This is the talk page for discussing Authoritarianism and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Authoritarianism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Authoritarianism at the Reference desk.

This   level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should we really have these lists of “examples” of authoritarian regimes? It seems pretty hacked together from sources that don’t often directly call one regime authoritarian. A similar List of dictators was deleted for what appear to be similar WP:NPOV issues. —  HTGS ( talk) 23:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ LaundryPizza03, Mccapra, Czello, Salix alba, Norden1990, Alex Bakharev, Spy-cicle, Finnusertop, TompaDompa, Nkon21, TheDreamBoat, Firefly, Bwmdjeff, and Goldsztajn: I don’t have a lot of mental energy spare to take part here, so hoping editors who participated at that delete discussion will be more able to consider whether this section is analogous. —  HTGS ( talk) 23:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Hi, can you remind me what I commented on previously @ HTGS: (please ping)  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, @ Spy-cicle, you (and all others listed there) participated in the AFD discussion for List of dictators —  HTGS ( talk) 22:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Support removal per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. See also the list at Right-wing dictatorship, which is similarly full of poorly sourced opinion. - Rotary Engine ^talk 02:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose Removed "flawed democracy" by The Economist Democracy Index to reduce WP:NPOV. Suggest to more follow the different Democracy indices. HudecEmil ( talk) 08:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Support Too subjective to call, even if we use a reliable index. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Support section removal, a list is a very poor idea. However, removing this list of examples does not mean all examples, as others may be more appropriately and contextually included in wider prose. CMD ( talk) 21:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The redirect Gender and authoritarianism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 § Gender and authoritarianism until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{( talk / cont)} 05:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

[1] [2] — 168.16.191.222 ( talk) 13:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

In this @ Generalrelative reverted a change I made to remove unsourced content. Could you please identify where the content is sourced int he referenced article? The discussion you link does not address this topic, and is on another wikipedia talk page. Text removed:

The far-right in the United States is composed of various Neo-fascist, Neo-Nazi, White nationalist, and White supremacist organizations and networks who have been known to refer to an " acceleration" of racial conflict through violent means such as assassinations, murders, terrorist attacks, and societal collapse, in order to achieve the building of a White ethnostate.

The cited article does not have any discussion of the composition of the far right. In fact, the topic of the article is about a specific neo-fascist network, and doesn't discuss the far-right or authoritarianism in any substantive manner. Supporting quotes which establish this content are needed here, as this looks like a cut and dried case of bad sourcing. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think you meant to link to my edit rather than yours? As you'll see, I was reverting a rather massive removal which included stuff that was undoubtedly well supported. But in the case of this specific passage it appears I restored content which went beyond the cited source. So thanks for alerting me to the issue. In any case, it was quite easy to find a high-quality source for this material. Cheers, Generalrelative ( talk) 21:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Not sure what you mean by "undoubtedly well supported". The content removed was not supported by the sources. If there are actual sources, then they should be added. We don't keep unsourced content on the hopes that someone sometime might find a source that supports it. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think you're confused. Look again at my revert. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

If you think the content was supported by the citations, you are free to quote the sources. I've read them, and the sources did not support the content they were attached to. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 22:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Your blanking included a direct quote. I won't be engaging with this nonsense any further. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, a direct quote from a self published site - as was noted in the edit message. See section below for further discussion. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sigh. Okay, one last reply:

The Public Eye is a peer-reviewed quarterly magazine published by Political Research Associates.

[3] That wasn't even remotely difficult for me to find. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Peer reviewed articles are fine. That's not what was removed. This link is the source that was removed. If you would like to make a case that that page can be used as a reliable source I'm all ears. If this is a citation that you really want to preserve in this article, I'm happy to widen the conversation to a broader audience. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 23:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The legacy website http://www.publiceye.org is used throughout the article citing this source. This is a self published page, and generally not a reliable secondary source. I will be removing this source from the article. If anyone has any specific issues with this course of action, please feel free to raise them here. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 23:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Public Eye's current webpage is here, and it does not appear to be self-published. It describes itself as "a peer-reviewed quarterly magazine published by Political Research Associates." See e.g. its submission guidelines. You may object to it as politically biased, but your claim that it is self-published is easily shown to be false. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I was referring not to the journal, but the cited source: [4] which has no author, and is not a published in a peer-reviewed venue. Citing articles which are published in the journal is fine. Citing moribund links from an unmaintained site with no authorship is not. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 23:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply