text:
Dictatorship

A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials. The dictator maintains control by influencing and appeasing the inner circle and repressing any opposition, which may include rival political parties, armed resistance, or disloyal members of the dictator's inner circle. Dictatorships can be formed by a military coup that overthrows the previous government through force or they can be formed by a self-coup in which elected leaders make their rule permanent. Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian, and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies.

The Latin word dictator originated in the early Roman Republic to refer to a constitutional office with "a temporary grant of absolute power to a leader to handle some emergency." The earliest military dictatorships developed in the post-classical era, particularly in Shogun-era Japan and in England under Oliver Cromwell. Modern dictatorships first developed in the 19th century, which included Bonapartism in Europe and caudillos in Latin America. The 20th century saw the rise of fascist and communist dictatorships in Europe; fascism was largely eradicated in the aftermath of World War II in 1945, while communism spread to other continents, maintaining prominence until the end of the Cold War in 1991. The 20th century also saw the rise of personalist dictatorships in Africa and military dictatorships in Latin America, both of which became prominent in the 1960s and 1970s.

The period following the collapse of the Soviet Union witnessed a sporadic rise in democracies around the world, despite several dictatorships persisting into the 21st century, particularly in Africa and Asia. During the early 21st century, democratic governments came to outnumber authoritarian states by 98 to 80. The second decade was marked by a democratic recession, following the 2008 global financial crisis which drastically reduced the appeal of the Western model around the world. By 2019, the number of authoritarian governments had again surmounted that of democracies by 92 to 87.

Dictatorships often attempt to portray a democratic facade, frequently holding elections in order to establish their legitimacy or provide incentives to members of the ruling party, but these elections are not competitive for the opposition. Stability in a dictatorship is maintained through coercion and political repression, which involves the restriction of access to information, the tracking of the political opposition, and acts of violence. Dictatorships that fail to repress the opposition are susceptible to collapse through a coup or a revolution.

Structure
The power structures of dictatorships vary, and different definitions of dictatorship consider different elements of this structure. Political scientists such as Juan José Linz and Samuel P. Huntington identify key attributes that define the power structure of a dictatorship, including a single leader or a small group of leaders, the exercise of power with few limitations, limited political pluralism, and limited mass mobilization.

The dictator exercises most or total power over the government and society, but sometimes elites are necessary to carry out the dictator's rule. They form an inner circle, making up a class of elites that hold a degree of power within the dictatorship and receive benefits in exchange for their support. They may be military officers, party members, or friends or family of the dictator. Elites are also the primary political threats of a dictator, as they can leverage their power to influence or overthrow the dictatorship. The inner circle's support is necessary for a dictator's orders to be carried out, causing elites to serve as a check on the dictator's power. To enact policy, a dictator must either appease the regime's elites or attempt to replace them. Elites must also compete to wield more power than one another, but the amount of power held by elites also depends on their unity. Factions or divisions among the elites will mitigate their ability to bargain with the dictator, resulting in the dictator having more unrestrained power. A unified inner circle has the capacity to overthrow a dictator, and the dictator must make greater concessions to the inner circle to stay in power. This is particularly true when the inner circle is made up of military officers that have the resources to carry out a military coup.

The opposition to a dictatorship represents all of the factions that are not part of the dictatorship and anyone that does not support the regime. Organized opposition is a threat to the stability of a dictatorship, as it seeks to undermine public support for the dictator and calls for regime change. A dictator may address the opposition by repressing it through force, modifying laws to restrict its power, or appeasing it with limited benefits. The opposition can be an external group, or it can also include current and former members of the dictator's inner circle.

Totalitarianism is a variation of dictatorship characterized by the presence of a single political party and more specifically, by a powerful leader who imposes personal and political prominence. Power is enforced through a steadfast collaboration between the government and a highly developed ideology. A totalitarian government has "total control of mass communications and social and economic organizations". Political philosopher Hannah Arendt describes totalitarianism as a new and extreme form of dictatorship composed of "atomized, isolated individuals" in which ideology plays a leading role in defining how the entire society should be organized. Political scientist Juan José Linz identifies a spectrum of political systems with democracies and totalitarian regimes separated by authoritarian regimes with varied classifications of hybrid systems. He describes totalitarian regimes as exercising control over politics and political mobilization rather than merely suppressing it.

Formation
A dictatorship is formed when a specific group seizes power, with the composition of this group affecting how power is seized and how the eventual dictatorship will rule. The group may be military or political, it may be organized or disorganized, and it may disproportionately represent a certain demographic. After power is seized, the group must determine what positions its members will hold in the new government and how this government will operate, sometimes resulting in disagreements that split the group. Members of the group will typically make up the elites in a dictator's inner circle at the beginning of a new dictatorship, though the dictator may remove them as a means to gain additional power.

Unless they have undertaken a self-coup, those seizing power typically have little governmental experience and do not have a detailed policy plan in advance. If the dictator has not seized power through a political party, then a party may be formed as a mechanism to reward supporters and to concentrate power in the hands of political allies instead of militant allies. Parties formed after the seizure of power often have little influence and only exist to serve the dictator.

Most dictatorships are formed through military means or through a political party. Nearly half of dictatorships start as a military coup, though others have been started by foreign intervention, elected officials ending competitive elections, insurgent takeovers, popular uprisings by citizens, or legal maneuvering by autocratic elites to take power within their government. Between 1946 and 2010, 42% of dictatorships began by overthrowing a different dictatorship, and 26% began after achieving independence from a foreign government. Many others developed following a period of warlordism.

Types of dictatorships
A classification of dictatorships, which began with political scientist Barbara Geddes in 1999, focuses on where power lies. Under this system, there are three types of dictatorships. Military dictatorships are controlled by military officers, one-party dictatorships are controlled by the leadership of a political party, and personalist dictatorships are controlled by a single individual. In some circumstances, monarchies are also considered dictatorships if the monarchs hold a significant amount of political power. Hybrid dictatorships are regimes that have a combination of these classifications.

Military
Military dictatorships are regimes in which military officers hold power, determine who will lead the country, and exercise influence over policy. They are most common in developing nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. They are often unstable, and the average duration of a military dictatorship is only five years, but they are often followed by additional military coups and military dictatorships. While common in the 20th century, the prominence of military dictatorships declined in the 1970s and 1980s.

Military dictatorships are typically formed by a military coup in which senior officers use the military to overthrow the government. In democracies, the threat of a military coup is associated with the period immediately after a democracy's creation but prior to large-scale military reforms. In oligarchies, the threat of a military coup comes from the strength of the military weighed against the concessions made to the military. Other factors associated with military coups include extensive natural resources, limited use of the military internationally, and use of the military as an oppressive force domestically. Military coups do not necessarily result in military dictatorships, as power may then be passed to an individual or the military may allow democratic elections to take place.

Military dictatorships often have traits in common due to the shared background of military dictators. These dictators may view themselves as impartial in their oversight of a country due to their nonpartisan status, and they may view themselves as "guardians of the state". The predominance of violent force in military training manifests in an acceptance of violence as a political tool and the ability to organize violence on a large scale. Military dictators may also be less trusting or diplomatic and underestimate the use of bargaining and compromise in politics.

One-party
One-party dictatorships are governments in which a single political party dominates politics. Single-party dictatorships are one-party states in which only the party in power is legalized, sometimes along with minor allied parties, and all opposition parties are banned. Dominant-party dictatorships or electoral authoritarian dictatorships are one-party dictatorships in which opposition parties are nominally legal but cannot meaningfully influence government. Single-party dictatorships were most common during the Cold War, with dominant-party dictatorships becoming more common after the fall of the Soviet Union. Ruling parties in one-party dictatorships are distinct from political parties that were created to serve a dictator in that the ruling party in a one-party dictatorship permeates every level of society.

