Talk:Right-wing dictatorship/Archive 1

==The reason why Nazi Germany and it's various puppet governments (as well as other fascist nations) are considered right wing is because they were, and that is how they saw themselves. Hitler in his Munich speech of 1922 made the political context clear. '“....There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction – to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people are in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power – that is the beginning...”' ?==

To say that Hitler understood the value of language would be an enormous understatement. It is undeniable that some of imagery and language used by the Nazi's deliberately mirrored leftish sentiment but this was propaganda deliberately employed to assist in his rise to power. To that end, he paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but his primary—indeed, sole—focus was on achieving power whatever the cost and advancing his racist, anti-Semitic agenda. After the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, in November 1923, Hitler became convinced that he needed to utilize the semblance of democratic structures to attain his goals.

Over the following years the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser did much to grow the Nazi party by tying Hitler’s racist nationalism to rhetoric that appealed to the lower middle classes. In doing so, the Strassers also succeeded in expanding the Nazi reach beyond its traditional Bavarian base. By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies. Otto Strasser soon recognized that the Nazis were neither a party of the left nor a party of workers, and in 1930 he broke away to form the anti-capitalist Schwarze Front (Black Front). Gregor remained the head of the ( nominally ) left wing of the Nazi Party, but the die for the ideological soul of the party had been cast. Beside that any pretence of egalitarianism or equality was now out, and Gregor Strasser argued for an 'Unequal' society in which 'Natural' inequalities in society would be encouraged.

Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character. Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of left thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.253.62 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Definition of non-democratic?
A definition of non-democratic is missing. Please refer to a NPOV definition of non-democratic. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 07:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC). When a supposedly democratic government attempts to bar free speech, denigrates human rights, states that military force can be used against law-abiding citizens for having views the government dislikes or disapproves of, and strongly limits access to the legal justice system, quells protests and makes protest difficult, and entirely controls the media, and actively censors parts of the Internet, such a government is a right-wing semi-authoritarian regime, bordering on fascism. Such is the case in the UK at present (2015).

Every Latin American regime right-wing?
"Most people[who?] agree that every Latin American regime (except that of Cuba since 1959) throughout the last two centuries was a right-wing one."

Yet we learn on the on the Latin America entry in wikipedia: "In most countries, since the 2000s left-wing political parties have risen to power."

At best, the "every Latin American regime" assertion above is dated. No one would consider Hugo Chavez a right-wing dictator, for instance.

--Codehead1 (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

and also the Sandinists were not right wing. That phrase is pure crap.It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.100.167 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Post-communist section
it says cuba and north korea can be considered not right wing and china, laos and vietnam apparently are. The only explanation given is that a free market economy has been integrated into the latter three. free market does not mean it is not left-wing. It ought to at least say something like economically liberal instead of just the general term right wing. and china is not a dictatorship, it's a single-party authoritarian country but not a dictatorship. they're a little democratic, used to be a dictatorship but I wouldn't say they are anymore. anyone know about Laos or Vietnam, whether or not they are single party "democratic" states or actual dictatorships? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerikson (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Post-communist states section needs to be revised or deleted
China, Laos and Vietnam hardly have free market capitalism. That's a very ignorant statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.3.191 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Left-wing dictatorships
This is rubbish unless there is a sister page listing left-wing dictatorships (there is not). What do you call the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, among others if not authoritarian left-wing dictatorships?

Also, it should be made clear that a "right wing dictatorship" is in context of the time and place. Classic American style conservatism has little to do with National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany, they were "to the right" of the Communists, but so are American Democrats and Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertycollab (talk • contribs) 05:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew
I think Lee Kuan Yew's leadership was also a right-wing dictatorship. We need to add him on the list.--JohnGao (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Of questionable neutrality...
"There are various definitions of the term "rightist". The broadest one includes all dictatorships that do not consider themselves communist." Anything that's not communist is rightist/right-wing? Does anyone, apart from some hardline communists, actually use this definition? Neither OED nor Merriam-Webster nor dictionary.com include this definition. If nobody has a valid argument against it, I will change the section to: "There are various definitions of the term "rightist", the most common being "conservative" or "reactionary". Those are often to some degree pro-market in economic matters and conservative in social ones. The term fascist dictatorship is sometimes erroneously used interchangeably with right-wing dictatorship." Reasoning: 191.114.6.33 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the above definitions
 * "pro-market" is unambiguous, "capitalist" is very vague and politically charged, probably should be considered a weasel word
 * ideological matters include practically anything, "social matters" is more precise in this case
 * fascist is not a synonym for right-wing, in no dictionary


