalitarian regime Ukrainetz1 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would list Francoist Spain as totalitarian from 1939 to 1959, when Franco let capitalist technocrats guide economic policy during the "Spanish Miracle." Franco was somewhat different than Hitler, in that he didn't attempt to conquer neighboring countries, but he was still an absolute ruler. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

North Korea
North Korea is undoubtedly a totalitarian dictatorship, though it has not been communist since its constitution was amended in 2009 to remove all references to communism. For this reason, North Korea should be placed under the socialist section in this article. (24.205.83.199 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC))
 * Right. I will amend the article slightly. 69.246.122.102 (talk) 1:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Socialist? It is a totalitarian dictatorship without any firm ideological commitment except isolation from the world. Pointless to describe it terms of the world’s mainstream politics. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Unsure why BBC deems that it is “still under nominally communist rule”. It was “nominally communist” during the first fifteen years of Kim Jong-il’s rule. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Why has Saudi Arabia been reclassifed?
What motivated the change from "current" to "former totalitarian regime"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loinducoeur (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In 2016, the powers of the secret police were limited. In 2017, cinemas were legalized and women are now allowed to drive. 69.246.122.102 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then list that as the end of totalitarianism 128.114.226.74 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed
A quick look shows that the descriptions here don't match the descriptions in the main articles, which at least have more watchers interested in accuracy. This isn't acceptable. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources are required
See WP:SOURCELIST, "Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well. Although the format of a list might require less detail per topic, Wikipedia policies and procedures apply equally to both a list of similar things as well as to any related article to which an individual thing on the list might be linked." Doug Weller talk 17:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, sources are required. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've finally founded some sources for the article and i putted it Araukan (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:NORN
The ideologies section is even worse and User:Sjö's statement was only about whether the main article had language allowing inclusion here. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible deletion
Why is this page being threatened with deletion? (24.205.83.199 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC))
 * See Articles for deletion/List of totalitarian regimes. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're complaining about. This page really doesn't need to exist anyway. It would fine if it was deleted. (104.33.76.108 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC))

Soviet Union was totalitarian until 1953/ or 1985(?)
Considering totalitarianism in USSR there potentially is two ending dates: 1953 - Stalin's death and 1985 - first Gorbachev's reforms. The year 1938 is historically inaccurate because, until 1950's mass deportations, the cult of personality, mass executions and in 1939 and 1940 aggressive expansionism was a common thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skroderdienas (talk • contribs) 20:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the article
The article still has no references, and no clear criteria for inclusion. The edit history is strewn with single purpose accounts, sockpuppets, and anonymous editors. Edit summaries are either missing or succinct to the point of meaninglessness. It is an atrocious article. DuncanHill (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking for sources to fix this article. Some countries like Gaddafi's Libya ,North korea and Saddam's iraq have a lot of sources proving it and i added these sources Araukan (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Duncan. The academic literature on totalitarianism is vast. We're talking millions of words written in scholarly articles, journals and books. The quality of the few sources used is way below what should be possible.
 * Also the structure is poor. It should be a single sortable list. DrKay (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Islamist states = right wing
Why are they not in the same category>? AHC300 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source? No regime should be on the page without a reliable source saying it is or was totalitarian, and no regime should be in any of the subsections without a reliable source to support that. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dubious
This article is largely original research and synthesis. For example, the source given for Ghana does not say that it became a totalitarian state in 1957 or that Lord Listowel and the Queen presided over a left-wing totalitarian regime. The arguments used by in edit summaries are original research. The material in the article must be sourced explicitly and the sources must state explicitly that the Dominion was a totalitarian regime. DrKay (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

United Kingdom, United States, Israel?
I am hoping these countries are going to be included in this list? but I'm not holding my breath. 45.116.232.41 (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All three permit free elections, free speech, and don’t have an all-pervasive ideology or government. None are remotely totalitarian. 73.203.144.35 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that the U.S. is pretty free, though you definitely can't say the same about the U.K. There's no free speech there (hate speech law), and their government is extremely invasive (mass surveillance, tons of meaningless laws, total gun ban and knife control, etc.)
 * Wow, I never knew that Canada, Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, etc. are all dictatorships ruled under an iron fist (If we apply your logic). Anyways, according to the Democracy Index, the UK is more democratic than the good old US of' A.Dunutubble (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Improvements
I've seen lots of improvements since the last time that i edited this article. Most of the article is sourced and sections of this article which weren't sourced were removed. I would like to thank the administrators and professional editors of wikipedia for helping to improve this article. Araukan (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Article Ruined
Because the definition of totalitarian is ambiguous, the article should include the broadest number of regimes that fill the minimum requirements of being totalitarian, now someone has just destroyed the article and calls it a "great improvement". How can obvious totalitarian dictatorships like Francoist Spain or Turkmenistan being removed ?
 * I agree. I was the guy who used to work on this article, adding and correcting countries. Several people opposed me because I didn’t add any sources. I let them edit so they could add sources, but now the article has been ruined. WAY too much “citation needed”, and several regimes left out.85.75.238.172 (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This article is an example of exactly why Wikipedia is so flawed. 45.48.4.45 (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Communist Regime goals
Should communist totaltarian regimes have the end goal of “true communism”? Most of the communist regimes listed and unlisted all had their citizens work for one overarching goal “achieving true communism”. All “communist” states in the world weren’t communist, as we all probably know, they were socialist, and every regime acknowledged this as socialism as the first step towards communism, a truly classless, moneyless society where everyone is equal and there is no authority. Propaganda depicted the ruling “communist” parties as being able to lead the nation and the people into a true communist society and the goal of true communism was seen as the goal of all citizens in communist states and since the communist party was supposed to be the vanguard party and represented the will of the people, they were the only way towards true communism. So my point is, should true communism be added as the ultimate end goal of totaltarian communist regimes? The History Nerd5 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Organising by ideological masks completely misses the point.
The ideologies are irrelevant. They are 'ideological masks' covering up the pathology of the pathocrats. There is a very clear biological sequence by which totalitarian regimes are created. The privileged classes block out inconvenient truths, leading to extreme emotionalism, extreme egotism and twisted thinking ('hysteria') which spreads across society. Slightly pathological individuals (typically with minor brain-tissue damage e.g. from medications, difficult births, toxins) are no longer seen for what they are; they worsen the 'hysteria'. As the 'hysteria' progresses then more extreme pathologies are no longer seen for what they are. Eventually an extremely egotistical 'spellbinder' pouring out Big Lies, twisted logic and twisted morality becomes the leader. He has a further pathologising effect on society. Psychopaths have climbed up the ranks of the ideological movement - they push aside all the other deviants that have taken it over and 'guide' the spellbinder. The 1% of psychopaths that are found in any nation eventually control a ruling class of 5% of extremely pathological individuals and a 12% 'middle class' of lesser deviants. The Party then splits into two - the hard wing dominated by the psychopaths, the more liberal wing dominated by the brain tissue damaged. Totalitaria eventually falls because citizens gain natural immunity to the pathology of the pathocrats and because promotion has been based on pathology not ability and so the economy collapses.

