Talk:List of totalitarian regimes

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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? - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This underscore the problem with the term, anyone can and often do call things totalitarian. -- GreenC 21:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greece and Japan are both good examples of totalitarianism. Agreed Dunutubble (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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. --GreenC 17:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey there. It's currently #1 on the page, under "Kingdom of Italy". –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I added it. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fascist Italy WAS included; someone just removed them from the list. Vulcan300File: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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. -- GreenC 20:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Doubt so. Vulcan300 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- GreenC 15:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I tried that (as in, adding more), it only half-worked really. Lasha2008 (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TootsieRollsAddict, 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)

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) —  [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Authoritarianism is not the same thing as Totalitarianism. Dunutubble (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A theory, but only a theory. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP considers

knowledge creation, and has no problem with spreading falsehoods so long as said falsehoods are cited. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- GreenC 02:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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. -- GreenC 13:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Put them in here.`Miggly69 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- GreenC 14:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

By the ingress on the

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- GreenC 16:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- GreenC 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- GreenC 15:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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

Also, it should be noted that the users who initially removed

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."

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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 or not Gooduserdude (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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.

Stein, Guenther (January 1938). ""Totalitarian" Japan".

JSTOR 20028849

– via JSTOR.; published in 1938.

Iguchi, Haruo (2003). Unfinished Business: Ayukawa Yoshisuke and U.S.-Japan Relations, 1937–1952.

ISBN 978-1-68417-354-9

.; biography; failed verification - uses totalitarianism to describe the biography subject's views on Manchukuo & Germany, not Japan.

"Heil Hirohito: Was Imperial Japan a Fascist Totalitarian State?". 23 January 2017.; explicitly an opinion essay; explicitly heterodox.