Talk:Tyrant

Politics Start‑class High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!

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. Bob is sexy.

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]