All this can be found in 'Political Ponerology', written by the last survivor of an underground group of psychiatrists and psychologists in the former Soviet Union studying how totalitarian states are born. 'The origins of totalitarianism' and 'Rape of the mind' add flesh to the bones.79.79.109.227 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Broad consensus needs to be shown
The word "totalitarian" is contested in the academic literature. "There is much confusion about what is meant by totalitarian in the literature" (#17 Rummel, R.J. (1994)). According to the most recent AfD, a single source is not sufficient. It was suggested by more than one user to use the talk page to work out which states should be included. As such, this is the beginning of that process. The following have been removed because the sourcing is weak, it does not show a broad consensus in the academic literature:


 * Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
 * Republic of the Sudan
 * Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
 * Islamic Republic of Iran
 * Syrian Arab Republic

They were chosen randomly as they are at the top of the list. If you can show broad consensus for applying the term totalitarian to these states, let's discuss. Please do provide multiple high-quality mainstream academic sources. -- Green  C  06:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional removed for weak or no sourcing:


 * Democratic Republic of Vietnam
 * Lao People's Democratic Republic
 * People's Socialist Republic of Albania
 * Iraqi Republic
 * Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

Also the list is confusing totalitarianism with authoritarianism. According to our definition at Wikipedia: "Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control." So for example Iraq under Saddam was not totalitarian but was authoritarian. It's true we can find some occasional sources that call Iraq totalitarian but we need to find a distinction between these forms of government and stick by it, as is defined at Wikipedia, otherwise the list of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes will be the same and meaningless. -- Green  C  13:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hoxha's Albania is widely regarded as totalist, it was governed extremely similarly to Stalin's Russia. Sources referring it as "totalitarian":
 * https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/viewFile/2835/2666
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815012203
 * https://www.academia.edu/7949940/The_legitimation_of_the_Albanian_totalitarian_regime
 * http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/3332
 * https://www.dw.com/en/albanias-eu-aspirations-still-hampered-by-totalitarian-past/a-15826623
 * --FPSTurkey (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that is a good candidate for totalitarian. The academia.edu sources lays out why describing the total control of economic and political life by the state. Thanks for the sources! -- Green  C  15:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean it is hard to define those states? I agree Syria isn’t really totalitarian, but come on, not Saudi Arabia? Not the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan? NOT SUDAN??? Like really, how are these not totalitarian states. The History Nerd5 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They are probably authoritarian. Totalitarianism is the most extreme variant of authoritarianism. Many will lump the two together and use the later by default. Does Saudi Arabia have economic and social institutions not controlled by the state? If so it's probably not totalitarian. -- Green  C  18:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Burma (1962–1988)
I have seen many online articles that refer to the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma as a totalitarian state. I've not knowledgeable enough on their history but are they worthy of adding to this list page? --FPSTurkey (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * A lot of news/blog/opinion sources casually throw this term around without differentiating between authoritarianism. Totalitarianism is a more extreme version of authoritarianism. Totalitarianism is sort of like the ultimate evil and writers are often quick to use it, similar to Godwin's Law and Nazis. However if many sources are using it, that may be a clue that the more serious academic sources support it also, in which case those sources could be searched for. -- Green  C  15:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Article refocus
Wondering if we should refocus this article on current vs historical regimes. With "historical" meaning anything that is at least 40 years or older since it ceased to exist. The reasons:


 * History often takes time, as new knowledge comes to light from documents and revisionism. If a regime is understood to be totalitarian may not reach a consensus for some time.
 * Current regimes will have enemies (activists, protestors, politicians, refugees, etc), and they will seek to disparage and harm by calling the regime totalitarian in the press and elsewhere. Casual and non-specific uses abound that are not reliable.

By separating these we can better focus on amounts and types of sources. For example for Nazi Germany, Encyclopedia Britannica is sufficient. But for the current regimes in Iran or Saudi Arabia, it is a different picture on the amount and type of sourcing needed.

Assuming this were done, it could either be a rename of the article to List of historical totalitarian regimes, or creating two lists in the article. I'm leaning towards the later as it would prevent the creation of List of current totalitarian regimes which would an unnecessary content split and maintenance headache. Optionally we could try to list only historical regimes as part of the inclusion criteria. -- Green  C  13:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This article can never be NPOV or accurate, and should be deleted
The term "totalitarian" is extremely vague and subjective. In the case of the terms "authoritarian" and "dictatorship" there are at least some standards that could be used to define those terms, but "totalitarian" is as I see it a largely subjective term. The use of the word is by itself disputed. Yes, most people would agree that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Kim fit the term, but aside from that, it's largely only bias. Some would say Iran is totalitarian, some would say China, some would say Saudi Arabia, but it would all be bias anyway. --Te og kaker (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right but multiple AfDs have failed (see the record) and any new AfD will also fail (btw I have always voted delete). So we are left trying to keep the list as reasonable as possible by using tight criteria and definitions. I agree about Ira, China etc.. those are current regimes which are highly problematic (versus historic regimes), see the section immediately above this one. -- Green  C  15:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The existence of this article is by itself problematic, but it's also very badly written structurally. For instance the rubrics "type", "ideology" and "government" are overlapping. The "goal" rubric is more or less a joke: Obviously most regimes exist for more than one reason. I don't know why they don't just make a section in the article totalitarianism with "regimes labeled "totalitarian". Previously, there was a List of dictators here on Wikipedia. That article was deleted because the conclusion was that a list of dictators could never be neutral because the term dictator is not neutral, and there were a lot of discussions and edit wars over who should be included and who should not be included. That list had higher standards than this one, and the label "totalitarian" is a lot more vague than the term "dictator", yet it was deleted. --Te og kaker (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that then, I did vote delete myself, but it was overwhelming Keep. When Encylopedia Britannica contains an article on totalitarianism listing many examples it is hard to explain why Wikipedia wouldn't have one, also. --  Green  C  01:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

albania, spain, japan and italy
albania is totalitarian as per sources (also see earlier discussion), italy and japan is disputed as totalitarian
 * (Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism disputes that Italy was a totalitarian state.
 * Robert Paxton in The Anatomy of Fascism disputes that Japan was a totalitarian state.) and spain is considered to NOT be totalitarian by most acedemic sources
 * http://countrystudies.us/spain/22.htm, and
 * https://www.thelocal.es/20150407/official-francisco-franco-was-a-dictator for example) 83.185.84.156 (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As indicated in the article there are sources both ways for Italy. DrKay (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * even the source you mentioned disputed it was fascist "Other experts defined fascism as a «totalitarian-oriented» regime, or as an «imperfect totalitarianism», as «incomplete totalitarianism». The theory of a nontotalitarian fascism has prevailed for a long time, even among historians. Most of them simply adopted the models of totalitarianism supplied by social science, without bothering to ascertain their validity through confrontation with the actual research results, more and more numerous in these years, and above all able to largely modify the image of fascism, which had led many experts to exclude it from totalitarian phenomena.", also see
 * '''another academic sources that disputes italy as totaliatarian https://www.academia.edu/12497605/Can_Fascist_Italy_Be_Explained_as_Totalitarian