One-party dictatorships are more stable than other forms of authoritarian rule, as they are less susceptible to insurgency and see higher economic growth. Ruling parties allow a dictatorship to more broadly influence the populace and facilitate political agreement between party elites. Between 1950 and 2016, one-party dictatorships made up 57% of authoritarian regimes in the world, and one-party dictatorships have continued to expand more quickly than other forms of dictatorship in the latter half of the 20th century. Due to the structure of their leadership, one-party dictatorships are significantly less likely to face civil conflict, insurgency, or terrorism than other forms of dictatorship. The use of ruling parties also provides more legitimacy to its leadership and elites than other forms of dictatorship and facilitates a peaceful transfer of power at the end of a dictator's rule.

One-party dictatorships became prominent in Asia and Eastern Europe during the Cold War as communist governments were installed in several countries. One-party rule also developed in several countries in Africa during decolonization in the 1960s and 1970s, some of which produced authoritarian regimes. A ruling party in a one-party dictatorship may rule under any ideology or it may have no guiding ideology. Marxist one-party states are sometimes distinguished from other one-party states, but they function similarly. When a one-party dictatorship develops gradually through legal means, it can result in conflict between the party organization and the state apparatus and civil service, as the party rules in parallel and increasingly appoints its own members to positions of power. Parties that take power through violence are often able to implement larger changes in a shorter period of time.

Personalist
Personalist dictatorships are regimes in which all of the power lies in the hands of a single individual. They differ from other forms of dictatorships in that the dictator has greater access to key political positions and the government's treasury, and they are more commonly subject to the discretion of the dictator. Personalist dictators may be members of the military or leaders of a political party, but neither the military nor the party exercises power independently from the dictator. In personalist dictatorships, the elite corps are usually made up of close friends or family members of the dictator, who typically handpicks these individuals to serve their posts. These dictatorships often emerge either from loosely organized seizures of power, giving the leader opportunity to consolidate power, or from democratically elected leaders in countries with weak institutions, giving the leader opportunity to change the constitution. Personalist dictatorships are more common in Sub-Saharan Africa due to less established institutions in the region. There has been an increase in personalist dictatorships since the end of the Cold War.

Personalist dictators typically favor loyalty over competence in their governments and have a general distrust of intelligentsia. Elites in personalist dictatorships often do not have a professional political career and are unqualified for positions they are given. A personalist dictator will manage these appointees by segmenting the government so that they cannot collaborate. The result is that such regimes have no internal checks and balances, and are thus unrestrained when exerting repression on their people, making radical shifts in foreign policy, or starting wars with other countries. Due to the lack of accountability and the smaller group of elites, personalist dictatorships are more prone to corruption than other forms of dictatorship, and they are more repressive than other forms of dictatorship. Personalist dictatorships often collapse with the death of the dictator. They are more likely to end in violence and less likely to democratize than other forms of dictatorship.

Personalist dictatorships fit the exact classic stereotype of authoritarian rule. Within a personalist regime an issue called "The dictator's dilemma" arises. This idea references the heavy reliance on repression of the public in order to stay in power, which creates incentives for all constituents to falsify their preferences, which does not allow for dictators to know the genuine popular beliefs or their realistic measure of societal support. As a result of authoritarian politics, a series of major issues may ensue. Preference falsification, Internal politics, data scarcity, and restriction of media are just a few examples of the dangers of a personalistic authoritarian regime. Although, when it comes to polling and elections a dictator could use their power to override private preferences. Many personalist regimes will install open ballots to protect their regimes and implement heavy security measures and censorship for those whose personal preferences do not align with the values of the leader.

The shift in the power relation between the dictator and their inner circle has severe consequences for the behavior of such regimes as a whole. Personalist regimes diverge from other regimes when it comes to their longevity, methods of breakdown, levels of corruption, and proneness to conflicts. On average, they last twice as long as military dictatorships, but not as long as one-party dictatorships. Personalist dictatorships also experience growth differently, as they often lack the institutions or qualified leadership to sustain an economy.

Absolute monarchy
An absolute monarchy is a monarchy in which the monarch rules without legal limitations. This makes it distinct from constitutional monarchy and ceremonial monarchy. In an absolute monarchy, power is limited to the royal family, and legitimacy is established by historical factors. Monarchies may be dynastic, in which the royal family serves as a ruling institution similar to a political party in a one-party state, or they may be non-dynastic, in which the monarch rules independently of the royal family as a personalist dictator. Monarchies allow for strict rules of succession that produce a peaceful transfer of power on the monarch's death, but this can also result in succession disputes if multiple members of the royal family claim a right to succeed. In the modern era, absolute monarchies are most common in the Middle East.

Early dictatorships
Dictatorship is historically associated with the Ancient Greek concept of tyranny, and several ancient Greek rulers have been described as "tyrants" that are comparable to modern dictators. The concept of "dictator" was first developed during the Roman Republic. A Roman dictator was a special magistrate that was temporarily appointed by the consul during times of crisis and granted total executive authority. The role of dictator was created for instances when a single leader was needed to command and restore stability. At least 85 such dictators were chosen over the course of the Roman Republic, the last of which was chosen to wage the Second Punic War. The dictatorship was revived 120 years later by Sulla after his crushing of a populist movement, and 33 years after that by Julius Caesar. Caesar subverted the tradition of temporary dictatorships when he was made dictator perpetuo, or a dictator for life, which led to the creation of the Roman Empire. The rule of a dictator was not necessarily considered tyrannical in Ancient Rome, though it has been described in some accounts as a "temporary tyranny" or an "elective tyranny".

Asia saw several military dictatorships during the post-classical era. Korea experienced military dictatorships under the rule of Yeon Gaesomun in the 7th century and under the rule of the Goryeo military regime in the 12th and 13th centuries. Shoguns were de facto military dictators in Japan beginning in 1185 and continuing for over six hundred years. During the Lê dynasty of Vietnam between the 16th and 18th centuries, the country was under de facto military rule by two rival military families: the Trịnh lords in the north and the Nguyễn lords in the south. In Europe, the Commonwealth of England under Oliver Cromwell, formed in 1649 after the Second English Civil War, has been described as a military dictatorship by its contemporary opponents and by some modern academics. Maximilien Robespierre has been similarly described as a dictator while he controlled the National Convention in France and carried out the Reign of Terror in 1793 and 1794.

Dictatorship developed as a major form of government in the 19th century, though the concept was not universally seen pejoratively at the time, with both a tyrannical concept and a quasi-constitutional concept of dictatorship understood to exist. In Europe it was often thought of in terms of Bonapartism and Caesarism, with the former describing the military rule of Napoleon and the latter describing the imperial rule of Napoleon III in the vein of Julius Caesar. The Spanish American wars of independence took place in the early-19th century, creating many new Latin American governments. Many of these governments fell under the control of caudillos, or personalist dictators. Most caudillos came from a military background, and their rule was typically associated with pageantry and glamor. Caudillos were often nominally constrained by a constitution, but the caudillo had the power to draft a new constitution as he wished. Many are noted for their cruelty, while others are honored as national heroes.

Europe
In the time between World War I and World War II, several dictatorships were established in Europe through coups which were carried out by far-left and far-right movements. The aftermath of World War I resulted in a major shift in European politics, establishing new governments, facilitating internal change in older governments, and redrawing the boundaries between countries, allowing opportunities for these movements to seize power. The societal upheaval caused by World War I and the unstable peace it produced further contributed to instability that benefited extremist movements and rallied support for their causes. Far-left and far-right dictatorships used similar methods to maintain power, including cult of personality, concentration camps, forced labour, mass murder, and genocide.

The first communist state was created by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks with the establishment of Soviet Russia during the Russian Revolution in 1917. The government was described as a dictatorship of the proletariat in which power was exercised by soviets. The Bolsheviks consolidated power by 1922, forming the Soviet Union. Lenin was followed by Joseph Stalin in 1924, who consolidated total power and implemented totalitarian rule by 1929. The Russian Revolution inspired a wave of left-wing revolutionary movements in Europe between 1917 and 1923, but none saw the same level of success.

