Talk:Anocracy

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

@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)

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)

- 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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

See Google News:

• https://www.google.com/search?q=anocracy&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=nws

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)

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)

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)