so there are more sources saying italy was not totaliarian then it was 83.185.92.238 (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, yes. That's why I added it 10 months ago . DrKay (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dr Kay, the problem is most of the good quality sources contest it being totalitarian. There might be a place on Wikipedia to discuss the nuances, but a 'list of' article is not a good place to try and work through complex issues. It would be good if we can keep this list conservative in the sense of the weight of sourcing in favor of totalitarianism. Otherwise it opens up problems like we have been having, with so many countries being added. -- Green  C  15:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I think that a unique section should be added to list such stattes that may be disputed.128.114.226.74 (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Totalitarian states
The category members should match this list. Thoughts? -- Green  C  04:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The total deletion of other ideological categories
I do not like what has been done to this page, I get it has been the center of a long debate but the changes here I do not like. The shrinking of it down to just communist states seems pretty biased to me and is singling out one ideology. The removal of the Islamic section to is pretty sad and also hides the fact that these states were in fact totalitarian in at least one point of their history. I think this page should stay as it allows for a quick and easy way to see which states were under dictatorships if you are into that sort of thing. I am surprised about the removal of the fascist section as that is like the poster child of totalitarianism. All sections that were removed are unjustified and have just ruined the page. I request that the previous state of this page be restored as soon as possible. The History Nerd5 (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The page lists totalitarian regimes, not dictatorship and/or authoritarian regimes. Totalitarianism is an extreme variant of authoritarianism, there is a difference. Most of the things you list are unquestionably authoritarian and/or dictatorship. Just because a journalist used the word "totalitarian" doesn't make it an immutable truth. The word is a pejorative typically applied by critics of a regime to paint it in a negative light, so we have to be careful to be more objective and conservative in the quality and degree of sourcing. -- Green  C  01:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * So, if there's a peer reviewed paper calling it totalitarian is that good enough?128.114.226.74 (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Guatemala
Should Guatemala under Jorge Ubico be added to the list? The book "Guatemalan Caudillo" describes the regime as "totalitarian," and John Gunther (in "Inside Latin America") described Guatemala as being "one hundred percent dominated by" Ubico. Josh (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The United Fruit Company ("La Frutera") is the problem. I forget the exact numbers but it was the largest employer, owned a large chunk of the land, and generated a lot more revenue than the country itself did. Ubico was unquestionably an authoritarian dictator but I can't see an argument for totalitarianism when la frutera was basically a country within a country operating according to its own rules. La frutera controlled the railroad for example, not the government. Same with the telephone system. So there wasn't total government control of major key institutions and businesses. --  Green  C  06:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, but Kenneth J. Grieb noted that Ubico's government controlled "every aspect" of its citizens' lives. Josh (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ..except the ones who worked for La frutera :) -- Green  C  00:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Then it should depend on the relationship between La Frutera and the government.128.114.226.74 (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Communist China does it still exist?
The article says that People's Republic of China ceased to exist in 1976 after the death of Mao Zedong. Did China unite under the pro-American rule of Taiwan? 94.180.52.29 (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that the PRC ceased to exist. When Mao died, China gradually started reforms transforming from a totalitarian type of government to the authoritarian type of government it maintains to this day The Account 1 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Fascist Italy
Shouldn't Fascist Italy be added? It's classified as a totalitarian regime on its own Wikipedia page. MrOrangeHorseman (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * See section above. There is dispute if it was or not. -- Green  C  23:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Then clearly shouldn't it just be labled as disputed in some way or another, or a section could be added for countries which are disputedly totalitarian. 128.114.225.68 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Imperial Iran
Question: Would Imperial State of Iran count? Mohammed Reza Pahlavi would be consider a totalitarian dictator from the 1953 Iranian coup d'état until the Iranian Revolution. — 76.67.122.166 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Would not be in favour of adding this one. Although his regime was highly personalist and centralized, it was more-or-less a typical Cold War-era authoritarian conservative state and did not control almost all aspects of social life. Comparatively, the Islamic Republic of Iran is somewhat closer to totalitarianism, but likely also does not qualify due to the relative dissemination of power within that regime.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the Shah was an authoritarian dictator but not a totalitarian leader. Dunutubble (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
This section is to discuss if Saudi Arabia should be included. Since this is an active regime with critics it is trivial to find newsy sources using the word "totalitarian", but to making a case for it in academic sources is a different matter entirely, it requires sustained and objective argumentation, and broad support. -- Green  C  13:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. No evidence shows that Saudi Arabia is totalitarian. The state of democracy and Human Rights has also been increasing in recent times. Dunutubble (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As pointed out in my edit summary and tags, the sources currently used either don't support the inclusion or are not reliable. DrKay (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello GreenC, of course it should be included. I don't understand at all why it was removed years ago, supposedly because women can drive there now, that's nonsense. It is one of the last totalitarian states, extreme censorship and a complete lack of tolerance for religious freedom and freedom of speech, no elections, the eternal ruler destroys his enemies, almost all political rights and civil liberties are restricted etc. There are countless reliable sources.1,2,3,4,5,6.Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have again listed sources that do not support this content. Bernholz [your reference 4] argues that Saudi Arabia is NOT a totalitarian state. You cannot therefore use it to support that claim, and any claim that it was a totalitarian state would have to be balanced by the opposing sources that say it was not one, per WP:NPOV. In addition, your reference 6 does not call Saudi Arabia totalitarian, it says jihadism is a totalitarian ideology. You are damaging your own argument by failing to read the citations properly. DrKay (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What page of the Bernholz's book are you referring to exactly? "balanced by the opposing sources that say it was not one" I don't understand what this nonsense means, if something is, it cannot at the same not to be. Funny you didn't mention all the others at all. If you want more reliable sources, no problem, there are really many of them.Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Chapter 5, pages 39-45. When sources disagree, we do not select one over another. We give neither viewpoint or both viewpoints, stressing each with due weight, per wikipedia policy. DrKay (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Italian social Republic was totalitarian, kingdom of italy was not.
I think we can all agree on this. AHC300 (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but is there a source? 128.114.226.74 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no. Mussolini was one of the first people to be labelled as totalitarian- he literally is the poster child of the concept. Dunutubble (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I would support adding this provided sources can be found to back it up. Cupofteaguy 18:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Leopoldian Congo
Was King Leopold's Congo a precursor regime of totalitarianism ? This documentary suggests that yes : https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/congo-white-king-red-rubber-black-death/ --HouseTyrell (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a corporate state, although IMO a pirate state. Did it control all aspects of life and economy in the Congo? Probably yes for a short window of time after the Arab war ended and prior to 1908. We would need support for use of the word totalitarian. Academic support. --  Green  C  13:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I found the text of the Casement Report : https://archive.org/details/CasementReport--HouseTyrell (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That was written in 1904, before the coining of the word totalitarian, and so clearly cannot support inclusion in this list. DrKay (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In Imperialism, Hannah Arendt explains that colonialism is a root for totalitarian ideologies and quotes as an example the Congo Free State (via Heart of Darkness).--HouseTyrell (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Close. It was a slave state run by a private corporation ruled by a Genocidal fanatic, but probably not totalitarian. It's a good question but overall I would argue otherwise. Dunutubble (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Guinea
In Non-Democratic Regimes by Paul Brooker, he says "One or two of the one party states established in Africa during the 1960s were occasionally labelled as totalitarian as in the case of Guinea and its ‘mobilization of the people’ [sic] (Rivière, 1977)". Should we put Guinea on the list because of this? I know its not enough, since there isn't a date on either end, but if someone could figure that out, it should probably go on the list. 128.114.225.68 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Since there is so much argument about what counts we should make a section for where people are split on whether it could count.
I have seen on this very page that some people are arguing over whether Turkmenistan and Fascist Italy should be on the list, so we should add a section for countries such as those that are disputed as totalitarian or not. Another option would be to create list of disputedly totalitarian regimes as an article in its own right. 128.114.225.68 (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both suggestions. This page is already a swamp of activist editing those pages would be 10x worse opening up every regime in existence to charges of totalitarianism. --  Green  C  19:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

National Legionary State?
Good evening! The National Legionary State of Romania (1940 - 1941) had been listed on this page for a long time. It seems to have been removed now. Was it removed consciously or might there have been a mistake when later added states were removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianke95 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Split the table into 2 sections: current and former?
I'd be interested in splitting this table into 2 sections: current and former. Normally I'd just make the change, but this article looks to be a little contentious, so figured I'd check first. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are only two active ones, and if the table is split it will no longer be fully sortable. DrKay (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisition
Should the Spanish Inquisition be included? I found this paper saying the Spanish inquisition was from. It doesn't list a start and end date though, so other refs for those would be needed. 128.114.226.74 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The term has also been applied to individual families, and cults. It is an abused term we think of totalitarian as being the ultimate evil. The very name "totality" infers this. Related to Godwin's law. The "Premodern Totalitarianism" article says "..this article argues.." for using the term outside a modern context. It is a bad argument, every early state in Mesopotamia for example could fit the totalitarian definition. The Crusading Orders. On and on. A single paper "arguing" for premodern totalitarianism doesn't give weight for inclusion. --  Green  C  14:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Scope
"Several regimes have been commonly referred to as 'totalitarian', or the concept of totalitarianism has been applied to them. Totalitarian regimes are usually distinguished from authoritarian regimes in the sense that totalitarianism represents an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control."

