Talk:Tyrant

I have changed the order of the definitions. By the classical (POLITICAL) definition, the word could be used to describe the founding fathers of the United States and Thomas Jefferson once said, "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." It may even be said that tyranny could be a phenomenon in the universe beyond that which a ruler could instill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgrowsontrees (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a full article on Bullying, which is a serious social problem and can cause major physical and psychological damage, and in extreme cases murder or suicide. Lee M 19:13, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes it does, and you're most welcome to start one, but this is not the place to put it. -Smack 04:37, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just to clarify: my point was that I was redirected to "Tyrant" from the query "Bullying". Lee M 01:19, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

May I propose that,for the sake of NPOV, all living people are removed form this page? For better or worse, defining people as long after death has always been considered more neutral.--213.84.36.18 23:46, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Why Mugabe? Not that I know much about him, but classing him with the others seems inconsistent with his wiki page.

I don't think that stating tyrants should be avoided...you could always say, "many view so-and-so as a tyrant," or something similar.--TwilightBat 00:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am removing Hugo Chavez from the list at the bottom for the same reason I'm not adding G.W. Bush - obviously its not neutral...Libertine311 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

According to what I learned, a tyrant is simply someone who rules illegally. This doesn't make a tyrant good or bad. It is true that in some places, tyrants turned out to be better than the legal rulers, but there is no proof that this was true in every circumstance. This article makes a lot of generalizations. Also, the sign at the top of the page says the neutrality of the article is "disputed". What's there to dispute? The article is OBVIOUSLY not neutral!

According to what I have learned (like the person above me) a tyrant is someone who gains power by unconventional means (illegal or not). They weren't necessarily bad. For example Cleisthenes's rule established the first democracy in Athens. Pisistratus, also of Athens, gave peace to the city-state. Make sure to keep that in mind. Oh, and make sure not to delete the whole page again. KittyKat1001001 (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF? Blue Gene Tyranny?

Linking bullying to or from this article is kind of a stretch, linking a musician is just stupid.

The only connection is an assumed name, an affectation, "Tyranny" not "Tyrant." I am guessing either this "Gene Tyranny" guy or a fan put that there.

Image Problems

The image under etymology hasn't been showing for awhile. It has been removed.

Hebrew??

Whats with this "There may be a connection with the biblical Hebrew word seren..." nonsense? its a greek word, wheres your evidence, whoever put that in? Terrasidius (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been hypothesised by Moshe and Trude Dothan in "People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines", that seren, the title of the Philistine rulers, is etymologically related to the pre-Greek title "Tyrannos". John D. Croft (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"illegitimate ruler"

Fact tagged this because it's an anachronistic confabulation. The original greek tyrants didn't suffer from issues of legitimacy then and the means by which they gained power were generally those considered legitimate today, i.e. by popular mandate. In fact this is the reason why they would be considered illegitimate in most parts of the pre-modern world in which, unlike ancient Greece, democratic traditions at the state level were rare, viz.: the fact that the tyrants were not born monarchs. The final kings of Rome do fit this but it's not the Latin etymology that is at issue. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern tyrants

Maybe we should add some modern tyrants, even if they do not exactly fit the description here, many modern leaders are widely considered tyrants. I can only think of one very recent example of a leader of a very large nation being widely considered a tyrant, but I am sure there are less controversial modern day tyrants from regions in Africa and Asia that we could easily use. JayKeaton (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Meaning and source

This needs work, as editors who sourced the meaning just used online dictionaries which won't work for something like this. Take a look at, for instance, [1], [2] [3] Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern tyrants

I keep trying to add modern tyrants. Although the actions of leaders like Mugabe clearly comport with the description of Tyrant listed by wikipedia, one user feels compelled to delete my postings because I do not cite any statement describing Mugabe as a tyrant. What gives? The actions comport with Wikipedia's accepted definition. Why would an external citation be needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stunetii (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Because that is the way Wikipedia works, as it says below this edit window, "encyclopedic content must be verifiable" -- please read WP:Verifiable. What you are doing is called original research as discussed at WP:OR. Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

misuse of the power of the populis?

I removed these words which have no foundation in usage of the term either modern or ancient. A tyrant is a person with absolute rule over the populis. It is not a misuse of power because this implies there exists a proper use of power. Maybe the original editor who inserted this was thinking of the tyranny of the majority over the minority in modern political thought within democracy (for example the political oppression of women before female emancipation, the oppression of slaves in America, or denying rights to sexual minorities that are granted to majorities), but that is not the same as the subject of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntersMoon22 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Critique of "Tyrant", late January 2017

The article dates from about 2003. It was regarded as a start on a very important subject by WikiProject Politics.

"Tyranny" points to this article.

The article is poorly developed for an effort of many years on an important subject. I suspect that the problem is the lack of consistency in the definition. A group of more than 200 ancient Greek leaders was defined as tyrants, but old commentary was not consistent and did not clearly separate definition and description. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on the subject mentions not a single tyrant since antiquity. Meanwhile the classics contain two thousand years of commentary on tyrants and tyranny. Current dictionary definitions encompass a larger class than the ancient leaders.

A lot of citations in the article are informal. Listing a famous title/author in the text reduces the need for formal references.

• Lead

The lead contains lots of citations regarding the definitions of ancient history. It mentions "tyranny" (a larger subject) briefly - something missing in the most of the article. Nothing in the lead suggests that a tyrant has lived in the last 2000 years. The definitions have continued to evolve - not mentioned in the lead.

A psych paper is an odd source for summarizing philosophers.

• Definition

Quotations are not well integrated into the text.

• Etymology

Well supported by citations. The article else hints that tyranny (contrasted to freedom and liberty) is a concept more recent than the concrete tyrant. True?

• Early history

Maybe "Pre-history"? The Harvard style of citations might work better.

• Historical forms

Contains a snippet of Etymology. Thales quotation needs confirmation. While this section contains most of the text it is largely unsupported by citations. The history explains a lot regarding tyrants and their methods obliquely. Some motivating words might help. The Roman tyrants subsection is particularly in need of citations. None of Tacitus, Plutarch, and Josephus seems to be quotable regarding tyrants. The subsection mentions one alleged tyrant. Does Machiavelli really belong in this section rather than in the classics?

• In the classics

Probably should be moved to after Enlightenment.

• Enlightenment

No citations support claims that the Frenchmen were tyrants.

• Methods of obtaining and retaining power

Quotations are not a proper substitute for text. The Harvard style of citations might work better.

• Recent tyrants

This section was deleted for the convenience of editors rather than the benefit of readers. The implication that tyrants no longer exist contradicts available references.

• Psychology of tyrants

Might benefit from another reference.

---

Other topics that could be covered include

• the means of avoiding tyranny
• alternatives to tyranny
• the morality of tyrannicide
• the acceptability of temporary tyrants
• the acceptability of tyrants for empire or in crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.201.81 (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Aged tyrant

Thales said he would be amazed to see "not a aged tyrant, but an aged ship's pilot". Less than ideal. 75.83.201.81 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

A diagram might help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#/media/File:Aristotle%27s_constitutions_diagram.png2606:6000:514B:AD00:9491:B757:8154:4618 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)