At the same time, nationalist movements grew throughout Europe. These movements were a response to what they perceived as decadence and societal decay due to the changing social norms and race relations brought about by liberalism. Fascism developed in Europe as a rejection of liberalism, socialism, and modernism, and the first fascist political parties formed in the 1920s. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini seized power in 1922, and began implementing reforms in 1925 to create the first fascist dictatorship. These reforms incorporated totalitarianism, fealty to the state, expansionism, corporatism, and anti-communism.

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party created a second fascist dictatorship in Germany in 1933, obtaining absolute power through a combination of electoral victory, violence, and emergency powers. Other nationalist movements in Europe established dictatorships based on the fascist model. During World War II, Italy and Germany occupied several countries in Europe, imposing fascist puppet states upon many of the countries that they invaded. After being defeated in World War II, the far-right dictatorships of Europe collapsed, with the exceptions of Spain and Portugal. The Soviet Union occupied nationalist dictatorships in the east and replaced them with communist dictatorships, while others established liberal democratic governments in the Western Bloc.

Latin America
Dictatorships in Latin America were developed late into the 19th century and persisted into the 20th century like the Porfiriato of Mexico, and further military coups established new regimes, often in the name of nationalism. After a brief period of democratization, Latin America underwent a rapid transition toward dictatorship in the 1930s. Populist movements were strengthened following the economic turmoil of the Great Depression, producing populist dictatorships in several Latin American countries. European fascism was imported to Latin America as well, and the Vargas Era of Brazil was heavily influenced by the corporatism practiced in fascist Italy.

Africa
The decolonisation of Africa prompted the creation of new governments, many of which became dictatorships in the 1960s and 1970s. Early African dictatorships were primarily personalist socialist dictatorships, in which a single socialist would take power instead of a ruling party. As the Cold War went on, the Soviet Union increased its influence in Africa, and Marxist–Leninist dictatorships developed in several African countries. Military coups were also a common occurrence after decolonisation, with 14 African countries experiencing at least three successful military coups between 1959 and 2001. These new African governments were marked by severe instability, which provided opportunities for regime change and made fair elections a rare occurrence on the continent. This instability in turn required rulers to become increasingly authoritarian to stay in power, further propagating dictatorship in Africa.

Asia
The Chinese Civil War ended in 1949, splitting the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek and the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong. Mao established the People's Republic of China as a one-party communist state under his governing ideology of Maoism. While the People's Republic of China was initially aligned with the Soviet Union, relations between the two countries deteriorated as the Soviet Union underwent de-Stalinization in the late-1950s. Mao consolidated his control of the People's Republic of China with the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, which involved the destruction of all elements of capitalism and traditionalism in China. Deng Xiaoping took power as the de facto leader of China after Mao's death and implemented reforms to restore stability following the Cultural Revolution and reestablish free market economics. Chiang Kai-shek continued to rule as dictator of the National government's rump state in Taiwan until his death in 1975. Marxist and nationalist movements became popular in Southeast Asia as a response to colonial control and the subsequent Japanese occupation of Southeast Asia, with both ideologies facilitating the creation of dictatorships after World War II. Communist dictatorships in the region aligned with China following the latter's establishment as a communist state. A similar phenomenon took place in Korea, where Kim Il Sung created a Soviet-backed communist dictatorship in North Korea and Syngman Rhee created a US-backed nationalist dictatorship in South Korea. Park Chung Hee and Chun Doo-hwan  would continue the pattern of dictatorship in South Korea until the June Democratic Struggle in 1987, which enabled the country's first free and fair elections and its subsequent democratization under Roh Tae Woo.

The Middle East was decolonized during the Cold War, and many nationalist movements gained strength post-independence. These nationalist movements supported non-alignment, keeping most Middle Eastern dictatorships out of the American and Soviet spheres of influence. These movements supported pan-Arab Nasserism during most of the Cold War, but they were largely replaced by Islamic nationalism by the 1980s. Several Middle Eastern countries were the subject of military coups in the 1950s and 1960s, including Iraq, Syria, North Yemen, and South Yemen. A 1953 coup overseen by the American and British governments restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the absolute monarch of Iran, who in turn was overthrown during the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that established Ruhollah Khomeini as the Supreme Leader of Iran under a Shia Islamist government, with Ali Khamenei taking over after Khomeini's death.

Europe
During World War II, many countries of Central and Eastern Europe had been occupied by the Soviet Union. When the war ended, these countries were incorporated into the Soviet sphere of influence, and the Soviet Union exercised control over their governments. Josip Broz Tito declared a communist government in Yugoslavia during World War II, which was initially aligned with the Soviet Union. The relations between the countries were strained by Soviet attempts to influence Yugoslavia, leading to the Tito–Stalin split in 1948. Albania was established as a communist dictatorship under Enver Hoxha in 1944. It was initially aligned with Yugoslavia, but its alignment shifted throughout the Cold War between Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and China. The stability of the Soviet Union weakened in the 1980s. The Soviet economy became unsustainable, and communist governments lost the support of intellectuals and their population in general. In 1989, the Soviet Union was dissolved, and communism was abandoned by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe through a series of revolutions.

Latin America
Military dictatorships remained prominent in Latin America during the Cold War, though the number of coups declined starting in the 1980s. Between 1967 and 1991, 12 Latin American countries underwent at least one military coup, with Haiti and Honduras experiencing three and Bolivia experiencing eight. A one-party communist dictatorship was formed in Cuba when the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, weakened by an American arms embargo against his regime, was overthrown in the Cuban Revolution, creating the only Soviet-backed dictatorship in the western hemisphere. To maintain power, Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet organized Operation Condor with other South American dictators to facilitate cooperation between their respective intelligence agencies and secret police organizations.

21st century dictatorships
The nature of dictatorship changed in much of the world at the onset of the 21st century. Between the 1990s and the 2000s, most dictators moved away from being "larger-than-life figures" that controlled the populace through terror and isolated themselves from the global community. This was replaced by a trend of developing a positive public image to maintain support among the populace and moderating rhetoric to integrate with the global community. In contrast to the overtly repressive nature of 20th century dictatorships, authoritarian strongmen of the 21st century are sometimes labelled "spin dictators", rulers who attempt to monopolise power by authoritarian upgrading, appealing to democratic sentiments and covertly pursue repressive measures; such as embracing modern technology, manipulation of information content, regulation of cyberspace, slandering dissidents, etc. On the other hand, a handful of dictators like Bashar al-Assad and Kim Jong Un rule with deadly repression, violence and state-terrorism to establish extensive securitization through fear, in line with many 20th century dictatorships. The development of the internet and digital communication in the 21st century have prompted dictatorships to shift from traditional means of control to digital ones, including the use of artificial intelligence to analyze mass communications, internet censorship to restrict the flow of information, and troll farms to manipulate public opinion. 21st century dictatorships regularly hold sham elections with massive approval ratings, for seeking public legitimacy and maintaining the autocrat's image as a popular figure loved by the masses. The manipulated election results are often weaponized as propaganda tools in information warfare, to galvanize supporters of the dictatorships against dissidents as well as to manufacture compliance of the masses by publicising falsified data figures. Another objective is to portray the dictator as the guardian figure who unifies the country, without whom its security disintegrates and chaos ensues. North Korea is the only country in East Asia to be ruled by the Kim family after the death of Kim Il-sung and hands over to his son Kim Jong-il in 1994 and grandson Kim Jong-un in 2011, as of today in the 21st century.