What is wrong with this? The topic is, or at least should be, regimes which have been called "totalitarian." Totalitarianism itself is more of a useful and descriptive concept rather than an analytic one and not all academics hold to it. So it is not clear why my clarifications are not an improvement. Davide King (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

, I actually agree with your comments in the latest AfD nomination, including the OP by. If we are going to have to keep this article, which I do not think we should for the same issues you and others raised, we might as well actually clarify that totalitarianism is more of a concept than a fact and that not all scholars hold to it. Davide King (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article scope is currently: regimes described as totalitarian by the consensus of academic sources. It's the reason for excluding Italy and Japan: because there are substantial objections from well-respected experts in the field to labeling them as totalitarian. A broader scope is not possible because of the frequency with which any government is commonly labeled as 'totalitarian' by its opponents. Even The Daily Express and Sir Graham Brady label the British government as totalitarian even though they're all Conservatives and the government is not a totalitarian one. DrKay (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes "commonly" and "examples" is looser language; the warning notice should take up the entire screen on entering thus the extra padded space to make it impossible to ignore. These measures have reduced though not eliminated the drive by IPs and SPAs with agendas. -- Green  C  16:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you please clarify this? Do you actually agree with my proposal? If these are "looser language", I think that is a good thing, since "Totalitarian is a matter of controversial opinion. This list is highly POV by favoring the sources that say yes, while completely ignoring sources that say otherwise." Davide King (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No we don't want a loose scope. This opens the list to intractable problems. The current wording is precise, limited and sufficient. -- Green  C  16:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see how a bigger scope else, since one can cherry pick up reliable sources calling one country "totalitarian" for pretty much every country, so I do not get it. The current wording implies this is a list of totalitarian regimes, like it is a fact the same way a republic is a republic or a monarchy is a monarchy, rather than a list of regimes described as totalitarian by the consensus of academic sources. The current wording is exactly the opposite of "precise" and leaves open the possibility of adding any country called one totalitarian while my wording, which can still be changed, worked over and improved, was meant to say that while many countries have been called "totalitarian" one way or another, only a selectively few have some more clear consensus, even though there is still cherrypicking in sources describing them as totalitarian rather than searching for sources that make a summary of whether scholars say this or that country was totalitarian. Davide King (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , but "objections from well-respected experts in the field" have also been raised about the Soviet Union. You write "The article scope is currently: regimes described as totalitarian by the consensus of academic sources." This is exactly what I was trying to say and clarifying. Again, what is wrong with stating "Several regimes have been commonly referred to as "totalitarian", or the concept of totalitarianism has been applied to them." Why can not this be deleted and incorporated at Totalitarianism and write it in propose rather than such an uncyclopedic and problematic article? Davide King (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On your first question, I answered you above. Multiple governments, quite possibly every government in any major country, has at some time or another had the concept of totalitarianism applied to them, as I demonstrated by providing a recent example. The definition is too broad. On your second question, the article cannot be deleted when 3 separate deletion discussions did not reach consensus for deletion. DrKay (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, I meant to use my wording to say that while many countries have been called "totalitarian" one way or another, only a selectively few have some more clear consensus, hence why we currently list only those. Either way, just stating "This is a list of totalitarian regimes", like it is a list of republican or monarchical regimes, without explaining it is about regimes described as "totalitarian" by the consensus of academic sources and that totalitarianism is more of a useful concept rather than an analytical fact, is atrocious. That "the article cannot be deleted when 3 separate deletion discussions did not reach consensus for deletion" is just your opinion, as consensus can change and the last one was no consensus, not keep. In addition, Wikipedia is neither a vote nor a democracy, but this is often ignored in AfDs because if we were actually following our policies and guidelines, this article would have been deleted. Stating "[j]ust because it's controversial doesn't mean it should be deleted" is not based on policies and guidelines. Why it cannot be incorporated at Totalitarianism is beyond me. If "totalitarian regimes are discussed extensively as a group or set by independent reliable sources", it should be easy to turn this article into a standalone article in prose, rather than an uncyclopedic table which cherrypick sources calling a state "totalitarian", rather than reflecting summary of the consensus of academic sources we are supposed to use, as "[t]here is much confusion about what is meant by totalitarian in the literature." Davide King (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia again
Why was Saudi Arabia removed in 2017 and again now? It was better sourced than some other countries. It is one of the last totalitarian states, extreme censorship and a complete lack of tolerance for religious freedom and freedom of speech, no elections, the eternal ruler destroys his enemies, almost all political rights and civil liberties are restricted, it exports ideology to other nations and it is governed almost entirely by Sharia law. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide your reliable sources to back up the assertions above. Yes, it is an authoritarian monarchy with Sharia courts, but my understanding is that few specialists would consider Saudi Arabia to have all the hallmarks of totalitarianism or even the capability of a true totalitarian regime such as Stalin's USSR, Nazi Germany, Democratic Kampuchea, or North Korea. As I recall, this content was rejected previously due to a lack of high-quality academic sources necessary to establish the threshold for inclusion. With that in mind, do not spam opinion pieces or think tank articles as a WP:REFBOMB, but rather present two or three very good sources and I am confident that you could silence most objectors.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Empire of Japan under Taisei Yokusankai and Greece under Metaxas
These regimes on their wikipedia articles are classified as totalitarian, however i cannot find enough sources to prove that to be the case. Any comments? - &#124;&#124; RuleTheWiki  &#124;&#124; (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This underscore the problem with the term, anyone can and often do call things totalitarian. --  Green  C  21:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Greece and Japan are both good examples of totalitarianism. Agreed Dunutubble (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In my honest opinion, the Empire Of Japan is HEAVILY needing to be classified here. It was an absolutist, repressive and (somewhat) theocratic state that killed millions. I'll go find some sources for it.

Tootsie Rolls  (talk)  00:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Metaxas did not interfere in the economy as is normal in a totalitarian regime. Pbrower2a (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But the 4th of August Regime's page says he did plan on reorganizing the whole economic system to be in line with corporatist ideals. Both Metaxas' and his regime's pages say he was totalitarian and he was also quoted claiming that Greece was totalitarian himself on said pages. руддщ глкфшту! (talk)

Xi's China?
Shouldn't Xi's China be added? https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/10/china-xi-jinping-totalitarian-authoritarian-debate/
 * One person's self-admitted controversial claim does not make for wide academic consensus. This sort of article is precisely why we have such strong requirements for inclusion, anyone with a gripe against a regime or country can publish an article calling it totalitarian and pretty soon we have a list of most countries in the world including the United States. We rely on academic sources, foremost, and require many sources. Current regimes (vs. historic) are the most difficult to establish since there are so many people playing politics. -- Green C  17:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Italy
It is absurd to omit Fascist Italy from a list of totalitarian states. Do I need to explain why? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey there. It's currently #1 on the page, under "Kingdom of Italy". – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, because I added it. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. Anyway, I agree with its addition. If this comes under dispute for some reason, I found several books on Google Books that we can cite. Thanks for adding, people like you coming along and fixing things is how Wikipedia gets better. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Manchukuo IS supposed to be a totalitarian regime, amirite?
Now, let me enter this ruckus for myself. There is a lot of proof out there on the Internet (both reliable and unreliable) that Manchukuo was totalitarian. Here are my reasons why I re-added Manchukuo into the list:
 * It was a single-party state.
 * It was ruled by Puyi for the entirety of its existence.*But it was ruled by the Imperial Japanese Army, which were also very oppressive and totalitarian.
 * Manchukuo used slave labor to gather resources of Japan's war machine.