 * Actually, scrap that. By Zeus' beard. The whole article is one big ideological desaster and needs rewriting. Not sure if I'm up for the task... 191.114.6.33 (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is Nazi Germany described as anti-religious?
Nazi Germany were in bed with the Vatican, and their soldiers wore the words 'Gott mit uns' on their belt buckles. There's also Hitler himself declaring the whole movement as Christian

RabSimpson (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Nazi Germany where quite tolerant of both atheism and christianity


 * See Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany. Nazi Germany was considerably hostile against Judaism in particular, while also having some criticisms against standard Christianity, the NSDAP having even kind of created their own split off Christianity, "Positive Christianity." 45.234.133.47 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Good article, but...
Where is the list of right-wing dictatorships in South America and Africa? 181.224.194.46 (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Empire of Japan
In a controversial matter like the leadership of Imperial Japan in World War II, neutrality is obligatory and one side of the debate cannot be imposed. Therefore, I have opted by the only possible neutral way (Hirohito with Hideki Tojo) instead of my own judgment (if I followed my particular opinion I would only write Hirohito), while user 2401:e180:88a0:906e:e585:f98:f1c7:6148 insists on imposing his particular side of the debate (writing only Hideki Tojo).

Here is the opinion on Tojo from Takahisa Furukawa, a Nihon University expert on wartime history: "Tojo is a bureaucrat who was incapable of making own decisions, so he turned to the emperor as his supervisor. That's why he had to report everything for the emperor to decide. If the emperor didn't say no, then he would proceed." I agree with this opinion.

Nonetheless, I know there is no unanimity on this matter among historians, so I have opted for a neutral formula. I would like everyone to respect the neutrality that is the norm in Wikipedia instead of trying to impose our particular side of the debate on a matter subject to controversy.--84.125.30.50 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that the "Empire of Japan" line should be included at all. It is not directly supported by any citations of reliable sources, and appears poorly supported by any of the linked articles. "Dictator" does not appear in the article Hirohito. It does appear in Hideki Tojo, but in a negative sense, and attributed: The American historian Herbert Bix wrote that Tojo was a "dictator" only in the narrow sense that from September 1942 on, he was generally able to impose his will on the Cabinet without seeking a consensus, but at same time noted that Tojo's power was based upon support from the Emperor, who held the ultimate powers. "Dictator" does appear at Japan, but only in describing the Shōgun. "Dictator" does appear at Empire of Japan, but only in the Infobox & in categorisation, not in the article text. I'm also not convinced that the neutral formula proposed isn't a classic Argument to moderation. - Ryk72 talk 00:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I can agree with the questioning of the term "dictator" for the leader of Imperial Japan in World War II or "dictatorship" for its regime. I rather think it was an oligarchy in which the emperor (its only member who remained throughout the entire war period) was an active participant in a plural decision-making process. But it was not me who included the Empire of Japan in this list of Right-wing Dictatorships and it is not the first time that (even in history books) an assimilation is made between the Japanese regime of the time and the dictatorships themselves, despite their differences. Therefore, I have only tried to point out the corresponding leadership as best as possible, based on the recognition that there is a controversy in this regard among historians.
 * A classic Argument to moderation? Is this a case of intermediate point between truth and complete nonsense? I don't think so, because it is undeniable that, on this matter, historians are divided between an interpretation and the opposite, without a consensus to this day. And I want to make it very clear: at no time have I said that the neutral formula that I have chosen to use is "the truth". The only "truth" is that the emperor's critics point to Hirohito, and his apologists point to a "military clique". As I said, I am on one side of the debate (the emperor's critics), but I do not intend to impose my particular opinion, just as I hope that those on the other side of the discussion do not seek to impose theirs. Should Wikipedia pretend to resolve a debate that historians have not settled for years?
 * Ok, if someone has a better solution than the one I used to try to be neutral I will be happy to read it and more than open to accept it if it is neutral and adjusted to the historical data available. But please, don't question my good faith or offend me personally to defend your own opinions.--84.125.30.50 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing
Sourcing in the Empire of Japan section of the List of Asian right-wing dictatorships remains an issue; both the reliability of sources and their alignment to article text.

