Talk:Military dictatorship

5/1 Revision

Mostly I cleaned up grammar and miscellaneous wording stuff. However, I did delete the sentence:
Few Communist regimes are military dictatorships, and controlling the military so that it cannot challenge the party has been a persistent concern of these regimes.
Not because it was innacurate or controversial, but because it is basically repeated later in the article and it destroys the flow of the article where it was.
--Xinoph 23:03, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Latin America and Cold War

The end of the Cold War didn't had much to do with the end of military dictatorships in Latin America. By the time Gorbachev started his government, there weren't that many dictators in Latin America and the fact the remaining few became democracies had a lot more to do with internal problems than external. For example, in Brazil the slow democratization process started way back in the 70s.

Possible false info?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship#Current_cases

Did something happen recently to Canada, or is this info false?

The former list

What's the point of not having the list? I want readers to know what are the modern and former military dictatorships but I don't know about you. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules about original research. We don't get to decide on our own what all of the current military dictatorships are. Similar lists of dictatorships are typically deleted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of the list was supported by sources, the list should be restored, though perhaps without a list of current dictatorships. -- 2804:248:FB21:1700:8956:EFAC:33C6:12A4 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The section was entirely unsourced. Even if there were inline sources for each item on the list, "military dictatorship" is both contentious and subjective, so it would require very strong sourcing to a much higher standard. There's a general consensus that lists of dictatorships are not viable and they are routinely deleted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Questionable content

"The military nominally seeks power to restore order or fight corruption, but the personal motivations of military officers may include greater funding for the military or a decrease in civilian control of the military." Really? A military dictatorship is the exact opposite of civilian control of the military. I don't think this text does justice to the varied reasons that military dictatorship might occur, such as military occupation, fear of communism (cf 1967 Greek coup), opposition to civilian left-wing political leaders, personal greed or desire for power among the military, etc. (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe, if you have an alternative wording that better summarizes the article, then by all means. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If I were reviewing this GAN I would expect you to fix it. (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Military dictatorship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 19:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Hello! As part of the August 2023 GAN Backlog Drive, I will be reviewing this article. My hope is that this review will be completed this week. Let me know if you have any questions or requests! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Getting started: I'm going to do a read-through of the article, making sure I've read everything written in the order it is presented. I will be making whatever minor changes might be needed–spelling, grammar, SEAOFBLUE, and basic MOS–while taking basic notes on what might need some changes. I hope to have a full set of notes by the end of tomorrow. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Initial notes

Because typing out "military" and "military dictatorship" a thousand times is going to drive me nuts, I will generally abbreviate as "mil" and "mildic", respectively.

Lead

• "Early military dictatorships existed in post-classical Asia, including military leaders in Korea and Japan." Drop "military leaders" and perhaps replace with the centuries of the specific mildics in those two regions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
• "and it further developed in Europe during the early-20th century." I would like to see "and it further developed" swapped for something tidier like "maturing" (but perhaps not something with a positive connotation).
• I think we can link Cold War in the lead.
• Exceptional lead summary. Good work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Done except for the centuries. I'm worried that adding those will require clarification beyond the scope of the lead, because there are a few start and end dates spanning across centuries. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Formation

• "may cause interest in military regime change." Replace "military" with "military-led" or something similar; at present it reads as though the regime change might be a change to the military's internal structure. Link "regime change".
• Excellent prose on the nature of insurgent dictatorships. I am not cross-checking with sourcing at present, so this paragraph could see change down the line, but it's a damn-near-perfect summary in the eyes of this editor.
• "have the effect of harming democracy and incentivizing the creation of a stronger military" rewrite to read "harm democracy and incentivize creating a stronger military".
• "All of these factors are aggravated in countries with significant natural resources, as these provide an additional incentive for the military to seize power." Please briefly elaborate. Are these motives purely financial, or do some mildics want to prevent foreign seizure of these resources through mechanisms like nationalization?
  • Yes, it's the financial incentive, and I've added "financial" to the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• "The nature of the preceding government is also a factor in whether a military dictatorship forms." A nitpick, but do the sources weigh in on the degree to which preceding governmental structure is determinative in the likelihood of a mildic forming? Is a mildic comparatively more influenced by the preceding governmental structure when compared to other dictatorship types?
  • The cited source does not go into detail. It just discusses the aspects of these forms of government that can make military dictatorship more likely. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• "as most officers are often allowed" Most of an often feels a little too fuzzy; is there a way to perhaps more concretely state that? If not, don't worry, as the idea is conveyed soundly enough.
• "alternate military bodies may be created that do not answer to the army" Swap "alternate military bodies" with "paramilitaries" or something similar and swap "army" for "conventional military" or something similar. Most coups aren't led by navies or coast guards, but these are non-army alternate military bodies (unless you're the Chinese) that I don't think this passage is addressing.
• "myopic" is such a fun word.
  • It is, but I can't take credit for it. That sentence was there before I started editing. I actually looked at the history because that didn't seem like my voice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Glad you kept it. Every GA needs a smattering of ACT words. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• "acting on behalf of politically repressed citizens" Would it be accurate to add that mildics often characterize themselves as acting on behalf of a politically repressed majority? The literature I've seen suggests that mildics rarely characterize their actions as at the behest of a political (or even social) minority. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Made all suggested changes except for "the nature of the preceding government". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Stability