Since you Wikipedians like reliable sources SO much, here are some:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20071221081805/http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371137/Manchukuo
 * https://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/cap-events/evolution-manchukuo-concordia-association-1932-1945-political-institution-and-vanguard (from Australian National University, guaranteed reliable)
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20100616115234/http://japanfocus.org/-Prasenjit-Duara/1715

These are the sources that I used. And I hope this argument is valid.  Vulcan300  GO TO GULAG CYKA 03:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Italy and Japan
Why are fascist Italy and Imperial Japan not included? This list is absurd, and has strong pro-fascist and anti-communist bias. Comradeka (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Fascist Italy WAS included; someone just removed them from the list.  Vulcan300 Stalin pointing.png GO TO GULAG CYKA


 * If this article is to use Hannah Arendt as the final authority as to what was and was not totalitarian during her lifetime, then just redirect the title to her own article already. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Vulcan300 You seem to be very good at finding sources, and I think Fascist Italy is still necessary for this list, so why don't you find some sources for them? Lasha2008 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I noticed the majority communist, also, and wondered why that was. I think it's because there have been far more communist governments than fascist. And because communist countries are by default top down state controlled so from the get go are pretty far along the totalitarian definition - not to say all communism is totalitarian. I don't think there is a secret wiki cabal trying to make communism look bad, or that we need to "balance" the article by adding as many fascists as we can dream up, such as short-lived puppet governments during WWII. -- Green  C  20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

GreenC, I just removed the Kingdom of Hungary, because if we're not adding puppet states of WW2 that existed for 4-5 years, then why add one that existed for just a year? Lasha2008 (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Unrecognized states
I was wondering what the rule for this page is on unrecognized states. The Islamic State is definitely an example of totalitarianism, and achieved de-facto statehood despite not receiving any international recognition. BakedGoods357 (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Manchukuo was a Japanese Puppet state, so probably you can add them. Lasha2008 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

same thing for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, except here it's a de-facto state. Lasha2008 (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

FOR GOODNESS' SAKE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO ADD THE QIN DYNASTY JESU CHRIST
JUST...just...why? Why did you have to add the Qin dynasty? Just, why? They have no political party, they had multiple rulers (not just Qin Shi Huang) under the same dynasty, and I have found close to NO evidence that he was totalitarian. Which didn't even exist until Benito Mussolini. This defies all logic and knowledge about totalitarianism, and even though it has 4 sources, I doubt that they are accurate. 202.186.46.75 (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

One of them is Encyclopedia Britannica. One is a book. I believe one is from linkspringer. the final one is from a university. so Qin stays. Lasha2008 (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Doubt so. Vulcan300 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This really seems like original research to me. Yeah the word is sometimes used in relation to Qin but that doesn't mean there is widespread understanding Qin was totalitarian. It's an anachronism because the concept didn't even exist outside of its origin in the 20th century. It's used analogous. To me, it de-legitimizes the entire article when the first thing you see is Qin, it's kind of laughable. -- Green  C  15:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * To be honest, Lasha2008 did a bit of a bad job by adding the Qin dynasty, but here in Wikipedia instead of democracy you have your "consensus". And I need some consensus now: should we get rid of the Qin dynasty from this list?  TootsieRollsAddict   (talk)  04:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I actually tried removing it later, but Davide King added it back. I wasn't bothered to change it again. Lasha2008 (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides, I've already added the Empire Of Japan and the National Legionary State. I think that is enough for now. TootsieRollsAddict   (talk)  03:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I want to turn this article into a featured list. I need some help.
I don't know why, but this is one of many Wikipedia articles I obsess over.  I really have a wish to make this into a featured list, preferably as quickly as possible. But I need some help. I want to add MORE into this list, and make the table better. This might be a weirdly hard goal to do, since this article was nominated for deletion 2 TIMES. I am not the only active user here, so.... Can I? Cheers, TootsieRollsAddict   (talk)  15:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I tried that (as in, adding more), it only half-worked really. Lasha2008 (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , it is not going to happen. While still useful as a word, the Cold War concept has been outdated since the 1980s and is dead by now. We are just going to argue and edit warring about what to add, what to remove, and cherry pick sources that refer to a state as totalitarian, without explaining why, or actually stating that is representative of scholarly consensus, which is lacking and makes this article not encyclopedic even as a list. Davide King (talk)

Independent State of Croatia?
The Independent State of Croatia was certainly totalitarian, far more so than many of the states on the list. They created a one party state, introduced racial laws, carried out ethnic cleansing, large scale genocide, the use of political violence was heavily prevalent, suppression of dissidents ect. They have been described by historians as one of the most genocidal regimes, they murdered hundreds of thousands of people. I can provide sources if that is necessary. Xander 2801 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC) —

Ba'athist Iraq
Ba'athist regimes in Iraq would seem to have taken a totalitarian path even before Saddam Hussein took oveer:

Elaborate guiding ideology. Single mass party, typically led by a dictator. System of terror, using such instruments as violence and secret police. Monopoly on weapons. Monopoly on the means of communication. Central direction and control of the economy through state planning.

In the book titled Democracy and Totalitarianism (1968), French analyst Raymond Aron outlined five criteria for a regime to be considered as totalitarian:[38][page needed]

A one-party state where one party has a monopoly on all political activity. A state ideology upheld by the ruling party that is given status as the only authority. State information monopoly that controls mass media for distribution of official truth. State controlled economy with major economic entities under the control of the state. Ideological terror that turns economic or professional actions into crimes. Violators are exposed to prosecution and to ideological persecution.

The only qualifications are that there might be is that Saddam Hussein, out of fear of the Soviet Union, tolerated a small and impotent Communist Party, and that he did not persecute Christians (out of fear of the NATO member states, all but one of which is majority-Christian. Acting out of fear og Great Powers is hardly an assertion of freedom.Pbrower2a (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like WP:OR; what we need are reliable academic sources explicitly describing Ba'thist Iraq as totalitarian, not editors analyzing the definition of totalitarianism to determine if it applies. (As a very minor aside, private firearms were widely owned in Ba'thist Iraq.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that in my own opinion, Saddam ran a totalitarian state, but it can only be listed here if somebody finds an academic journal that tackles this subject with depth. Dunutubble (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm nor so sure about the "monopoly on weapons". Nazi Germany was awash in privately-owned firearms. Every Nazi in good standing was expected to have one. By the criteria above, a thoroughly-objectionable regime such as Uganda under Idi Amin is not totalitarian (no coherent ideology) and one such as Chile under Pinochet was not totalitarian because Pinochet's Chile had no political parties and left the Catholic Church alone.

