Talk:Political strongman

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political strongman article.
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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 6 months

Section sizes

Section size for Political strongman (12 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	824	824
Functions	3,078	3,078
Politics	1,699	1,699
History	4,014	4,014
See also	268	268
References	18	4,277
Citations	32	32
Bibliography	22	4,227
Books	429	429
Journals	686	686
Web sources	3,090	3,090
Further reading	1,652	1,652
Total	15,812	15,812

On 4 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Strongman (politics) to Political strongman. The result of the discussion was moved.

This list is a terrible idea

People have been bringing up the issues with this list on this talk page for over a year, enough has been said about it that I'd feel comfortable just deleting it but I'm sure it would just get put back up again. This list is so loaded and ripe for people looking to equivocate their least favourite politician in the free world with dictators (on this talk page we've simultaneously had people arguing that Donald Trump should be removed and Barrack Obama should be added, and people arguing the reverse) that if not removed then it's going to have to be perpetually protected and curated by someone. AARPterrorist (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of academic articles making the case that Donald Trump is a "strongman," but plenty of others that say he is a wannabe. I would make the case that he fit the description of a "bossism" government. The Republican Party showed absolute fealty to his administration and that culminated into Jan. 6th and 147 House Republicans refusing to certify the transfer of power (this number would have been higher if not for the attack on the US Capitol). Nonetheless he is removed from the list with every entry, in spite of citations. It reminds me that Wikipedia, for all the good it brings, fails to accurately address political questions. Look no further than the Wikipedia description of the Republican Party where it still asserts that a majority of the party is traditional conservative and free market instead of protectionist. It is outdated and cannot be changed. That is my two cents. This analysis is as a nonpartisan as possible but I believe it does Americans a disservice. Dionysus240 (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Benjamin Netanyahu

@Beyond My Ken The article states this is a list of those classified by political scientists as strongmen which Netanyahu definitely has been Watch Atlas791 (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided is from Reuters, and "strongman" is only used in the headline, and then only in terms of his "strongman image". There is no statement by a political scientist that he is a strongman, and the article (as opposed to the headline) doesn't even use the word, just talks about the public perception of his being "strong" on security issues. There's a heck of a lot more to being a "strongman" than just having an image of being strong about national security. The source simply does not provide any evidence of N. being a strongman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough Watch Atlas791 (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

This looks a lot like the long-deleted "list of dictators" article. Sure, such a thing should exist somewhere, but not in Wikipedia mainspace. —Sesel (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nayib Bukele

How on earth is he being included in the same class as the brutal monsters we know are actually strongmen? Because he's tough on murderous gangs? Alexandermoir (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]