Talk:Examples of totalitarian regimes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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. -- GreenC 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)

As far as I'm concerned, puppet states which are totalitarian should be included in this list.

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.

The argument to remove puppet states is unreasonable and appears a lot like censorship.

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:

The following is a list of puppet states of various outside states (mostly Soviet Union and Nazi Germany), which are widely considered to be totalitarian.

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 support inclusion. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea?

Equatorial Guinea isn’t listed on here. Yet our entry for that country says and I quote: “Unitary dominant party presidential republic under a totalitarian dictatorship”, if sources can substantiate; we need to add them to this list. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

And ps. I know that Wikipedia itself can’t be cited; but whatever source called Equatorial Guinea a “totalitarian dictatorship” can. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I take that back; it’s listed as being active from 1968 to 1979. But supposedly it has either been revived or is otherwise still active today. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea isn’t listed on here. Yet our entry for that country says and I quote: “unitary dominant party presidential republic under a totalitarian dictatorship” West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2024 (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)

Now this comment is complete nonsense. All of these countries that IP #45 mentioned (save for Israel) are renowned for their freedoms. And even Israel, though flawed, is far from totalitarian. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Chechnya and current Eq Guinea

Their respective pages describe the governments as totalitarian. 108.27.60.251 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

dammit someone mentioned it already i just realized 108.27.60.251 (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Definition

Although I agree Assad was a totalitarian, I think we need a strict criteria here before labelling leaders as such otherwise it just becomes arbitrary. Can someone please tell me the criteria that is being used? Thanks. Ecpiandy (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

For example, why not include Belarus? I just don't understand how it is being defined here. Ecpiandy (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the definition in the lead section, there is a hidden comment at the top of the article saying that wide consensus among scholars should be shown by providing citations from 3-4 academic studies that define the regime as totalitarian. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding new regimes.

I want all of the people who edit the page discuss and decide on the following states and the possibility of addition of them to this list.

Guatemala under Jorge Ubico (1931-1944)

Guinea under Ahmed Sekou Toure (1958-1984)

Tajikistan under Emomali Rahmon (1994-Present)

Portugal under Antonio Salazar (1932-1968)

Dominican Republic under Rafael Trujillo (1924-1961) 31.148.1.86 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The quality of sources are poor. A quote Googled from a magazine or newspaper. By a journalist not an expert or academic. This is why we put a giant banner at the top of the article explaining we want very high quality academic sources by experts. We don't prefer a popular mag or newspaper quote. Furthermore, most of the time there is controversy. It is rarely the case that everyone agrees what is totalitarian. So there is a section called "Prose" where you can explain the history of how people have argued for and against totalitarian in that regime. There are multiple POVs for every regime. You seem to be taking the easy route: Google for "totalitarian" + the name of the regime, take 3 or 4 results, done. That's not how it works. Nobody here will be convinced by that kind of faulty research. -- GreenC 17:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Article has gone off track

The article has gone off track. Some IP editors basically took it over in January, and nobody responsible has been challenging their edits. Recommend the entire thing be reverted back to early January prior to this, and request be made for better article protection. -- GreenC 17:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

hey my edits were pretty much conscientious and based on actual academic sources and stuff, i always added 3 or more 2.63.176.244 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

2.63.183.126 (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

what are the objections?

i added citations from the books supporting things about cuba stated in the table, what's wrong? 2.63.183.206 (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Your gaming the system. See section below. The current criteria is not working. -- GreenC 04:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Prose only

The current criteria "multiple academic sources" is not working well. It's easy to game: what is "multiple" or "academic". It creates edit wars and disruptions.

Recommendation: Prose only. Prose includes multiple POVs, and attributions. It provides more detailed information, more perspectives, more context and historiography. The list creates yes/no binary boxes that are the worst possible format for subjective material.