OK. I hate Saddam Hussein, and see him as nearly-unqualified evil. I don't consider Amin totalitarian because he had no coherent beliefs.I hate Pinochet for his destruction of much that is essentially human, but he too falls short of totalitarianism. One of them is closer to Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin than are the other two.

To ascribe totalitarianism solely to ideologies derived from Western patterns of thought (which means fascism and Communism) is to deny the universality of the consequences of totalitarian practice. Is totalitarinism only "fascism and Marxism-Leninism"? Then the word totalitarianism might as well be replaced by "fascism and Marxism-Leninism". Pbrower2a (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Robespierre's France
Could that count? I actually found a study discussing this (It's a balanced discussion):

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279861326_Was_the_Reign_of_Terror_Totalitarian_A_Study_of_Hannah_Arendt_and_JL_Talmon (PDF) Was the Reign of Terror Totalitarian? A Study of Hannah Arendt and J.L. Talmon (researchgate.net)]

Dunutubble (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this just a list of things western liberals don't like?
How is the USSR under Stalin totalitarian but the Russian Empire isn't? Why is mainland China listed but not Taiwan, despite decades of martial law under the KMT and (if I understand correctly) the attempted genocide of the aboriginal Taiwanese? Why is Pinochet's Chile not listed? Why not the vast number of absolute monarchies in Europe throughout history?

Also Saudi Arabia not being totalitarian because women can drive now? Does MBS have his own staff of WP editors or something? Fucking lol. KetchupSalt (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Authoritarianism is not the same thing as Totalitarianism. Dunutubble (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not an answer to my questions. Until I get a satisfactory answer I will consider all entries that only list western liberal sources to be POV. KetchupSalt (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The CIA monitors Wikipedia and almost certainly filters the content on it for ideological control, so considering the majority of politically-oriented entries on Wikipedia to be propaganda seems to be a safe bet. JonathanVerlander (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A theory, but only a theory. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin was not totalitarian, and neither is Marxism-Leninism.
If you read this declassified CIA document, you will realize that anti-communist propaganda is nothing but myths and lies. It clearly states that, "Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership." All of the Marxist-Leninist republics that were founded after the Soviet Union were based on the model of Soviet democracy, and since the USSR led by Joseph Stalin was not "totalitarian", no socialist state was. 184.170.174.126 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * WP considers Radio Free Asia to be a reliable source, so this is unlikely to happen. WP discourages knowledge creation, and has no problem with spreading falsehoods so long as said falsehoods are cited. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that but don't you consider it to be a serious problem? WP reads that RFA is a United States  government funded  news service. If you know it is a falsehood, you can change it. Otherwise WP would be a fascist propaganda website. 184.170.174.126 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree it's a serious problem. WP is rife with liberal and fascist propaganda. I've been harping on this for a while, and eventually it may bear fruit. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Stalin accepted competing politician parties and ideologies besides Stalinism? Or he murdered his political opponents without much limit including entire peoples and cultures. The economy had even pockets of freedom where companies could operate outside the control of the government? Or it was a complete command economy run top down. These are the types of things historians look at when evaluating totalitarianism. -- Green  C  02:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Stalinism isn't an ideology. The word you may be looking for is Marxism-Leninism, and there are plenty of M-L governments around the world. Which ones are deemed "totalitarian" appears completely arbitrary here, which doesn't strike me as particularly serious or scientific. This kind of liberalism is a recurring problem on WP unfortunately. I would suggest 184.170.174.126 register an account to combat it. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We follow what reliable sources say in the majority. Stalinism refers to how Marxism-Lenisism was implemented, which is the important thing for this article. -- Green  C  13:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In Stalin's own words:
 * "You are puzzled by the fact that only one party will come forward at elections. You cannot see how election contests can take place under these conditions. Evidently candidates will be put forward not only by the Communist Party, but by all sorts of public, non-Party organisations. And we have hundreds of these. We have no contending parties any more than we have a capitalist class contending against a working class which is exploited by the capitalists.
 * Our society consists exclusively of free toilers of town and country - workers, peasants, intellectuals.
 * Each of these strata may have its special interests and express them by means of the numerous public organisations that exist. But since there are no classes, since the dividing lines between classes have been obliterated, since only a slight, but not a fundamental, difference between various strata in socialist society has remained, there can be no soil for the creation of contending parties. Where there are not several classes there cannot be several parties, for a party is part of a class."
 * As for the economy, it was entirely controlled by the proletariat as a whole, so it would actually be bottom up. The government of the Soviet Union was democratic. It was not a one-party state, since there were also independent politicians, but most chose to be members of the Communist Party. Your argument that Stalin "murdered his political opponents without much limit including entire peoples and cultures" is Nazi propaganda produced by Goebbels and the American fascist William Randolph Hearst. 184.170.174.126 (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Stalin isn't entirely correct here, since there existed in the USSR at least two classes: the peasantry and the proletariat. Maybe that's splitting hairs, idk. The CPSU represents both classes in that case. What liberals will typically not understand is that the suppression of the bourgeoisie and of its parties improves democracy, as it makes it difficult for the bourgeois minority to exert its will over the demos. The bit about independent politicians sounds interesting, do you have details on that? KetchupSalt (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Originally, the peasantry comprised the majority of the Soviet population, however at the end of the 1930s, they ceased to exist in any form. Most of them had become proletarians following collectivization and industrialization, and the remainder became intellectuals.
 * On the independent politicians, they were members of the Bloc of Communists and Non-Partisans. I am currently searching for details on this bloc, as it is extremely difficult due to bourgeois censorship. (Note: I am the IP user 184.170.174.126). Marxist-Leninist Ideologue (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you find anything. As far as I understand the CPSU's dominance was more a de facto than a de jure thing. A comparison could be made with modern Vietnam which also has independent candidates, and the link you provide suggests this happened even under Stalin. KetchupSalt (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Iraq
Was Saddam Hussein's Iraq fun to live in if you opposed him? Probably not. But I've never heard of it being referred to as a totalitarian state before (unless you use the word as a synonym to dictatorship). Can anyone with better knowledge in the topic, check out if it fulfulls the requirements of totalitarianism? J 1982 (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Xi, Putin, Castro, and Khamenei are totalitarian
Put them in here.`Miggly69 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * (At the time of writing this on 8 May 2022) Check the Wikipedia article for Russia it says Authoritarian and Totalitarianism is a different thing in authoritarianism a small group of individuals control the country with no constitutional limits in totalitarianism one man rules a heavily centralized state with a main ideology that everyone must follow and warps your mind to worship that ideology and Putin needs his oligarchs still and as for China I think you should compare modern day China with Stalin and Castros Cuba was way better than the military dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista who ran Cuba as an oligarchic nightmare with poor starving people though I can agree on Iran J21212121 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that Stalin was not able to do whatever he wanted, this is a common myth. His ability to maneuver was greatly limited both by the Soviet constitution, the rest of the central committee and of the CPSU as a whole. Don't take my word for this, take the CIA's:
 * Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Krushchev will be the new captain.
 * The situation in the PRC today is similar, but also not. While Xi does hold considerable sway, it is not unilateral. With Castro the situation is even more diffuse if I'm not mistaken. Either way, simply lumping every country on the US State Department's shitlist into one big pile is not good knowledge curation. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Russia and Iran allow some space for dissent, albeit limited. In China, the public was able to protest away the zero-COVID policy. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Poland
An IP editor keeps adding present-day Poland as a totalitarian regime. This is obviously not a widely held consensus among the global academic community. Sure, you can find certain critics of the current democratically elected government who are angry and claim "totalitarian!" but that's not what this list is about. -- Green  C  14:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Calling it "totalitarian" is pushing a (probably fringe) POV and so it should not be added. Only an opinion article was cited for this. Mellk (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Myanmar?
I know Burma's dictatorship under Ne Win is placed here, but I also think that the current military regime of Min Aung Hlaing should be included. It definitely seems to cross the line between Authoritarian and Totalitarian, especially since it ranks even lower on things like civil rights than some other regimes listed here. Icantfindanunusedusernamewhyme (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd agree. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Zaire?
I saw Zaire’s Wikipedia Article (and at the time writing this) it’s listed as totalitarian amd I haven’t seen it on the list I think Zaire should be added J21212121 (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There are many missing totalitarian regimes here. If you have the source confirming it is or is considered totalitarian, feel free to add the regime The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I added the state; judging by the everything this list has been through, we'll see if it lasts.AndromedazFortnite (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Soviet Union under Lenin
According to the USSR Wikipedia page, the country only became totalitarian with Stalin in charge (1924-1953). Thus, before 1924, the Soviet Union shouldn't be listed as totalitarian. S3m1f64 (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * By the ingress on the totalitarianism article, not even the USSR under Stalin qualifies. There was plenty of opposition within the CPSU. Stalin was not an autocrat, nor was he a dictator. Stalin was elected to General Secretary and tried to step down multiple times 1 2. Stalin ultimately answered to the Party which in turn answered to the electorate. Furthermore, the notion that the CPSU under Stalin attempted to control people's lives to the extent of the NSDAP under Hitler is ridiculous. Neither Stalin nor the CPSU exercised complete control over the economy - in reality the planning process was far more participatory than many realize. Nothing even close to the Führerprinzip was in force. Finally I will note that WP:LISTV suggests clear and unambiguous criteria for list inclusion, which for a Western liberal concept like totalitarianism is almost surely impossible to construct. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. There are 3 sources in the article that support the content. DrKay (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