• "more likely to consolidate power." Perhaps name a specific institution or office which mildics consolidate power into–particularly juntas vis-a-vis strongmen–unless it is sufficiently covered in the "Structure" section.
  • After checking the source, I think this wording is a stretch based on the source, so I've replaced it with the more relevant tendency toward factionalism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• "This often takes place when it takes actions" Here, "it" is referring to a mildic, but I don't think it's grammatically clear.
  • Fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• "and public unrest may prompt a military dictatorship to initiate democratization." This passage reads as contradictory to "Civilian demonstrations and strikes rarely have a significant effect on military rule" in the preceding subsection. I think elaboration on this point will help contrast the meaning behind these ideas.
  • Added a little more detail to both based on what the respective sources say to clarify when each applies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• "higher homicide rates" Perhaps link with List of countries by intentional homicide rate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Structure

• This article deals with both individual military dictators and military juntas. The first two paragraphs of this section appear to only address the strongman type, so perhaps just a couple words added in to indicate whether these details are solely applicable to strongman mildics or also to juntas would be useful.
  • For now I've added "In military dictatorships with a single ruler", but I believe that generally, "dictator" could be replaced with "junta" anywhere in these paragraphs and still be accurate, so I'm wondering if there's another approach here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• "but they are subject to the wishes of the military." If possible, please elaborate. Are they able to suggest policies, even if the mildic must assent for these policies to be implemented?
  • Reworded to clarify that it's a delegation of power to technical experts that can be revoked. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Your elaborations on this are great. Good fixes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• The Idi Amin image and caption are perfect for that section–extremely excellent execution on that.
• "by securing control of state security forces" Is this distinguishing between the military and paramilitaries or is it combining them? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • "security forces" is the term used by the source, and it does not clarify. I assume that it means any group of men with guns that can secure the dictator's power, but that's just my interpretation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Ah, in that case, we can keep it high level. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • In addition to the above notes, I've also reworded the initial definitions of strongmen and juntas to make them a little clearer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation interlude

• I think that there are several instances where page numbers could be provided but they aren't. As I have not dug into the references yet, I have not begun adding them. However, I can take the lead on that aspect.
• WP:WHENINROME applies, but I was wondering if I could move all of then references cited multiple times to the bibliography section? It would de-clutter the citation section. References like Geddes, Frantz, and Wright 2014 are certainly used enough to qualify for the bibliography section even if we're only putting the top references there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever you like with the citations as long as it's not an inconvenience to you. My citation habits were not ideal when I wrote this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Politics