If the current name "List of.." presents a problem, rename it Examples of purported totalitarian regimes. It was never meant to be comprehensive or authoritative anyway, it can't be, because everything about it is disputed and subjective. -- GreenC 04:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

it's often not that complicated, in case of cuba, for example, the only thing which is uncertain is when did the totalitarian period end 2.63.183.206 (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

And yet, in all the years this article existed, in the thousands of editors here, the millions of readers, you are the first to make the case. But you have not made a case, because there is no prose, just checked off a box in a list with a couple cherry picked sources. -- GreenC 07:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

first of all, i'm not sure if there have actually been millions, secondly, why are they all of a sudden cherry picked

and i'm not sure if its possible or needed to expand most of these table entries into lenghty sections: not sure if anyone would want to weite about croatia considering there aren't really any debates about it or idk

and it will take much more time, its one thing to make simple edits and the other to write lenghty sections 2.63.183.158 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah surprisingly only 10,000 since 2017. As for prose, it's always better than a check-box. It forces you to explain the position, even if non controversial. It also gives room for others to provide other POVs. Why, exactly, is Croatia considered totalitarian? What specific issues are going on there? Who are the leading scholars writing about it, what are their names, what papers and books are essential? This is what prose allows for, room to explain. -- GreenC 16:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

its good in ideabut the article will develop much slower 185.186.235.99 (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The article didn't developed well as a list. Some entries had been in place since the start, the rest was churn with entries being added then deleted over and over again. Because the list is yes/no, the only option if you disagree is deletion of the entire entry. And we saw that, constant deletions and re-additions. In prose format, once an entry is created, it's more difficult to remove, rather you would add to it with more POVs. It will be harder to build initially, but it will last. -- GreenC 05:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree that the inclusion criteria was not ideal. This is about as useful as a list of authoritarian regimes. Sure, some regimes can safely be called "authoritarian", but others are less clear and different sources can disagree on the characterization of a regime. But there needs to be some kind of move discussion if a list is not feasible. Mellk (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Yet I still support having a list of academically supported 'totalitarian regimes', having a list-format is useful for an encyclopedia. I don't see much consensus to unilaterally remove it, so I'd rather keep it until that point comes. Ecpiandy (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "academically supported list". There are only many POVs, and nearly every instance has counter opinions. It is impossible to create a black and white, yes or no, list. The attempts to do so have created constant disruptions, churn, arguments, reverts, sock puppets, long term abuse etc.. this article has been a disaster wasting huge amounts of time and effort. And it's for one reason: the format of the article, which requires a yes or no reduction. It's a logical fallacy, specifically one that reduces complex events into overly simplistic results. -- GreenC 01:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that lists are better suited to clearly defined topics. They are not suited to topics where individual entries are subject to varying degrees of dispute. DrKay (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Some sort of interference is sorely needed

This article, as a different user noted above, has gone off the rails. It has changed far too much in just a couple of months, from a decent state from about the end of 2024 to uncritically arguing too much was totalitarian to arguing very little is, not due to consensus, but instead users (many of whom are not registered users, which isn't a problem by itself but means large changes are being made without accountability) making poorly sourced edits and engaging in edit wars. A lot of arguably totalitarian states are now completely ignored (non-Soviet Marxist-Leninist states immediately spring to mind), without anything in the article arguing against their conclusion. Even among the few regimes currently included, the article seems to be weighted against their definition as totalitarian, which is an issue, as either this article should look at regimes identified by enough as totalitarian to be worth mentioning, or should only focus on cases that most would agree are/were totalitarian. In its current state, this article feels like totalitarian apologia arguing that nothing has ever been truly totalitarian and the regimes weren't that bad, which I object to on a number of levels. So, a number of changes should probably be implemented, though of course changes like these should be discussed beforehand (I am not an admin, after all).

1. Semi-protected status: The sheer number of edits by unregistered users is concerning and has deeply degraded this article's quality, and for a controversial subject like this, some type of protection should probably have existed anyways.
2. Formal consensus needed for adding/removing countries: Again, too much has been done on people's whims, and for a article like this, there needs to be general agreement and multiple perspectives given to add a new regime to the list.
3. Call the admins: I am not particularly experienced with Wikipedia's bureaucracy, but an admin should probably be brought into to offer some guidance on how exactly to fix this article, if it should continue to exist at all.