History
African countries that have  totalitarian government. Next to the countries,write the names of the leaders of these government. 102.90.42.214 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

both communist and fascist puppet states should not be included here
as DrKay and JohnAdams1800 pointed out in their edit summaries for fascist stats but i propose this includes the communist states as well Gooduserdude (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see why we would exclude totalitarian regimes based on their ideology that would be POV, and make the list even more arbitrary and generally difficult to maintain. This article has been nothing but constant struggle over what to include or exclude, it is a pointless and arbitrary list that keeps changing by the month based on which users happen to be editing at that particular time. The problem is a fundamental lack of agreement anywhere on what the term totalitarian means, and there is such widespread confusion of the term. For these reasons we tried to delete this article years ago, it didn't work out, but any claim to calling something totalitarian requires paragraphs of supporting prose with explanations and attributed sources ("According to.."), plus counter opinions. It just can't be done in a binary list-of ("yes or no"), it doesn't work. It's uselessly arbitrary and largely OR to decide we have 3 sources that's enough to say in full wiki voice yes "yes unambiguously this is a totalitarian regime". It's ridiculous the whole thing should be scrapped. Start a new article, each regime has a section, written in prose, where editors can hammer away explaining why their sources believe it is totalitarian and/or not. Until then, this list a grand exercise in OR and POV. --  Green  C  16:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify my earlier point, when discussing puppet states, I initially focused on those with communist ideologies because DrKay and JohnAdams1800 specifically mentioned them. To broaden the scope, I also suggested including fascist puppet states. My intention was to encompass all types of puppet states under totalitarian regimes, regardless of their specific ideology, as I believe these two categories cover the majority of such states. I did not mean to exclude any other types of puppet states that might exist under different totalitarian ideologies. Gooduserdude (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There was never any consensus discussion to delete puppet states. It was simply done, and then edit warred when other editors tried to restore them. This is typical of the article, a constant churning, adding and deleting items. It goes on like this, for years. Based on whatever random opinion the latest set of editors who show up. And it's a constant changing of the guard. Yet not one person here is able to actually write 2 or 3 paragraphs of prose that explains the opinions of the sources. Nobody wants to do it. It's too hard, and takes too much time. They just want to add a name to a list.


 * Look, get rid of the list, make it prose. All these problems go away. Then we can start discussing what the source actually say, and stop playing God as list makers. --  Green  C  15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hopelessly OR and NPOV article
This article is hopelessly OR and NPOV. For example, the recent mass deletion of "puppet states". The rationale for that is very weak. This is a highly arbitrary and largely useless list. See also my comments above, about the lack of prose that explains why sources believe it is or isn't a totalitarian regime, which is extremely opinionated except for maybe a small handful. There is no consensus in the sources for the most part, our requirement for a handful of scholarly sources is arbitrary, like going on a treasure hunt and cherry picking sources. It is simply not possible to make a binary yes/no list of totalitarian states, it doesn't work. -- Green  C  15:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As I've said before on here, this list is just a list of governments that Western liberals don't like. The entire concept of totalitarianism is so flexible as to be useless. Moreover, WP:LISTV requires unambiguous criteria for list inclusion. Perhaps we should raise another request for deletion on that point? Lists aren't for prose.
 * Also one point on the present "Prose" section: how can the USSR have both enjoyed "overwhelming popular support" while somehow also being "oppressive"? Oppressive of whom? The bourgeoisie for sure. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I bet if we work together we can probably find three scholarly cites referring to every state or social order in human history as totalitarian. I call dibs on the Rapa Nui Remsense  诉  14:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of totalitarian puppet states
@GreenC @Remsense

As far as I'm concerned, puppet states which are totalitarian should be included in this list. The argument to remove puppet states is unreasonable and appears a lot like censorship.

Also, it should be noted that the users who initially removed fascist totalitarian puppet states did not explain their rationale in the talk page. Some time later, another user named Gooduserdude removed Soviet satellite states as well.

There was overall no detailed discussion or rfC regarding the exclusion of puppet states.

"Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." WP:ONUS

I dont want to start a lengthy RfC, but if you both agree on including totalitarian puppet states, this issue can be resolved straight away.