• "Factions are less likely to form along ideological lines among elites within military dictatorships" reads as contradictory with "Factionalism affects most military dictatorships"
  • Reworded to clarify that this is specifically about motivation for factionalism Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• "These arbitrator dictatorships tend only to last until civilian government can be restored, while direct rulers seek to consolidate their own power and reject civilian rule as inferior." Can we identify whether arbitrator dictatorships are more prevalent among juntas or strongmen mildics?
  • This source does not say, and finding additional information is difficult because these are descriptors of an approach to government rather than a formal typology. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• "The motivations of the military are often different from that of other rulers in dictatorships. Members of the military are typically concerned with the preservation of the military rather than seeking power for its own sake." This idea has been repeated several times throughout the article, which is not necessarily bad, but perhaps this can be adjusted to express additional new information.
  • Trimmed this and combined it with the next sentence so it serves to support that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• "Though approximately half of dictatorships hold..." This sentence feels like it belongs following the succeeding paragraph, as the information at the beginning of that paragraph seems to dovetail into the material in the first paragraph of the "Policy development and implementation" subsection.
  • I've moved this sentence to the end of the section. I'm not entirely sure if that's what you meant, but while I was fixing the previous point I noticed that this sentence felt out of place. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• "Policy choices often differ from those of other dictatorships, particularly in areas of war and political opposition." Again, repetition of the idea that mildics are different; we don't necessarily need that repeated with so many words that only provide a fuzzy (if accurate) generalization.
  • I think this is a side effect of the fact that I had just finished working on Dictatorship and I wanted to make sure that I was duplicating it as little as possible. I've rewritten it to state the main point more directly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• "Military regimes are generally independent..." If memory serves, there's good literature on corporate interests and pressures in mildics that take the form like that of the Egyptian regime in the last decade.
  • Of course there are always going to be counterexamples to general statements like this, but that might be an interesting aspect to give more detail. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• "but they are less likely to escalate into conflict." Describe the mechanism behind this. Does the heightened credibility of mildic threats lead to their opposition caving to demands and remove the reason for conflict or are mildic threats mistakenly understood as credible despite a record of few threats culminating in conflict?
  • The current source doesn't say. I'm thinking I might go through Dictators at War and Peace soon and use it to expand on foreign policy for this and possibly other articles. Several of the sources seem to cite her work when this comes up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• "Human rights violations and state-sanctioned atrocities..." Excellent conclusion to this thought. Good work.
• "Despite the heavy influence of military tradition, however..." The word "however" doesn't strike me as pertinent in this sentence as it is not directly contrasting with a thought expressed immediately prior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I've addressed everything here except for the detail about foreign conflict, where I'm hoping to do more thorough research. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

History

• "An early military dictatorship formed in Korea..." Do we have good evidence that this is among the earliest regimes that can be categorized as a mildic, or is this the Yeon government being categorized as a mildic and being mentioned first because it was the oldest regime described as a mildic found when researching this article?
  • The latter, which is why I wrote "an early" instead of "the earliest" or even "one of the earliest". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• If possible, describe the Yeon mildic's end-state.
  • The gist of it is that his son took over after his death and the nation was conquered by China two years later. I wasn't sure how relevant that was. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• I want to be very careful that the historic Japanese and Vietnamese examples are regularly categorized as mildics. It would be preferable if a few more sources can be mustered to this end. Mirror the multiplicity of references and in-line attribution to both contemporary accounts and modern scholarship as utilized in the Cromwell example.
  • I've added more sources for Japan. Military dictator seems to be a fairly common descriptor for shoguns in modern analysis. I could not find good sourcing for the Vietnamese example, so I've removed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• If possible, expand the Cromwell paragraph with some characteristics that have led to be categorized as a mildic. It's an interesting example, as it arose from an ostensibly republican seizure of power and involved a great deal of internal conflict–both features somewhat distinct from modern instances of mildics.
  • I've used one of the sources to add a sentence for context. Given that the classification as a military dictatorship isn't universally agreed upon, it's difficult to find sources comparing it more directly to military dictatorships. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• I think that caudillos should remain in italics at every use, but I can't be sure of the MOS on that one. I'll strike if I find the relevant standard prefers the present first use-exclusive italicization.
• "during the interwar period." Not everyone knows what the "interwar period" is, so adding a date or date range might be helpful.
  • Is "after World War I" sufficient? It's more relevant since that was a major factor in the changes in government over the following years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Ought we italicize "Conducător" if we're italicizing caudillos on first use. ~ 19:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Could we link one of the pre-2021 Myanmar/Burma mildics? The best articles that might fit there are Union Revolutionary Council (the initial 1962 junta) and 1962 Burmese coup d'état.
  • Linked the coup. The different Burmese governments should really have their own articles, but I don't know enough about the history to even redlink them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Is it possible to link Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–1990) in the body? There's a link in a caption, but I think it's such a stereotypical and well-studied case of what this article is addressing that it would be nice to find a way to ensure readers have ease of access to Wikipedia's coverage on the subject.
• Is Perón's dictatorship considered a mildic? My understanding was that it was more a particular strain of fascist demagogue rule (which features militarism but doesn't fit the definition(s) we have in the article). If multiple references state that it was a mildic, then I'm onboard.
  • It seems that the source is talking about military rule more broadly rather than just dictatorship. For now I've removed these examples, but I'm questioning whether anything from this source is within scope. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• "At the end of the Cold War," Consider linking Revolutions of 1989.
  • I've made all of the simple fixes and replied to everything else for this section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Initial appraisal

Save for some rather minor tweaks and errors (including one that an IP noticed and fixed), the article reads great. Assuming everything conforms to the present sourcing–sourcing which I believe reflects a comprehensive compilation of modern academic thought on the subject–I have little reason to believe this GAN won't pass. ~ Pbritti (talk)