Atriskofmistake (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The article has been re-framed as examples of purported totalitarian regimes, and in prose format. There is no attempt to make a comprehensive list which can never work. Since the changeover from list to prose, the article has calmed down. The sections on Francoist Spain and Russian Revolution (1917) are historiography ie. in chronological order, name the historians, their work, the date, and their ideas, showing changing perspectives over time. This is how to do it. We are not here to convince readers of any one POV or our own opinions. Only report historiography. Nothing more, or less. -- GreenC 15:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really agree with your view on what this article should be. It (barely) covers 4 regimes, when many more have been (credibly) described as totalitarian or nearly totalitarian. Also, this article absolutely is slanted towards one POV, which is that totalitarian regimes have barely ever existed, if at all. I'll concede that I'm not expert on what the academic consensus is on what is and isn't totalitarianism, but I'll go out on a limb and say those trying to argue Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia are in the minority, considering that those are very much the textbook examples of totalitarianism, along side the conspicuously absent DPRK. Which voices one chooses to highlight is very much a continuous, purposeful decision, and is absolutely at risk of causing false balance. I apologize if that was a little confrontational, but I'm simply not convinced this article is in a better state than it was a few months ago.

If this article isn't a list and in fact, should not be a list, than the title is ill-fitting, and frankly, I'm not sure what purpose this article serves, as examples and debate about totalitarianism could be covered in the main article about that topic. Atriskofmistake (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

We have Feudalism and Examples of feudalism. That is a very similar issue because what feudalism means, and how to apply it, is highly controversial. It would be overweight to include them in the main article. If you want to add more example to the prose section of this article, please do so. You can add as many as you want. This is not a comprehensive accounting, the lack of entries does not mean anything, other than nobody has taken the time to add the entry, yet. -- GreenC 18:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

BTW most of the IPs who have been actively disrupting this article sources to Bulgaria and Russia, in areas surrounding Ukraine. There are obviously current strong feelings about fascism, and strong national feelings that Ukraine is fascist (or that Russia is fascist). I'm beginning to think increasingly this article is becoming an ideological battleground, all the more reason to use prose to explain yourself, and not an anonymously generated list with no explanations and cherry picked sources. -- GreenC 18:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

it still covers mainstream opinions and it doesn't say that they "weren't that bad": the fact that they did not achieve "total control" of society does not mean that they were not opressive and violent nor that they were good for the people, so this is clearly not apologia 2.63.180.148 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll take back calling this article "totalitarian apologia", as that was needlessly inflammatory on my part, but I'll note that

1. Apologia isn't just outright denial, but can also include minimization (i.e arguing that the death totals of a genocide were inflated, even while conceding the genocide occurred)
2. I'm not sure if the questioning of the definition of the USSR (besides the later years) and Nazi Germany as totalitarian is particularly mainstream

Atriskofmistake (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this article needed?

We already have a category of totalitarian regimes so why is this article needed? NorthernWinds (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually that category should be deleted. What constitutes a totalitarian regime is highly contested in the sources, any such category will be open to abuse and dispute, just as this article used to be, before the list was removed. And yeah there is no list, there are only some examples with significant amounts of historiography, it's nothing like a category. -- GreenC 02:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC should we propose deletion of the list then? NorthernWinds (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

What list? I don't see a list. -- GreenC 20:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I meant the category I referenced earlier NorthernWinds (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure! I'd vote for that deletion. We have deleted similar contested binary categorizations for many topics. -- GreenC 20:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@GreenC could you give me a few examples so I can add to the Arguments for deletion? NorthernWinds (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes for example we got rid of Category:Films in the public domain because while this seems like a factual statement, it is actually not, PD status is a gray area (post 1930), it requires sources and argumentation. It's not a binary category. What we saw was users and creators of DVDs that contain old movies (often sold on Ebay) claiming something was PD, via the category, to justify pirate activity. Likewise with this category we see users with ideological biases, such as on the far left and far right, labeling their opposition as totalitarian, via a category. -- GreenC 21:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Why was the table removed?