(I do share the concerns regarding the arbitrariness of the list, but this can be explained in prose if needed. However, as of now, with regards to the list alone, there should be an agreement that puppet states as a category cant be excluded. There is no sense to this. Plenty of academic sources do describe puppet states as totalitarian! There is no sane argument to remove a totalitarian state from this article, just because it was a puppet state. A list of totalitarian puppet states is also fully within the scope of this article.) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes I support inclusion, as has always been the case ever since this article started, it has had puppet states. Never saw a good argument why they were recently removed. It's completely arbitrary to remove them. If required, we'll start a Wikipedia-wide RFC and bring in the wider community. However these regimes have been in place since the start of this article and there is no scope reason or consensus that says puppet states are excluded. --  Green  C  17:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * explanation of my edits and clarification on my stance: I agree with the principle that if entries on fascist states are removed, the same criteria should apply to communist ones for consistency. Additionally, I believe that puppet states warrant recognition as distinct totalitarian entities. 	In this context, I find User:Shadow Warrior 8's proposal particularly compelling. It addresses my concerns effectively by introducing a dedicated section for puppet states, clearly indicating their affiliations with parent totalitarian regimes. This approach not only resolves my initial reservations but also adds valuable clarity to the classification. Gooduserdude (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced of this, but that's the lowest of my own priorities. Being exhaustive as such is usually benign fancruft at worst, depending on the situation. But, the issue here regards the very real message sent by homogenizing distinct situations in this way, like every politically loaded list article. The point of a list is to distill disparate data information to retrieve the useful commonalities and patterns. What are we saying are the social commonalities between socialist Afghanistan and Vichy France, exactly?.
 * Respectfully, in my opinion it's generally one of the least ideal topics for a list article, because of how nebulous the uniting term of art is. This is also true with "puppet state", frankly. Not only is there a lot of controversy whether many situations are some definition of totalitarian, the same is true for them being puppet states. The best way to handle these nuances is in prose, which is what Wikipedia articles usually are.
 * Editors are expressing good-faith concerns rooted in site policy and intellectual honesty, as far as I can tell. All I can do is try and demonstrate that, not sure what else to say here.
 * Coda:
 * If this is your criteria, you're not going to be able to collate a coherent list without genuine negligence towards the word "widely" (cf. WP:SUBSTANTIATE), because there's simply not that kind of scholarly consensus in most cases, and then you start to question why you ended up with a list only having the General Government and, I dunno, the Latin Empire on it.
 * Humor me here: why don't we discuss each addition before adding it? That way, we can hash out what this list might mean or how it might be useful. Remsense  诉  18:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @GreenC as an aside, I apologize if you intended to refer specifically to me—writing this up was interrupted, but has started by the time I reverted. Remsense  诉  19:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already stated that mass removal of puppet states which are totalitarian from the list in this page is absurd. The recent deletion of several fascist puppet states was done by one user without any discussion in the talk page, after which the user Gooduserdude made a series of edits removing the rest of the puppet states.
 * Now, it appears that Gooduserdude also have agreed to return the article to the last stable version which listed totalitarian puppet states seperately from the rest.
 * This discussion was only about inclusion of totalitarian puppet states; and my opinion is that just like totalitarian imperial states, totalitarian puppet states should also be included in this list. It appears that your concern is mostly with the arbitrariness of the "totalitarian" label. Regardless of your concerns, the removal of sourced content and multiple academic references inserted by various users over time isn't a good look. A prose section has already been inserted and any editor can elaborate the academic nuances in that section. As I already stated in my opening comment, that is also another issue, which is seperate from the topic of this discussion. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already stated that mass removal of puppet states which are totalitarian from the list in this page is absurd. The recent deletion of several fascist puppet states was done by one user without any discussion in the talk page, after which the user Gooduserdude made a series of edits removing the rest of the puppet states.
 * Now, it appears that Gooduserdude also have agreed to return the article to the last stable version which listed totalitarian puppet states seperately from the rest.
 * This discussion was only about inclusion of totalitarian puppet states; and my opinion is that just like totalitarian imperial states, totalitarian puppet states should also be included in this list. It appears that your concern is mostly with the arbitrariness of the "totalitarian" label. Regardless of your concerns, the removal of sourced content and multiple academic references inserted by various users over time isn't a good look. A prose section has already been inserted and any editor can elaborate the academic nuances in that section. As I already stated in my opening comment, that is also another issue, which is seperate from the topic of this discussion. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Bespoke naming rules
@Gooduserdude, as an aside, is there any particular reason this article should be deviating from WP:COMMONNAME? It feels like an arbitrary formalism that doesn't help the reader. Remsense 诉  19:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ok but there should be consistency, why is it a concern for you that the entry on 1940-1941 kingdom of romania should be WP:COMMONNAME as "national legionary state" but WP:COMMONNAME for greater german reich and union of soviet socialist republics does not matter as much, either list ALL entries as WP:COMMONNAME or not Gooduserdude (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was specifically asking if there was a reason we're not using the WP:COMMONNAME like most other places on Wikipedia. Remsense  诉  19:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * we could ofcourse, there is no problem at all, if you also agree that all other entries in this list should use WP:COMMONNAME, that means renaming other entries to example nazi germany (instead of greater german reich), soviet union (instead of union of soviet socialist republics) etc, for consistency reasons Gooduserdude (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm generally in favor of using the common name to a degree that starts to get on peoples' nerves, so I'm very much in agreement. Remsense  诉  20:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources: Japan
Fellow editors, I have just removed a number of sources included in the listing for Japan. These were either out-dated, explicitly opinion, or failed verification.
 * published in 1938.
 * biography; failed verification - uses totalitarianism to describe the biography subject's views on Manchukuo & Germany, not Japan.
 * explicitly an opinion essay; explicitly heterodox.

Additionally, I am removing the following source, as failing verification, and directly contradicting inclusion in the list.

Quoting from this source: Despite the judgement of those who experienced wartime Japan firsthand, scholars today are hesitant to describe the regime as totalitarian. ... Imperial Japan is virtually never classified today as a totalitarian regime by political analysts, ....

This list of sources seems indistinguishable from what might be found with a Google books search for "totalitarian" "Japan". We should not search for sources or write content to fit preconceived ideas. Rotary Engine talk 23:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * For the Lucken source, recommend starting a new Prose section. We should include differences of opinion, where it makes sense. What is or isn't totalitarian has no consensus, in most cases. Making a "list of totalitarian regimes" is thus questionable at best, so we have a Prose section to explain the sources, even when contradictory. --  Green  C  00:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to reduce controversy
Why dont we have a column that has the number of academics who attribute a regime as totalitarian? We can then link that number to references for those who do. Perhaps we could even have another column that does thee opposite ie disagree with attribution as totalitarian. Justpassinbye (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Because it would be original research, contrary to WP:NOR, and because the numbers would be prone to inaccuracy. Rotary Engine talk 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not original research to cite reliable sources. -- Green  C  14:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not original research to cite reliable sources. But the proposal above is not to cite a reliable source which has calculated or tallied the number of academics, but to perform such calculation ourselves. Rotary Engine talk 21:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not making original conclusions, though I see your point, people will use math sums to decide. I think the solution is what has already been started, to describe in prose what the sources actually say, and get away from the list. The format of a list is precisely what is making this article controversial, due to the binary nature of lists (and infobox fields) - on a topic that is not binary. It's a great example of how binary-oriented computers categorize everything into neat boxes which cause endless disputes on Wikipedia and society, and flatten and turn grey what is actually a rich and colorful topic.   --  Green  C  23:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the solution is what has already been started, to describe in prose what the sources actually say, and get away from the list. Agreed; and completely agree that the issues are due to the binary "list" nature of this article. I would support an article on Totalitarianism or Totalitarian regimes, with a brief list of select, uncontroversial, examples, and a discussion of controversial examples; both in prose. And would support discussion of viewpoints in articles on the individual regimes. But the nature of this article, contrast with a prose article is that it is, explicitly, a list. It's difficult to get away from the list-iness when it has "list" in the title. If we are to have a list, then this article has some reasonable inclusion criteria in the lead paragraph: commonly referred to as "totalitarian", or the concept of totalitarianism has been applied to them, for which there is wide consensus among scholars to be called as such. Per those criteria, this list should only include uncontroversial examples. But the list contents don't align with those criteria. Suggest that adding a column with a "count" of academics who attribute a regime as totalitarian, where the counting is done by Wikipedia editors, as proposed above, is original research; and likely to be woefully inaccurate. But happy to agree to disagree. Rotary Engine talk 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC) added Rotary Engine talk 00:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The list probably began life in totalitarianism (the article). This article can be prose, with an additional list as a convenience, echoing what is in the prose. If that doesn't work we can get rid of the list and rename it something like "Examples of totalitarianism" or "Totalitarian regimes" with the lead section making clear it is a "list" of regimes (not list in the Wikipedia sense). The hard part is filling out the prose section. I think getting rid of the list entirely is the best way otherwise editors will continue to focus on adding to a list and not bother with the prose, which is harder to contribute. -- Green  C  00:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)