Dictatorship in Europe largely ended after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the liberalization of most communist states. Belarus under the rule of Alexander Lukashenko has been described as "the last European dictatorship", though the rule of Vladimir Putin in Russia has also been described as a dictatorship. Latin America saw a period of liberalization similar to that of Europe at the end of the Cold War, with Cuba being the only Latin American country that did not experience any degree of liberalization between 1992 and 2010. The countries of Central Asia did not liberalize after the fall of the Soviet Union, instead forming as dictatorships led by former elites of the Communist Party and then later by successive dictators. These countries maintain parliaments and human rights organizations, but these remain under the control of the countries' respective dictators.

The Middle East and North Africa did not undergo liberalization during the third wave of democratisation, and most countries in this region remain dictatorships in the 21st century. Dictatorships in the Middle East and Northern Africa are either illiberal republics in which a president holds power through unfair elections, or they are absolute monarchies in which power is inherited. Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and Palestine are the only democratic nations in the region, with Israel being the only nation in this region that affords broad political liberties to its citizens. Although Tunisia was seen as a pillar of the Arab Spring for democracy, by 2023, it was no longer classified as a democracy. Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been described by several sources as a dictator.

Economics
Most dictatorships exist in countries with high levels of poverty. Poverty has a destabilizing effect on government, causing democracy to fail and regimes to fall more often. The form of government does not correlate with the amount of economic growth, and dictatorships on average grow at the same rate as democracies, though dictatorships have been found to have larger fluctuations. Dictators are more likely to implement long-term investments into the country's economy if they feel secure in their power. Exceptions to the pattern of poverty in dictatorships include oil-rich Middle Eastern dictatorships and the East Asian Tigers during their periods of dictatorship.

The type of economy in a dictatorship can affect how it functions. Economies based on natural resources allow dictators more power, as they can easily extract rents without strengthening or cooperating with other institutions. More complex economies require additional cooperation between the dictator and other groups. The economic focus of a dictatorship often depends on the strength of the opposition, as a weaker opposition allows a dictator to extract additional wealth from the economy through corruption.

Legitimacy and stability
Several factors determine the stability of a dictatorship, and they must maintain some degree of popular support to prevent resistance groups from growing. This may be ensured through incentives, such as distribution of financial resources or promises of security, or it may be through repression, in which failing to support the regime is punished. Stability can be weakened when opposition groups grow and unify or when elites are not loyal to the regime. One-party dictatorships are generally more stable and last longer than military or personalist dictatorships.

A dictatorship may fall because of a military coup, foreign intervention, negotiation, or popular revolution. A military coup is often carried out when a regime is threatening the country's stability or during periods of societal unrest. Foreign intervention takes place when another country seeks to topple a regime by invading the country or supporting the opposition. A dictator may negotiate the end of a regime if it has lost legitimacy or if a violent removal seems likely. Revolution takes place when the opposition group grows large enough that elites in the regime cannot suppress it or choose not to. Negotiated removals are more likely to end in democracy, while removals by force are more likely to result in a new dictatorial regime. A dictator that has concentrated significant power is more likely to be exiled, imprisoned, or killed after ouster, and accordingly they are more likely to refuse negotiation and cling to power.

Dictatorships are typically more aggressive than democracy when in conflict with other nations, as dictators do not have to fear electoral costs of war. Military dictatorships are more prone to conflict due to the inherent military strength associated with such a regime, and personalist dictatorships are more prone to conflict due to the weaker institutions to check the dictator's power. In the 21st century, dictatorships have moved toward greater integration with the global community and increasingly attempt to present themselves as democratic. Dictatorships are often recipients of foreign aid on the condition that they make advances toward democratization. A study found that dictatorships that engage in oil drilling are more likely to remain in power, with 70.63% of the dictators who engage in oil drilling still being in power after five years of dictatorship, while only 59.92% of the non-oil producing dictators survive the first five years.

Elections
Most dictatorships hold elections to maintain legitimacy and stability, but these elections are typically uncompetitive and the opposition is not permitted to win. Elections allow a dictatorship to exercise some control over the opposition by setting the terms under which the opposition challenges the regime. Elections are also used to control elites within the dictatorship by requiring them to compete with one another and incentivizing them to build support with the populace, allowing the most popular and most competent elites to be promoted in the regime. Elections also support the legitimacy of a dictatorship by presenting the image of a democracy, establishing plausible deniability of its status as a dictatorship for both the populace and foreign governments. Should a dictatorship fail, elections also permit dictators and elites to accept defeat without fearing violent recourse. Dictatorships may influence the results of an election through electoral fraud, intimidation or bribing of candidates and voters, use of state resources such as media control, manipulation of electoral laws, restricting who may run as a candidate, or disenfranchising demographics that may oppose the dictatorship.

In the 20th century, most dictatorships held elections in which voters could only choose to support the dictatorship, with only one-quarter of partisan dictatorships permitting opposition candidates to participate. Since the end of the Cold War, more dictatorships have established "semi-competitive" elections in which opposition is allowed to participate in elections but is not allowed to win, with approximately two-thirds of dictatorships permitting opposition candidates in 2018. Opposition parties in dictatorships may be restricted by preventing them from campaigning, banning more popular opposition parties, preventing opposition members from forming a party, or requiring that candidates be a member of the ruling party. Dictatorships may hold semi-competitive elections to qualify for foreign aid, to demonstrate a dictator's control over the government, or to incentivize the party to expand its information-gathering capacity, particularly at the local level. Semi-competitive elections also have the effect of incentivizing members of the ruling party to provide better treatment of citizens so they will be chosen as party nominees due to their popularity.

Violence
In a dictatorship, violence is used to coerce or repress all opposition to the dictator's rule, and the strength of a dictatorship depends on its use of violence. This violence is frequently exercised through institutions such as military or police forces. The use of violence by a dictator is frequently most severe during the first few years of a dictatorship, because the regime has not yet solidified its rule and more detailed information for targeted coercion is not yet available. As the dictatorship becomes more established, it moves away from violence by resorting to the use of other coercive measures, such as restricting people's access to information and tracking the political opposition. Dictators are incentivized to avoid the use of violence once a reputation of violence is established, as it damages the dictatorship's other institutions and poses a threat to the dictator's rule should government forces become disloyal.

Institutions that coerce the opposition through the use of violence may serve different roles or they may be used to counterbalance one another in order to prevent one institution from becoming too powerful. Secret police are used to gather information about specific political opponents and carry out targeted acts of violence against them, paramilitary forces defend the regime from coups, and formal militaries defend the dictatorship during foreign invasions and major civil conflicts.

Terrorism is less common in dictatorships. Allowing the opposition to have representation in the regime, such as through a legislature, further reduces the likelihood of terrorist attacks in a dictatorship. Military and one-party dictatorships are more likely to experience terrorism than personalist dictatorships, as these regimes are under more pressure to undergo institutional change in response to terrorism.

title: Dictatorship


text:
Talk:Dachau, Bavaria

Photo request
I know there is a photo in the article. But I think a couple more photos along with a translation job and some other expansion will do this article some good. Kingjeff 02:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A picture of the Dachauer Moos might be nice.

 * added some additional images. I also places some images of Dachauer Moos on the Hebertshausen page. On my brief explore failed to find any natural scenes. If someone could provide exact locations I will try and do some more photos next time I am in the area. Traveler100 (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Expanded/Review?
I have expanded the article by translating from the German Wikipedia article. It could do with a look over and could perhaps be upgraded from Stub, perhaps with few more additions.