The section currently relies on the following:
 * supporting the inclusion of Imperial Way Faction (Kodoha). Available at the Open Library. It does not describe either Hirohito or Sadao Araki as a dictator, and does not describe the Kodoha has having achieved power.
 * supporting inclusion of Control Faction (Toseiha). Available at the Open Library, as the 1991 edition. The cited work is a 1994 reprint (not revision). The work does not describe either Hirohito or Tojo as a dictator, and does not describe the Toseiha as having achieved power.
 * supporting the inclusion of Imperial Rule Assistance Association (Taisei Yokusankai). Not readily available. But added in the same edit as Crozier, Harries & Bix' Hirohito and the making of modern Japan. None of which support the inclusion of the current article content. Bix outright contradicts it; twice.
 * for "Years of rule" for the IRAA possibly. It does support that the IRAA was extant during that time; but not that it was dictatorial.
 * supporting the inclusion of Hirohito as a dictator. An autobiographical memoir; Tu's opinion might possibly be noteworthy somewhere, but is not reliable for statement of fact.

And has also recently referenced the following sources:
 * supporting the inclusion of Hirohito; removed as self-published.
 * supporting the inclusion of Hirohito; removed as self-published.
 * supporting the inclusion of Hirohito; removed as directly contradicting the article text.

The sourcing is either not reliable or does not support inclusion in this list. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 09:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Have removed the sources per the above. If alternative reliable and verifying sources can be found, then they should be added. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 10:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

A new source addition:
 * the supporting text here is ... the emperor was not only aware and informed of Japan's affairs, domestic and international, but took an active, if not always highly visible, part in them. The idea of a "Showa Restoration" - stripping the Diet, prime minister, and Cabinet of any effective power, reducing them to mere functionaries, in the process making the emperor an absolute monarch - reveals the presence of a more forceful personality willing to actually exercise his imperial power than would be expected of a detached, isolated monarch.
 * There are two issues immediately apparent with the use of this source: 1. "absolute monarch" is not equatable to "dictator"; per WP:NOR; 2. the source describes an idea, the Showa Restoration, which was not realised; attempts to bring about absolute imperial rule failed; e.g. the February 26 incident.

The source does not support inclusion in this list. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 22:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 1. Rotary Engine says: "absolute monarch" is not equatable to "dictator"; per WP:NOR. I couldn't find anything about "absolute monarchs and dictators" in WP:NOR, but I found in Dictatorship this: Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian and can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies. Therefore, if this user claims that "absolute monarch" is not equatable to "dictator" my question is "why?".


 * 2. The key to the use of this source is not "the idea of a Showa Restoration", but the description that the text of the referenced page makes of Hirohito's form of government. One part is the one already quoted by Rotary Engine. Other in the same page is ... By the time Hirohito succeeded his father, however, only one of the genro remained alive, with no one of sufficient moral and political stature and prestige to take their places. Hirohito, then, when making imperial decisions, felt far less constrained by temperament or tradition to defer to the counsel of his advisors. Hirohito possessed, by all acounts, a first-class intellect, and as he had subtly demonstrated during the first six years of his reign, then openly displayed, during the February 26 Incident, a will of iron and a measure of ruthless determination. (...) This ruthlessness manifested itself not just in domestic politics but in Japan foreign affairs as well.


 * Is this description incompatible with the object of the article? I'm not sure it is. Regarding this, I think it would be useful to talk about where I stand on this matter and why include the Empire of Japan and its leaders in this article.


 * Personally, I believe that the Empire of Japan was not a "dictatorship", at least as it is understood in the West. It was certainly not a democratic regime, but it was more like an oligarchy coordinated by the emperor. Minoru Genda explained that ... "the whole organization was split into three -that is, the Navy, the Army, and what is known as the government- and the only one who could coordinate the three was the emperor." We can find this in Fighting to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, by Leon V. Sigal, published by Cornell University Press in 1988, p. 74. My personal point of view is closer to that held by Professor Herbert P. Bix, who states that ... although the emperor was more akin to an absolute rather than a constitutional monarch, he was not by nature a combative man eager to start wars. Neither was he a dictator or a Western-style wielder of despotic power like Hitler or Mussolini. Hirohito operated within a bureaucratic monarchy protected by his Meiji Constitution, and advised by his palace entourage or "court group." Not until the late 1930s did Hirohito become a real war leader, actually exercising his constitutional prerogatives of supreme command. So I repeat: my point of view is that the Japanese Empire was an oligarchy coordinated by its emperor rather than a "dictatorship" in Hitler's or Mussolini's model.