It was here until the spring. As I undestand, it is because of vandalism, but you can still leave the tabel, just remove the regimes which are not actually totalitarian. Борис Ост (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

A list format was too open to abuse and dispute, what constitutes totalitarian regime is highly contested. -- GreenC 01:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. Борис Ост (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Use the prose section. "Listing" something is only saying that a few cherry picked sources have used the word. It's meaningless at best, misleading at worse. -- GreenC 20:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I watched through the history and table was removed in 4 march because of edit war, vandalism and being misleading, but the table ahs sections disputed, so if a regime is disputed you can put it there and some regimes are just clearly should be in the list like USSR and Nazi Germany and Khmer Rouge. So I think removing table just because in late winter here came people who ruined the table should not mean we need to rmeove it. Plus, you can just watch if the sources are academic et cetera. 95.18.5.4 (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You are obviously the same editor who has been disrupting this article since January. Simply listing an academic source is not sufficient. Simply listing a source is not sufficient. And just because there used to be a list doesn't mean that list was any good, in fact it was not. The article has been greatly improved. It is now prose-only, where you need to explain the source, who said it, what they said, multiple POVs, history of changing POVs, select quotes, etc... This topic is way too controversial and difficult for a simplistic fill-in-the-blank list. Just because you found an academic source is only the first step, now you need to write prose using those sources. Your inability to understand this after repeated explanations is a clear case of WP:ICHY and it has become disruptive. -- GreenC 17:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

If by "the same editor who has been disrupting this article since January" you mean me, then you are mistaken, I support the removal of the table, I believe this "removal" to be a positive result of my "disrupting" + I was the one who wrote the new prose sections

But I'm not the only user who had been editing this article without being logged in

My username is Opostylov, I often make anonymous edits because of psychological problems, not because I want fo avoid responsibility or accountability for my edits 178.34.158.22 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

btw if you are wondering i haven't made a single edit in the last 2 months 178.34.158.22 (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

North Korea

It's not too difficult to find reliable sources calling contemporary North Korea totalitarian. Would that be in scope for this page?

Freedom House, "North Korea is a one-party state led by a dynastic totalitarian dictatorship that regularly engages in grave human rights abuses. Surveillance is pervasive, arbitrary arrests and detention are common, and punishments for political offenses are severe." https://freedomhouse.org/country/north-korea

Washington Post, "Kim Jong Un's North Korea: Life inside the totalitarian state" https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/north-korea-defectors/

TIME, "We don’t use the term totalitarian often today — meaning complete, total obedience and control...North Korea is rare in that" https://time.com/5494585/north-korea-dictator-history/

etc. 2601:486:100:9780:1506:9313:5219:A4A2 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

This article has fallen victim to Nazi propaganda

Equating Soviet Union (the country whose citizens killed the most Nazis in history, as well as doing the most of the fighting against Nazi Germany as well as being the first army in Berlin) with Nazi Germany is a well-known Nazi tactic used to whitewash the crimes of the Nazi regime.

One of the images in the article literally used the equal sign between the two.

WP:NONAZIS, we need to rid this article of Nazi apologia. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The images were added recently. They are decorative serve no functional use. If you want to remove them there should be no problem per the image guidelines. It is also possible there is propaganda going on, the activity in this article has been unusual ever since it was created in 2017. A couple years ago there were accusations of socialist propaganda. It sounds like the Nazis and Soviets should have separate sections to account for each, this is not the place for a comparative study. -- GreenC 16:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed the images and tagged the section. If you are able please help rewrite. -- GreenC 16:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:IMGCONTENT "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". So unless the article's aim is to equate Nazis and Soviets, then that image should not be in the article. Thank you for removing it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

"It sounds like the Nazis and Soviets should have separate sections to account for each,"

I agree and that was my thought as well. I'll see about splitting the two sections up later, unless you manage to do it before me. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 16:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

hey i'm not a nazi and not even right-wing i added that to illustrate the thing 89.107.138.5 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Claiming that Stalin isn't totalitarian is absolutely ridiculous. Why is this even being discussed? 2600:8807:A90D:0:A88A:1E14:D985:617A (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

yeah I guess ~2025-39829-36 (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)