Expansion
Job well done for the translation. This article could be improved by increasing it's history section. The last 100 years or so could help. Kingjeff 00:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pages linking to Dachau
Most links to Dachau actually should have a link to Dachau concentration camp. I plan to programme a means to semiautomatically change these links. Andreas (T) 14:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done Andreas  (T) 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Before this continues ...
--CE (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Twin towns of Dachau according to the city of Dachau
 * The Daily Mail on why it didn't came to be
 * And an article not from the Hate Mail ;-) --CE (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

25,000 people were murdered at Dachau. They did not just die of their own accord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.114.21 (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect?
In English, "Dauchau" overwhelmingly is used with reference to Dauchau Concentration Camp. That should therefore be the primary article.  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never seen that spelling before today. I corrected it in the two articles I found in a search for that spelling. I'm also submitting a correction to a newspaper which seems to have gotten it wrong over the weekend.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * btw, the name is Dachau, not Dauchau. I want to discuss the article move to Dachau, Bavaria. This is inconsistent compared to all other cities in Germany. Has there been a in depth discussion?--Nillurcheier (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * the page move should be reverted!--91.38.150.98 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Move back to Dachau
Under Dachau you should exactly find that - Dachau! The KZ Dachau ist another site.--91.37.127.98 (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Dachau" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dachau. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c)  buidhe  15:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Dachau, Bavaria


text:
Talk:Discworld

Gaspode
... is a very important supporting character, but was himself never the focus of any Discworld novel. His name does not belong in the "Groups" column in the list of novels. This one's pretty obvious but as a relative newbie I'd like to get some consensus before I clean it up. (or you guys could take out the Gaspodes yourselves) Gr8moldy (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd start removing the inuniverse minutae if I were you...
...and outting it on a private wiki. Before a mod firebombs the articles like has happened to Warhammer 40,000, Starcraft, Warcraft (and much more I do not know about.)

But for the love of Pete, please link the main article to whatever wiki you use?

Mopeyennui (talk)

Motifs
The motifs column in the novels table is getting silly, and is now starting to include every external reference to anything in the books! Since each book has its own article, I propose deleting this column and adding a paragraph somewhere outlining common motifs within the Discworld series. That is, not only does it no longer list just motifs, but it's largely irrelevant to this article what the motifs of each individual book are. Stephenb (Talk) 09:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, though it is actually really useful to have that information presented in one place. If people feel this section is getting unwieldy, perhaps it could go to Discworld (List of Works)? Tubusy 10:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * List of works is a great idea as it will keep the info but remove the huge table from the article. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree Tubusy - it's not that useful, since the list no longer contains true motifs, and "that information" isn't really pertinent to this article. If there were a list of common motifs for Discworld, a paragraph should suffice and be useful to the article; non-common motifs ought to be in the individual book's articles, they're no use in this one. Don't like removing the table altogether, either, even to a separate article, though I know some people detest lists in articles. Stephenb (Talk) 11:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the paragraph I would propose to add. I think it sums up most of the column in relation to Discworld, and would mean that the column could be removed in favour of adding the specific "motifs" and references to the articles for the individual books: Stephenb (Talk) 12:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Themes and motifs
The Discworld novels contain common themes and motifs that run through the series. Fantasy clichés are parodied in many novels, as are various sub-genres of fantasy, such as fairy tales, witch and vampire stories and so on. Analogies of real-world issues, such as religion, business and politics, are recurring themes, as are music genres such as opera or rock music. Parodies of non-Discworld stories also occur frequently, including Shakespeare, Beatrix Potter and several movies.

 * Totally in favour. Daibhid C (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Under these circumstances, there should be (as I proposed further down) a separate page explaining distinct references to (or parodies of) "real-world" events or works of fiction in particular novels, like the "Misérables" (novel and musical) parallels in "Night Watch". But I don't think e.g. every single mention of "the strange things that happened to the fish shop in Dagon Street" requires a cross-reference to the Cthulhu Mythos, since this is more of a running gag throughout the series. -- megA (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Do you mean a new article such as List of parodies and references in Discworld novels? Stephenb (Talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It should still be by-novel, but with the connections explained. I think many (like me) think when reading: Oh, was that a reference to...? -- megA (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * So may we remove the whole Motifs column now? I agree that it is getting rather silly, even the Themes section is getting out of hand Gr8moldy (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I'd forgotten about this! Yes, I still have no objections, the paragraph above still reads pretty well (though probably needs examples) Stephenb (Talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for doing that - took a while (you seem to have taken a break too!) but I think it looks better now. Stephenb (Talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

GURPS Discworld
...has been nominated for deletion (or possibly merging) Stephenb (Talk) 13:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Vetinari
There's a suggestion in the article that there is a consensus in fandom that Vetinari represents Machiavelli. Does such a consensus really exist? I don't know much about fan consensus, and I've never attended any meeting of fans, but a comparison with Lorenzo de' Medici seems more credible. Increasingly so in light of the recent Moist von Lipwig stories. Anyway, I'm putting in a marker, as I don't know about the existence of a consensus.Cmsg 22:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The consensus is that he's "Machiavellian", which isn't the same thing. As far as I'm aware the consensus on afp at least is that he's a version of Medici (as in the Veterinary -> Medic pun). Off the subject slightly, but there's an interesting theory just cropped up on afp that Cosmo Lavish (who wants to be Vetinari and fails) is the exact opposite of Cosmo de' Medici, with his sister as a similarly negative counterpoint to Cosmo's advisor Puccio Pucci. 01:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Links
I'm having a bit of a link blitz... should all novel titles included in this article be linked to their page, or only the first time they're mentioned? Sabrage 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd say that the only place that the novels need to be linked from are in the List of novels, and then it's not needed to link from any others on the rest of the page.  Doktor  Wilhelm   17:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Questionable addition
A user has added It's a Wonderful Life to the list of motives in Reaper Man; since I don't remeber having watched the movie, I can't comment on its inclusion, but it probably needs a better justification than: "Windle Poons" spelled backwards is "George Bailey" (huh?). - Mike Rosoft 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "A user" being me, allow me to elucidate: the protagonist of It's a Wonderful Life is one George Bailey, a man who at a critical juncture in his life attempts suicide by jumping off of a bridge, but is rescued by an angel. In Reaper Man, Windle Poons similarly at a very critical juncture in his life attempts to die by jumping off a bridge (but since the body of "water" being bridged is the Ankh river, does not need rescuing so much as extraction).
 * Bailey's unique opportunity after his suicide attempt is a chance to view what the world would have been like without his being born when he was; Poons gets to experience what the world is like now that he has not died when he should have. Both story lines end with the character back at the same bridge with a new perspective on their life/death, and each gets to have a nice sum-up with an angel—although Poons' correspondent is a —and subsequently move forward, happier and wiser, with his life, or afterlife, as the case may be.
 * Or more succinctly: "Windle Poons" spelled backwards is "George Bailey".--NapoliRoma 18:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. - Mike Rosoft 08:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tolkien references in "Thud"?
Um, in what way are "Lord of the Rings" and "Silmarillion" included as motifs in "Thud"? Besides the usual parody elements present in every Discworld novel? -- megA (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Oh, the motifs section is completely out of control, and now includes every vague reference anyone thinks they've seen to anything. Wipe the whole thing, that's my advice. Daibhid C (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I concur it needs trimming down because is full of original research.--Svetovid (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Maybe there should be a separate page for the references/parodies (not the motifs, since "the achievements of revolution (or the non-achievements)" or "fatherhood" seem rather trivial in books about revolutions or fathers) where every reference must be explained. As I remember it, in, eg, "Night Watch", all references seem valid, except the "Battle of Cable Street", which seems to me like "yet another street massacre connected with a protest march". -- megA (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I had a go at it and removed general and trivial references.--Svetovid (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the prune may have been to hard, e.g. Lawrence of Arabia, & the Kennedy assassination were both in Jingo reasonably prominently (especially the latter) and the references in Thief of time are far more to martial arts films pop culture than the actual arts. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the references should be kept unless it is a prelude to removing the whole column. --Nate1481(t/c) 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Lawrence of Arabia was just referenced by the ending I think. Motif is an idea used more often.--Svetovid (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we need both: a "motifs" column and a separate page (as I suggested above) with the pop culture references by novel named and explained. -- megA (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If anywhere, that belongs to the pages of the novels.--Svetovid (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how do you distinguish between a reference and a motif? --megA (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