 * Nonetheless, it's evident that the Empire of Japan, because of its non-democratic character and its alliance with the fascist dictatorships in World War II is frequently assimilated to that regimes by several authors. I think this is the reason why it has been included in this article. After all, it is an opinion whose existence should not be ignored, but taken into account and properly indicated. That is why I have been bothering to look for sources that clearly make this assimilation, to referencing this fact. It is evident that the Empire of Japan, whether or not it was a dictatorship in the strict sense, is very often assimilated to the dictatorships with which it was allied, and this fact is worth noting.


 * What does not seem appropriate to me, in this context, is to demand that any reference used must show the Japanese Empire as a dictatorship identical to the European ones, and if it is not exactly the same, dismiss it by stating that "the source does not support inclusion in this list", because what it is about is showing the assimilation that various authors make between the Japanese regime and the Western dictatorships, not demonstrating that they were exactly the same.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ulises Thank you for the ping.
 * For 1.: See WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. We cannot take a source which asserts that someone was an absolute monarch (and I do not concur that Butler's "Pearl" does that) and combine it with a definition of "dictatorship" to reach a conclusion not in the source.
 * For 2.: The text, stripping the Diet, prime minister, and Cabinet of any effective power ... making the emperor an absolute monarch, is clearly a parenthetical describing the Showa Restoration; a state which did not come into being. The next quote from Butler, By the time Hirohito succeeded his father ... felt far less constrained by temperament or tradition to defer to the counsel of his advisors. Hirohito possessed, by all accounts, a first-class intellect ... isn't necessarily incompatible; but it's also not incompatible with someone merely more independent minded & actively involved than his predecessors. What it doesn't do, however, is actively assert that he was a dictator. Which is what it needs to do to be a source which verifies content stating that he was a dictator. (As a side note, it's ironic that the example of ruthlessness determination is the February 26 incident, in which Hirohito's actions were to thwart a coup which sought to bring about a Showa Restoration & make him an absolute ruler.)
 * Nonetheless, it's evident that the Empire of Japan, because of its non-democratic character Do we have sources for this statement? and its alliance with the fascist dictatorships in World War II is frequently assimilated to that regimes. Oh absolutely agree that it is common for people to conceive of the Empire of Japan as equivalent to Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany and assume that it must have been a dictatorship. WW2-era Allied propaganda explicitly pushed that viewpoint. But thankfully we don't write articles based on 80-year old propaganda; we base our articles on mainstream scholarship. NOTE: I struggled with the use of "assimilate'' in this context; eventually reading it as a synonym for "associate with". If that's not the intent, please let me know.
 * It is evident that the Empire of Japan, whether or not it was a dictatorship in the strict sense, is very often assimilated to the dictatorships with which it was allied, and this fact is worth noting. & It is an opinion whose existence should not be ignored, but taken into account and properly indicated. It should be indicated in alignment with its prominence in mainstream reliable sources (per WP:DUE); and so far, we don't seem to have (m)any which support it.
 * That is why I have been bothering to look for sources that clearly make this assimilation, to referencing this fact. I was impressed by a comment I saw earlier today, Targeted searches for any phrase invite bias, as they may overlook other phrases. It's best to search for the person, as unbiasedly as possible, and see which ... labels naturally seem to be most commonly used
 * What does not seem appropriate to me, in this context, is to demand that any reference used must show the Japanese Empire as a dictatorship identical to the European ones ... emphasis added . This is a straw man argument, and unworthy. Nowhere have I asserted that sources must show the Japanese Empire as identical to European dictatorship. I do assert that for us to include it in a list of right-wing dictatorships, there should be sources which describe it as a dictatorship, as right-wing, and that those sources should be reliable.
 * Of the sources provided so far, 2 have been opposed because they are self-published; 1 because it is an autobiographical memoir & reliable for attributed opinion only; and one because it doesn't directly support the assertion that Hirohito was a dictator (per WP:V).
 * Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 13:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And, why are we walking past Bix' Neither was he a dictator or a Western-style wielder of despotic power like Hitler or Mussolini. Hirohito operated within a bureaucratic monarchy protected by his Meiji Constitution. or Eri Hotta's Unlike its fascist partners, Japan was never a dictatorship, even though its parliamentary politics had formally ceased to exist in the fall of 1940. It's decision making process was drawn out and often baffling ... in Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy. Or Stephen Large's Emperor Hirohito and Showa Japan: A Political Biography While the military was the dominant political elite by 1941, Japan did not have a military dictatorship. The power of the military was hegemonic, not absolute, and depended on the acquiescence of other elites. These sources are not equivocal. Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 13:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you to you.
 * Well, point by point.
 * 1. You haven't answered my question. I was not talking, at this point, about whether the specific reference calls Hirohito an "absolute monarch" (although there are plenty of authors who qualify him that way, or talk about his "absolute power" before 1945, for example historian Francis Pike in this article, attention to 'Myth 2' or Axel Berkofsky here), but why are you asserting that "absolute monarch is not equatable to dictator". Talking of "unworthy straw man arguments"... I have not disrespected you at any time, and if you were not demanding an identity without distinction between the Hirohito regime and those of Hitler and Mussolini, I apologize, but that is what I understood. Personal attacks should be avoided.
