Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tyrants (second nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk"  00:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

List of tyrants
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was previously nominated for deletion more than two years ago, at Articles for deletion/List of tyrants, and the debate came to a no-consensus close. Many of those in favor of deletion said it was inherently biased, while those in favor of keeping suggested it had problems but that it could be reformed. As you can see, nothing has happenened. The list might actually have grown worse.

I view this list as violating several Wikipedia policies. First and most important, this article does not comply with Neutral point of view. These people are just being labelled tyrants, with no background, no information on who called/calls them that, no information on opposing views, nothing of the sort whatsoever. Just a list of people the various authors consider to be tyrants. This brings us to the second policy that is being violated, no original research. These entries don't seem to have been added based on any reliable, published information - the opinions and views of the various editors shaped this list, which is not acceptable. An article's content should not depend on the opinions of who has been editing it. Style, yes. Format, yes. Wording, yes. But if the basic content of the article were to change completely because a different set of people happened to have edited it over two years, if we were to see an entirely new list of modern tyrants if sixty people out of special:random/user had been the contributors instead of the people in the history section, then that's an excellent indicator the article is original research.

Note that I have no objections to List of ancient Greek tyrants - these people have been identified as such by reliable sources. Not the case with the List of tyrants section. Picaroon (t) 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It just occurred to me that there might be Biographies of living persons implications with the living people on the list, seeing as tyrant is a negative label and there are no sources for it. I haven't thought this over much, but it could be an issue too. Picaroon (t) 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Tyrant is a very weasly word and there are huge problems with defining inclusion (or even defining the word tyrant) . The POV and BLP problems are simply too big. I agree that List of ancient Greek tyrants is fine though. Pax:Vobiscum 21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Tyrant is an inherently pejorative term (at least in the modern sense), and as such this list could never be NPOV. Iain99 22:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Tyrant is indeed a weaselly (sp?) word, will never be verified. Article definitely has problems with POV and BLP. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons voiced by User:Picaroon and User:TenPoundHammer. -WarthogDemon 22:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see the POV argument, honestly. I think that, with the exception of some skinheads, there is a universal belief that Hitler was a tyrant.  We would all be laughing if this were entitled "List of alleged tyrants".  If there is a problem, it may be that tyrant is a stronger word than, say, autocrat or dictator; but absolute executive power has been a rarity in modern history, and most of that characteristic of these notable persons is something that can easily be sourced.  Indeed, some descriptive footnotes would probably strengthen this article beyond the blue links.  Mandsford 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes we would (all be laughing), as "alleged" is a word to avoid. But that sort of solution will be delving right back into original research. Making a list of all people who have ever "held absolute executive power" and labeling them tyrants is original research. Could you please address the original research issue as well as the neutrality issue? I'm pretty sure it would not be possible to satisfy both concerns and come out with a remotely viable article, but I'm open to a proposal. Picaroon (t) 00:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps that may be the real reason we might all be laughing... when I see use of a Wikipedia word to avoid, I find that to be high comedy and burst into a loud guffaw. Okay, regarding original research, I can see that aspect of it.  However, I also think that it could easily be sourced ("descriptive footnotes" would be those type that list a source but also an additional sentence.... I'm not sure what those are actually called, but the type that go [1] Shirer, "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"; Hitler's control as Chancellor was described as "tyranny", p399 or something on that order.  Tyrants tend to have more biographies written about them then nice guys; hence Hitler gets more books then, say, Willy Brandt. Mandsford 02:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment An appeal to the Third Reich doesn't really help establish how this list can be neutral. Yes, we can all agree that Hitler was a tyrant, but how about Pinocet? He still has a fairly large fan club in Chile (and the British Conservative party for that matter). Or Castro? Franco? Mubarak? Musharraf? Putin? Unless, as you seem to suggest, we should just include everyone who has ever been called a tyrant, but in that case it would get rather long and silly... I'm fairly sure that I could find some sources which refer to Bush and Blair as tyrants... Iain99 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Response You raise a good point. I think the American press tends to still look at Mubarak, Musharraf and Putin as being okay; the portrayal of Castro is split between people who mention stadium trials or low illiteracy rate; Franco and Pinochet seem to have earned their place in Hell, but as you can accurately guess, that's my opinion.  I can also see where this could be added to too easily.  Who among us has not, at one time, included on our personal "List of Tyrants" the entry "My Dad".  I still believe it could be documented.  The Shirer book was an example... I think in the copy that I have, page 399 had a cigarette advertisement.  Mandsford 12:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per pure WP:OR. There is absolutely no way this kind of list could ever be anything but a PoV dump. It's like making a List of stupid politicians, there isn't the slightest chance of any kind of consensus ever arising here; a guaranteed trollfest and edit battlefield, AfD magnet, surefire ArbCom customer, a waste of everybody's time, another unwanted stain on Wikipedia's reputation, I could go on and on. --Targeman 03:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but note "Tyrant" is the Anglicization of the Greek name of these rulers in ancient time, so usage in regards to rulers of ancient Greek places (and by extension, those in Sicily or Magna Graecia) is quite OK. Carlossuarez46 19:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.