<-With difficulty. Carrot as Lawrence is the more tenuous of the two but the multiple shooters thing is a whole plot line. To be honest the reason I was worried about the references going is that they are the best way to distinguish or it's all original thought. Draw the line there, if a source mentions it a motif it's in, if not then leave it to the article on the book. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For example: Night Watch: Cop Novels, Les Misérables,[12] time travel, revolutions This is really tough. I'd say "cop novels" come with every Vimes book, so this is not significant to this particular novel, Les Miserables is clearly a reference and not a motif, and if you include it you should also include the Peterloo Street massacre, time travel is more a plot device than a motif (The novel that actually deals with time travel is Thief of time), whereas, paradoxically, the "grandfather paradox" is a vital problem in Night Watch, and revolutions, well I think you might call it a motif. Or maybe not. This is very complicated. And philosophical. And many of the novel pages don't actually deal systematically with references. -- megA (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cop novels is redundant in my opinon, as it is a 'cop novel' in it's own right, just set on the disk. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Happly Hogswatch
COWER BRIEF MORTALS... erm, I mean... HO HO HO! May the Hogfather bring you what you want for Hogswatch, and may the sun rise in the morning! Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article
I've put down a call to arms on Terry's Talk page to make the Terry Pratchett article a Featured Article. This will be have to improved too, as it's a sub article - it should consequently become more likely to be seen as potentially FA too, if it gets good enough. Please post ideas for improvement. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've put a list of sub articles on TP's talk page. There are currently about 40, 11 of them Discworld novels. All will need to be up to a reasonable standard - any help is appreciated. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading Order?
What happened to the Reading Order page? I used this often and rather miss it.Adverge (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah me too! What happened to the reading order page? User:redsilkroute|redsilkroute]] (talk) 7 May 2008 (UTC)

--61.17.70.18 (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

 * See Articles for deletion/Discworld reading order. It was deleted per the reasons there Stephenb (Talk) 06:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see why it was deleted, but for those of us unfamiliar with the books it would be helpful in the "storylines" section to have a list of the book titles for each storyline - maybe in publication order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astabeth (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Prepossed: leave this link here : Pratchett’s Discworld « ZapfBlog as it serves to provide help to anyone like me who has taken the time to look and because the link in the article to http://discworldfanatics.co.uk/ is not working--Sativarg (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Strata?
I've never had anything to add to a Wikipedia page, but this seems like a big gap.

Shouldn't there be a mention of Pratchett's book, _Strata_? It was (kind of?) a Discworld parody of Larry Niven's _Ringworld_.

Here's a link on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Strata-Terry-Pratchett/dp/0552133256

---Norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.216.11 (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks, but Strata is not a Discworld novel - the Strata world is not Discworld. Stephenb (Talk) 08:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, indeed it isn't Discworld, but I would agree that it deserves a mention here as it does give a description of a disc like world and allows insight into the development of TP's thinking about Discworld. --Robin den hertog (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

auditors
bureaucrat? ==

Sure, at some locations you can find words from TP, saying that. But after reading about the discworld-science … they arte the counterpart to our magic: we’re thinking of magic things, we’re superstitious … sometimes. We like such things, such thoughts. We need ’em. Not allways, not everybody — but: ask Terry! We just think of it while our world is a matter of physics. Discworld is based on magic and the auditors are the dreams there. Dreams of a world without magic. So I think, somebody should have an eye on this. (Me? Sorry, that’s no good idea. I’ve to fight with this words as I’m not english.) -- 87.163.122.30 (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * After reading Thief of Time I always thought of the Auditors as the personification of entropy - it explains their hatred of "life", and their predisposition to think of everything in terms of averages (isn't entropy the ultimate average?) and unbending absolute rules. -- 76.199.0.102 (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Interesting, I think of them as the opposite of entropy. They want everything perfectly ordered, and life is disorderly. Without entropy, there is no life.--RLent (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't the whole point of Thief of Time to place the universe into stasis so they could organize things? Hewinsj (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Table color-coding
I noticed a recent edit added row color-coding to the novel table for the various character "groups". The greys are a bit difficult to distinguish from one another, and overall it makes the table a bit messy-looking to my eyes. Additionally, some novels cover multiple groups to varying degrees. Considering the problems, I feel it's better to remove the colors for now, until some consensus can be reached, as (for one) leaving it harms readability in my opinion. Any ideas? --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Section on 'Society'
I removed the section on society since as it stood it only contained a bunch of references to pratchetian in-jokes, without any explanation of the point behind them. This was completely out of character with the rest of the 'themes' section and would have been confusing to anyone unless they'd already read the books. I may at some point recreate the section with more fitting content. NetHawk (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
In the Rincewind section, I changed "the novel, The Last Hero" to "The Discworld fable" as this is how the books describe themselves. I also added information on The Folklore of The Discworld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think "fable" is really appropriate for the article. Regardless of how the books describe themselves, they're novels, and using a different (and non-standard) term will only confuse readers. I've changed it back to "novel". --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy of History-Monks-Likeness
Here the article says "Taoism-like", in the article that is behind the Lu-Tze-link, it says "Buddhism-like". Which now is it. Being an expert in none of the two religions, I'd still say Buddhism-like since Lu-Tze is pictured in orange ropes on the cover of Nightwatch. It could be both. The saffron-colored robes are a nod to Buddhism, but Lu-Tze is an obvious reference to Lao Tse, upon whose teachings Taoism is based.

Heck you could even throw in Confucianism in there and just state that it is inspired by Oriental Religions. Gr8moldy (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Confucianism is based upon Taoism. I believe the intention in the books is for it to be Taoism based as that is rather more similar to it than Buddhism. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesnd (talk • contribs) 12:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Leave The Motifs/Allusions Section!
The section of the table that says what each book parodies can be very useful. Please don't delete it again, whoever did it! Molly moon  19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 * See the discussion above. Each book has their own page, the list here doesn't need to contain their themes/motifs, and in any case the list was getting unwieldy, contained some dubious items that couldn't really be described as "themes" or "motifs" but just general elements in the particular boo, and definitely had no citations.  A simple paragraph is sufficient.  Please don't simply revert to a previous version ignoring all the *other* edits made to the page, too.  Stephenb (Talk) 19:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Alright. :) So long as the individual articles say their themes/motifs, it's fine. :) Molly  moon  01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

about the arc of the novel
perhaps when we write what arc a novel belongs to, we should say if it the first or second for example if the novel is with the witches we could put first of the witches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.161.1 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The way DEATH speaks
The section on Death currently contains this claim "His dialogue is always depicted in small caps, a trait that other characters often remark upon.". I cannot recall other characters remarking upon this trait. Can anyone supply a reference before I remove the claim? Mooncow (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From Moving Pictures, page 127: "I KNOW WHEN EVERYONE'S HAD ENOUGH. There was something very odd about that voice. The barman wasn't quite sure that he was hearing it with his ears." remaai (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Does the way Pestilence speaks (Italics with " marks) need to be said, or is it not important enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.247.84 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