Pbritti I think the article is ready for another look now to see where we're at. I went through all of the feedback, and I've also reformatted the citations just because it was bugging me. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Thebiguglyalien! I'll take a look today. I apologize, but an offline event has complicated things (don't worry, nothing of life-or-death importance) and I'll be another few hours on responding. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Further notes

• "When international opponents prompt stronger..." this sentence seems to rely on a 2010 model but contrasts directly with the following sentence "Neighboring countries that present territorial threats harm..." I would appreciate some elaboration or at least a suitable transition that sufficiently explains how these thoughts are distinct or how the self-contradiction exists in the literature. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Gonna be tagging some stuff with {{Page needed}} tags. I don't like doing that as providing a source is generally sufficient for verifiability purposes and my spot-checks on sources I can access all return positive results. However, I would appreciate an attempt to add page numbers where they can be easily provided. I will not be considering failure to provide page numbers in assessing this as P or F because of my spot-checks and the confidence they provided. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've decided that I put too much work into this article to let it be sullied by shoddy citation work, so I'm going through and making the citations use Sfn consistently with precise page numbers. The bad news is that I found some text that someone ripped almost word for word from the source, so I had to rewrite it, meaning we lost myopic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Dang—might have fail based on losing that beloved word alone.^{[just kidding]} Earwig lied to me, which I don't feel great about. I'll be looking more closely tomorrow, but presuming nothing like that pops up, I intend to promote. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, Earwig is good for the basic stuff, but it's very limited in what it can actually find. There's no deadline, so it's not a big deal if it takes another day or two before the article is failed for its lack of interesting words. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, Thebiguglyalien, I'm ready to approve pending exactly one addition: please add a sentence or two on Egyptian mildic, specifically that of the post-2013 Egyptian coup d'état administration of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Thank you, and expect approval immediately after that addition. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I added the Egypt example, and I also threw in Sudan for good measure. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Besides the issues I brought up on the talk page earlier, the article has broadness issues. It does not cover non-democratic, military rule that occurs as a result of the occupation of another country, despite this being a significant subtype of military dictatorship. (t · c) buidhe 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

My understanding, both glancing at the literature mentioned in this article and leaning on my time in university, is that the distinction between a military dictatorship and a military occupation is mutually exclusive: a military occupation involves a sovereign state's military occupying another (or portions of another) sovereign body and installing their own government that is ultimately directly beholden to the occupying; a military dictatorship is instead more single-party, involving a state's own military rising to power and governing internally. While there is overlap, I'd need to see academic literature that categorizes (rather than characterizes) a military occupation as a form of military dictatorship for me to feel that this article lacks the necessary scope. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I would also add that Wikipedia currently has an article that provides for coverage of the shared characteristics of a military dictatorship and a military occupation: Military government. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

these topics distinguishable enough for separate articles? As far as I can tell, sources interchangeably use terms like "military rule", "military regime", "military government ", "military dictatorship" etc. (t · c) buidhe 20:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe otherwise in view of the sources. If you have further concerns regarding the purpose of this article, I think they're better discussed on the article talk page. In the meantime, I'll press on with the review. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for jumping in on the changes. I am willing to concede where you decided not to implement changes. I apologize for the extended absence from the review. Expect extensive commentary on sources today. Thank you again! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A few comments

Just following up with a few introductory comments on the lead in response to the request at Milhist for a quick opinion on suitability for FAC.

• "known as a strongman" is unnecessary and a generalisation, it could be deleted.
• "The military nominally seeks power to restore order or fight corruption, but the personal motivations of military officers will vary." is completely unsustainable on the basis of the wider literature and practical examples. Their intent varies widely, but like all rulers, power is at the core of what they do. Altruism comes a long way behind personal power, gain etc.
• "and the military is often willing to give up power voluntarily rather than have the military destabilized" on what basis has that been concluded?
• "Military dictatorships are less involved in political affairs than other regimes, with their policy mainly directed toward benefiting the military as an institution" is completely unsupportable.

If the above statements accurately summarise the body, the article needs a lot of work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Some suggestions for reliable sources to be examined:

• Jerry Davila's (2013) "Dictatorship in South America"
• Klapsis, Arvanitopoulos, ‎and Hatzivassiliou's (2020) "The Greek Junta and the International System"
• Kanchoochat and Hewison's (2017) "Military, Monarchy and Repression: Assessing Thailand's Authoritarian Turn"

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)