 * 2. It is highly debatable that the February 26 Incident was intended to make Hirohito an absolute ruler, even if its promoters claimed so in words. It seems to me that they intended to establish a military dictatorship more similar to a "shogunate", which is why Hirohito felt his position was threatened and acted against the rebels of the Kodoha. And yes, Hirohito's description in the source is compatible with the object of the article.
 * 3."80-year old propaganda..." Again, the "unworthy straw man arguments". I'm not talking about allied propaganda during World War II. I'm talking about modern historians and authors who qualify the Japanese regime as "totalitarian", or "dictatorial", or "authoritarian" and assimilite it to his fascist allies in the West, like here, for example. Again, avoid personal attacks. They can turn against you.
 * 4.In relation to the above, denying that there are historians and authors who considered the Japanese regime of the time to be totalitarian, authoritarian, or dictatorial (regardless of the never-settled controversy over which of its leaders was the most similar to a "dictator," on what I have my own opinion, but it is not in my power to settle this controversy) it seems to me, as can be seen in works like the one I have linked, that it is denying the obvious.
 * 5.About "bias", I think this is not the case. If we are trying to illustrate the different points of view on a topic, we must find sources on each of them; In the case of this list, those who consider Imperial Japan as a "dictatorship" (or equivalent) and one of its leaders as a "dictator" (or equivalent), especially when it is already known that this position exists among the authors on this matter. If not, what should I look for on this list?
 * In short, we can discuss whether the reference currently used is adequate or another should be sought, but I think it is clear that a global disqualification of the inclusion of Imperial Japan in this list is out of place, unless we first define what we mean by "dictatorship". Regarding the "right-wing" character, I think the traditionalist and conservative character of the Japanese imperial regime is hardly questionable. As far as I know, traditionalist and conservative politics are considered "right-wing", although if a specific reference in this regard is considered necessary for each country, then it will have to be sought... and I do not think there is any "bias" in proceeding to it.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Our policies require that we reference reliable sources that directly support the material; explaining that a source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source (WP:NOR).
 * That's the standard that the referenced sources need to meet.
 * We can't take a source which asserts "absolute monarch" and use it as a reference for "dictator", because it's either a) an original interpretation of the source, or b) a synthesis; in this case a synthesis of the source and an (unsourced) assertion that "all absolute monarchies are dictatorships".
 * It doesn't matter that a source's text is compatible with a particular viewpoint; for us to assert that viewpoint, the source must directly support it.
 * If there's a different question that I've overlooked, please let me know.
 * 2. Agreed that its highly debatable. Perhaps I should have put an "ostensibly" in there somewhere; for either Hirohito or the Young Officers, or both. But it's also a side note.
 * 3. "Totalitarian" & "authoritarian" aren't equatable to "dictatorship"; per WP:NOR & WP:SYNTH. This is a list of (right-wing) dictatorships; we need sources which directly support that, not sources which support things that might be aspects or properties of that. I'm not overly worried about the "right-wing" aspect; only mentioned because it's in the article title.
 * Pike & Hoyt are interesting sources; both are available online. Hoyt's Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict mentions Hirohito multiple times; does not describe him as a dictator. Pike's Hirohito's War: The Pacific War, 1941-1945 mentions Hirohito more than a hundred times times, including In constitutional terms, although Hirohito was, at least in theory, an absolute monarch, head of state, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and godhead, be convention he operated within a framework that allocated power to different elite groups; does not describe him as a dictator.
 * 4. Agreed that there are likely sources who consider(ed) the Japanese regime to be totalitarian, authoritarian, etc. What we need here is reliable sources which describe it as a "dictatorship". What we need to include Hirohito, Tojo or Sadao Araki is sources which describe them personally as "dictators".
 * We can't equate "totalitarian" or "authoritarian" with "dictatorship"; even though dictatorships are likely to be both totalitarian and authoritarian.
 * We can't go: "authoritarian"/"totalitarian" (both sourced), therefore "dictatorship" (WP:OR); plus Hirohito & Tojo in power, therefore "dictators" (WP:OR). That's a string of original research. Not suggesting that anyone is doing that; just putting up an example of what's not permitted.
 * 5. If we pre-determine the different viewpoints that we will include, and search for sources for them, we will likely end up with a non-neutral result. If we search neutrally, and include the viewpoints that we find, in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, we will not.
 * If we search for "Hirohito", there's not much in the way of modern, reliable sources that describe him as a dictator; and some good sources which say he wasn't. We've both searched for "Hirohito" + "dictator", and not come up with much. I get the same self-published sources as previously discussed; plus a lot which don't describe him as a dictator (but which do use the term for several other world leaders). If we search for "Tojo Hideki", there's probably a bit more; mostly qualified with "virtual". If we search for "Sadao Araki", there's nothing to support describing him as a dictator excluding his unrealised aspirations.
 * If there's no reliable sources which directly support inclusion, then it should be removed. If there's no reliable sources which directly support inclusion, and there are reliable sources which contradict inclusion, then it should be removed and we should rethink the viewpoints that we feel are worthy of being searched for (per WP:DUE & WP:BALASPS) . Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 20:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for your answer, and for your tone.