APF
The annotated Pratchett file is linked to from each novel page but hasn't been updated in years. Would it be appropriate to put annotations directly in each novel? Wiki is supposed to be comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.93.229 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Films
I've added a CN tag to the bit which says Pratchett plays the "toyshopowner" in Hogfather. I was under the impression that Tony Robinson played the part of the toy-shop owner, and Pratchett was a toymaker. The reference (27) isn't relevant, as far as I could tell, to what it's supposed to be supporting. Brammers (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 * the ref supports that little bit about David Jason in Hogfather. I have added a ref to support the Toymaker sentance. rdunn  albatross  12:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wee Free Men: The Beginning
There's a new paperback that's coming out this year titled "The Wee Free Men: The Beginning". I haven't been able to find any information about whether it is different from the original The Wee Free Men, or just a new edition. We should add references to it once the information becomes available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshja (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Reading Order box at the bottom of the nover pages.
This is confusing. The "Reading Order" and "Publication Order" can be very different thanks to the many different storylines. The reading order itself can be very different. While many find it good to start at Colour of Magic, others may often want to start with either the most recent film adaptation or the first book of it's series. These can be split up as well - following the announcement of "Raising Taxes", I have had a long-running argument with a friend as to whether this would be part of a "Mosit von Lipwig" series (Going Postal, Making Money, Raising Taxes) or a continuation of the "Ankh-Morpork" series (effectively starting with "The Truth"). This little box should be renamed to "Publication order" to take the ambiguity out of it (with maybe a second box titled "Series order" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ankh-Morpork Humans
Why is there no page or section for humans in Ankh-Morpork? We've got every last undead or dwarf mentioned in the novels explained, but there's no page for secondary humans such as Sacharissa Crisplock, Rufus Drumknott, William De Worde or Adora Bella Dearheart. 216.41.16.82 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 * We are waiting for you to create it, of course! Welcome to Wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Film
Heyday Films (the Creators of Harry Potter) plan a Theatrical-release two-part 3D film series distributed by Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group and Walt Disney Pictures set to be Start on Christmas, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.217.128 (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Do you have a source for this? Stephenb (Talk) 12:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Chronological order: "Small Gods" not the only exception...
"...all the main storylines take place around the same period of time (end of the Century of the Fruitbat, beginning of the Century of the Anchovy); the only exception is Small Gods, which is set roughly one hundred years before any of the other stories." — "Pyramids" would be the other one, n'est-ce pas? -- megA (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Moist von Lipwig
This section should be renamed "Ankh-Morpork" and include "The Truth" as this, along with the two extant Lipwig books are largely about the development and modernisation of the city. The fact that Going Postal, Making Money and the expected third Lipwig book centre around one character is more of a plot device than a central storyline.Angry Mustelid (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Long Earth
This novel by Pratchett and Stephen Baxter is not going to be a Discworld novel, hence I've removed it from the list. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jun/16/terry-pratchett-science-fiction-book etc.

JiMternet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Death
At the end of the Death Section, it reads, "Death also appears in Good Omens written by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman." However, I believe this is a different Death. They have the same way of talking, but I think there is a different death in each universe. The other four horsemen of the Apocalypse (or Apocralypse in Discworld) in Good Omens are not the same horsemen who appear in the Discworld novel Sourcery. The Discworld War is male, and Pestilence has not been replaced by Pollution. So, do I take out the sentence altogether, or modify it? Or did I not make enough of an argument for two different Deaths? remaai (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Auditors of Reality for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Auditors of Reality is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Auditors of Reality until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..--User:Salix alba (talk): 06:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reading order, and The Truth
The reading order section suggests that The Truth could be a standalone story. It does nonetheless incorporate lore from earlier (chronologically) novels such as Vimes becoming Commander of the Watch and it creates a core feature of later (chronological) novels in that the newspapers become a staple part of Ankh Morporkian life - as exploited by Von Lipwig in Going Postal, Making Money and Raising Steam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.1.229 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy between Wikipedia and Wikidata
This article describes Discworld book series, but is associated with Q253295 wikidata, which describes Discworld fictional universe, it should be associated with Q3257270, which represent Discworld book series.

The similar problem is in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld_%28world%29 page, which is associated with Q1248783 (Discworld planet) instead of Q253295 (Discworld fictional universe).

I fixed that for en and cs language variants in Wikidata, unfortunately seems that more than 2/3 of language variants have the same or similar problem. 89.102.22.7 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Scouting for Trolls
How about re-adding the info about the unfinished “Scouting for Trolls”? I know it's not (going to be) published, but still, a footnote would be in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.69.148.178 (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Word count
How many words in total in all the discworld books taken together? Wodorabe (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Novel Grouping
(No pun actually intended, but "novel"/"novel", I now realise.) Having checked for prior comments along this line (and failing to find them, whether or not they exist), I was wondering whether it was worth adding (or changing from 'Miscellaneous', in at least two cases) at least one additional "Groups" keyword to reflect a theme of "Technical/Cultural Advancement" of the Discworld, or something of a similar indication?

Candidates could be Moving Pictures (cinema, albeit short-lived), Men At Arms (firearms, ditto), Soul Music (popular music), Feet of Clay (emancipation), The Truth (printing), Going Postal (stamps), Making Money (fiat currency), Unseen Academicals ((soccer) football), Snuff (emancipation, again), Raising Steam (railways). But that's not a definitive list (there are some technical advancements without cultural ones, or vice-versa, for example), and could probably be added to/removed from by discerning reviewers with time on their hands to discuss such points.

e.g. whether "diplomatic" advancements also qualify J, T5E, T and MR, among possible others, to the changing nature of the Disc or the likes of G!G!'s police-force revisions count. But that's starting to sound too all-encompassing, and probably applicable to every book (e.g. Sourcery's beginning-of-the-end to the 'old regime' of dead-man's-pointy-shoes at UU) in some way or another. 31.83.148.126 (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality improvement project - Lie-to-children
I've embarked on a Quality improvement project for Lie-to-children, first introduced as a phrase in The Science of Discworld.
 * Lie-to-children

If you've got recommendations for additional secondary sources that could be utilized to further improve the quality of the article, please suggest them at Talk:Lie-to-children.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User:JesseRafe removing content
Lately User:JesseRafe started removing info from the article on the grounds it is not notable. I asked him to discuss it here first, because I did not understand the specific reasons for the removal ("Per MOS they are not notable"). Because he did not explain it and kept removing the content, providing what seems to me only vague reasons ("There is nothing subjective here, it is cut and dry per WP:Notability and WP:Notability (people), these mentions are non-notable and their inclusion harms the public trust in Wikipedia."), I start the discussion myself and ask to keep the status quo of the article for the time being. Thanks for understanding. My perosnal opinion is that we do not have to use WP:Notability (people) for every name used in any article - it is used to determine whether a person is notable enough to be the topic of an article. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have been more particular, but I thought you would find it on the page. The consensus is that only someone notable enough to have their own page is notable enough to be mentioned on another article. Think of it as a "notable alumni" section, just because someone is a so-and-so and made the local paper, they're not WP-notable. A non-notable theatre group is a non-notable theatre group, and thus is not mentionable. The refs just prove the thing exists, not that the thing is notable. Please see WP:LISTBIO, WP:LISTCRITERIA, and WP:SINGLEEVENT for more specific subsections and essays of the policy you felt didn't apply in these instances. JesseRafe (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the links, now I think I understand your concern better but is seems to me the links deal with something else, and are impractical in this case. WP:SINGLEEVENT deals only with stand-alone articles about the person in quastion ("it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both"), and WP:LISTCRITERIA deals with articles that are lists - Stand-alone lists. So both of them refer to something else than our section in question.
 * The first one, WP:LISTBIO, is a valid guideline but again it speaks about lists in articles. Do you consider this section an embedded list (MOS:EMBED) similar to the lists of notable alumni in articles about schools? (It may be argued that the section is in fact a list of some sort bcs of the way information is presented in it but where would that lead us, where would "being a list" end? Those "early life" sections of bio-articles might be considered lists as well, listing relatives, schools the person attended, locations where he lived...) Even if we treat the section as an embedded list, the criterion is subjective: list of headmasters ("a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable.) X notable alumni (btw non-notable alumni could be excluded bcs of the headline). My opinion is that the section resembles, if anything, the headmasters and not the 20+ usually poorly sourced alumni lists.
 * Finally, please link to where I can read sometning on "The consensus is that only someone notable enough to have their own page is notable enough to be mentioned on another article." This would mean, for example, that you cannot mantion the parents of the majority of people who have their own article, non-notable illustrators of books (an article about a book would not mention the illustrator even though the information is sourced), directors of institutions (as well as companies and institutions themselves, following the logic of yours "non-notable theatre group, and thus is not mentionable"), etc. And someone would have to check each proper noun (not only personal names) without a link to an article... I do not think that the removal will make the article better. WikiHannibal (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear what your understanding is, then. These are three different guidelines that all touch on this theme and have to be synthesized for their use as there is no directly applicable guideline for notability of stage adaptations of a book series. To claim that some nobody put a theatrical version of a famous book on a stage is on the same level as the immediate family of a notable person is intellectually dishonest. Someone's mother or son is obviously prima facie pertinent information in somebody's biography. Some play that has nothing to do with Terry Pratchett or his work (note I did not say derived from his work, but the work he did doing the work) is an exact example of "notability is not inherited". For what it's worth, I have never seen a list of headmasters that I would not delete as per WP:NOT, WP:LIST, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:LISTCRUFT. Also, please note all the fallacies in your argument, the illustrator of a book of course gets mention even if they are not notable, they actually illustrated the book! What did this person do? Nothing. They're not notable, removing it again as you are either only looking to argue non-productively or must have a conflict of interest about including this non-event. JesseRafe (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 * I put back the mention of the Lords and Ladies play adaptation. This is really the main adaptation of Lords and Ladies for the stage, and it has been widely performed, according to a quick google search. It certainly appears to be a significant enough adaptation to warrant inclusion in this article (it's even advertised on www.terrypratchettbooks.com, and I included that link). Since the adaptation should be included, it is sensible to also include the name of the person who did it, Irana Brown. There appears to have been some confusion over the Wikipedia jargon word "notability". It is not the case at all that to be mentioned in an article one needs to be notable enough for one's own article. Such a rule doesn't exist; it would be unnecessarily restrictive. Satisfying WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NOR, is really all you need (also, of course, WP:BLP). In this case, all those are clearly satisfied. All the best, Mark MacD (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Discworld. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211231608/http://www.paulkidby.net/index.php/blog/previous/221-february-6th-2015-so-far-so-good to http://www.paulkidby.net/index.php/blog/previous/221-february-6th-2015-so-far-so-good
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509144402/http://www.paulkidby.com/news/jan2006.html to http://www.paulkidby.com/news/jan2006.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121119165029/http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page to http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page/
 * Added tag to http://wiki.dyskowe.info/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030191607/http://www.nadwcon.org:80/ to http://www.nadwcon.org

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Pratchett's name
I believe that the first reference to the late, lamented Terry Pratchett in this article should use that name, the one he wrote under, not the Sir title draped over him near the end - just as The Beatles doesn't talk about Sir Paul McCartney. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sigh
OK, here we go. Can you elaborate on your edit summary please?

 * Sorry but that is not very relevant for a description of the characters

It's not a 'characters' section, it's a 'storylines' section.

 * and confusing for those who do not know the subsequent development of the Watch

What's confusing? I've read the books and that's how the Watch starts out - obsolete due to the Thieves Guild. Then, as the paragraph at the end already states, Vetinari lets them "create a proper police force" at the end of ''Guards! Guards!''. What else are you suggesting you need to know to understand this? --86.53.18.62 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm not the one who reverted your edit, but I agree more or less with the reversion. The section might be "storylines", but the paragraph you inserted that text into is a summary of the characters, and so the bit about the Thieves' Guild completely breaks the flow. It also doesn't fit with the rest of the section, which is a more general summary, whereas your addition explains a particular plot point that might be confusing without further explanation to those unfamiliar with the series. It would have been better in the first paragraph of the section (about the evolution of the watch), but even then it seems like too much detail to me. It's also debatable - if the watch is obsolete at the beginning of the series due to legal thieving, why are they not obsolete by the end of the arc (the Thieves' Guild operation never changed, as I recall)? Better to just leave it out. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly as explained above. (Thanks.) WikiHannibal (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Discworld Reading Order Guide 3.0...
Hi, I am the author of the Discworld Reading Order Guide 3.0 featured on this page. I was surprised to see the Guide here again - before it was removed for being "original research" (which it is - it's one fan's interpretation of the order). If you find it helpful and it doesn't break rules, I'm glad it's here - I would appreciate it though if someone could reupload the uncropped version to Wikimedia and delete the crop? This is due to the fact that the cropped Wikimedia file is then indexed and appears in Google images high up, and a lot of people share it without knowing that a full, uncropped version exists. I hope this is not a problem. If you need further information from me, my email address is on the Guide itself (KK). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.97.217 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Comic fantasy - citation needed
Seriously? 198.48.173.209 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Edited. It seems a little ridiculous to doubt the comic fantasy classification when the sentence ends with "a flat world carried by four elephants balanced on the back of a giant turtle." 23.233.10.152 (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thansk for your interest in the topic but if you want to make more useful contributions to Wikipedia in the future, please familiarize yourself with Verifiability. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Remove "planned adaptations"
I say we remove the entire "Planned Adaptations" section, which is just a poorly-maintained rumor site - "Wee Free Men" talks about things being in development four years ago, "The Watch" is two years old, the "multiple novels" item is vague. Deals are often announced that never happen and Wikipedia isn't a video-industry blog. I say the article shouldn't list something until there's an actual release date, particularly because the article is already loaded with adaptations. Any comments? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think so. If it's real (Maurice/Watch) it can go in the adaptation bit.Halbared (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Things for which we have evidence of them being in production (that is, actually filming) are fine (I don't mind what section they're in). That represents a major commitment of people and money, and projects that reach that stage are real and are going to release.That seems to be The Watch and Maurice, based on refs on their respective articles. But "optioned", "x is writing a script", "in development", "x is attached", while not rumours, are low-importance industry inside baseball - things can stay in that development hell for decades, and pass through many hands in the process. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think we shouldn't bother listing adaptations until they're actual release dates exist because, as COVID has shown, filming can begin and yet nothing ever gets seen by the public. But that's debatable, so I'll just remove the vaguer and outdated stuff. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I changed the title from "planned adaptations" to "adaptations in production" to make things clearer. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would like to keep the 2020 Narrativia bit bcs it is recent. Spoils your title, though. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the special language of filmmaking, production specifically means "filming". The Watch has been confirmed for broadcast in January 2021 (by a Radio Times ref this month). So it is surely done with filming, and is deep into post-production (ADR, effects, editing, grading, etc.). So perhaps "adaptations underway" instead? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Cover
Since forever, the cover of The Colour of Magic had a wrong caption. Do you all want to use the present cover by Alan Smith, which is also used at The Colour of Magic, or a cover by Kirby to represent the Discworld in the infbox? WikiHannibal (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Publication order
It seems strange that there's no section here which shows the publication order. Here's one website which has one: https://www.bookseriesinorder.com/discworld/ UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hindu ripoff?
Not one mention that the elephant/turtle thing is from Hindu creation myth??

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/reptiles/weight-world 2605:A600:1E38:286A:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Subseries misfits
Specifially for  Unseen Academicals, though perhaps a review is needed for Pyramids, Small Gods, and Monstrous regiment too.

I don't feel like Unseen Academicals fits well with the other "Rincewind" stories. Rincewind stories up to and including The Last continent (and to a slightly lesser extent The Last Hero) have a quite consistent structure that stands out from the other subseries. Rincewind himself flees from problem to problem and the books where he is the lead follow more of a point to point plot format, in the tradition of Colour of Magic / Light Fantastic which clearly draw from D&D style madcap fantast adventure tropes.

Unseen Academicals feels a lot more like the Moist or Industrial Revolution novels. Rincewind, with his minor appearances, doesn't control the story. In terms of cast and structure, Unseen Academicals has most in common with Soul Music with some one-off characters backed up by Ridcully and his staff.

I think the simplest solution is to reclass Unseen Academicals as Industrial Revolution, but some other reshuffle of subseries might serve the other odd ones out better. Perhaps the Subseries column could be replaced with Lead Characters to allow better flexibility? Webbed Hands (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Discworld