 * As for Hirohito: as we know, he is a very controversial figure. We can find about him from quite apologist sources (such as Hoyt or Large, among whom we have cited) to other very critical ones that point to his personal active involvement in Japanese politics of the time (among those we have cited, Bix or Pike; Axel Berkofsky, as we have seen, directly qualifies him as an "absolute monarch"). Personally, after 30 years of studying his life, I count myself among Hirohito's critics, of course as a result of having consulted works from both sides of the debate (and from equidistant ones as well) and my view on him largely coincides, as I said, with Herbert Bix's description and, as a much more direct witness, with Minoru Genda's description of the system that I quoted in my first post. In short, Hirohito wasn't exactly a "dictator", but rather the coordinator of an oligarchy.


 * For the rest, I think (in view of your words) that now we are much closer to being fully in agreement. It will be interesting to talk about the exact limits of what should and should not be considered as "dictatorship" between authoritarian or totalitarian regimes and specify their differences. Of course, for a final conclusion on the inclusion or exclusion of the Empire of Japan and its leaders in this list, we will have to wait for a somewhat broader consensus to be confirmed.


 * All the best. –Ulises Laertíada (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I forgot it. Sorry. When I'm using in this messages the word "assimilate" I mean "consider it comparable", of a similar category.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Appreciate the clarification. I think I read it as near enough to that meaning; but will re-read to check for any misunderstanding on my part. Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 22:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * P.P.S.: Your last paragraph about the texts by Bix, Hotta and Large was not visible to me when i wrote and corrected my reply, I ignore the causes. Maybe my connection was not very good at the time, and that's why a couple of issues came out with my IP. But it seems that it has already improved. Regarding those paragraphs, yes, opinions that feel Imperial Japan was not exactly what is meant by a "dictatorship" should be considered (as I said, that's my personal opinion as well), but opinions that believe it was should not be ignored or omitted. As with any controversial issue. As I also said, I believe that the Empire of Japan is included because there is this current of opinion among some historians, a fact that must be taken into account. The fact that I, or you, or Bix, or Hotta, understand that the affinities between the Hirohito regime and those of Mussolini and Hitler do not go so far as to consider Japan as a "dictatorship" in the style of these two does not mean that if other authors believe the opposite their opinion should be ignored. In disputed matters it is difficult to establish anything as a "fact". You can only verify what each side of the debate holds, without ignoring any.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, have removed the content which is both unsourced & contradicted by the linked articles; and tagged the remaining unsourced content as citation needed. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 12:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If the Empire of Japan doesn't exactly fit into the "dictatorship" category, then should that section be deleted? What is your opinion? That is, if IRAA has been removed because it can't be considered a dictatorial movement, then none of its leaders can be considered a dictator.-Ulises Laertíada (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed the "Empire of Japan" section per reasons explained above.-Ulises Laertíada (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski's Poland
Józef Piłsudski is a left-wing nationalist, not a right-wing nationalist. His government is not a right-wing dictatorship. Mureungdowon (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)