Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tyrants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 20:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of tyrants

This is inherently POV - a 'list of tyrants in antiquity' might just work - but not this (see its talk too) --Doc (?) 21:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This should not be a candidate for deletion under this criteria of NPOV, I refer you to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category "Article is biased or has lots of POV" -- lots of POV List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. It does not fill any of the criteria for deletion under the section Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problems that may require deletion. If you think it does then you should have given that as you reason for listing it here --Philip Baird Shearer 18:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An article that is listed for deletion as "irredeemibly" or "inherently" POV doesn't have mere bias or POV problems—the allegation is that its very subject matter and defined scope is founded upon POV (not an NPOV reporting of notable POVs, mind you) and can't be extricated from it. An article that is incapable of being made NPOV is clearly unencyclopedic and therefore deletable. I believe it would also qualify as original research, because the content then entirely depends upon how an editor has subjectively chosen to theorize or interpret information. See List of movies that have been cited as being among the worst ever made for a way out of this—that list functions as a report of rankings by notable judgments/standards. The delete votes here obviously do not believe this list is capable of being rescued in such a manner. Postdlf 17:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I said on the Talk:List of tyrants
I have created this list to move the modern POV out of the definitions of Tyrant and Tyrannicide and to create a list of ancient Tyrants. To be listed here they ought to meet the definition of Tyrant as defined on the Tyrant page.
If the list is too subjective then it better that it is in a separate list than in the two other articles "Tyrant" and "Tyrannicide". If you vote to delete this list you simply vote to reinstate the POV into the definition page which IMHO is worse. The list which appears in this article was in the Tyrant page and I removed them from there. There was also a list with even more POV in Tyrannicide which I edited down but has been reverted. Go have a look and then decide if having one POV list broken out of the two definition articles is better than having them embedded directly in the definition articles. A similar tactic has been used in many articles for example military occupation and List of military occupations, Torture and Uses of torture in recent times --Philip Baird Shearer 22:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed, too subjective. El_C 22:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The objection seems to be to the term tyrant, rather than the persons listed in the article. Who more aptly could be included as a modern tyrant? Does Doc contend that there are no modern tyrants? As I have quoted elsewhere: "It's good to have an open mind, but it shouldn't be so open that everything falls out." Too Old 23:20, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Doc; this article is inherently POV. One person's tyrant is another person's great leader. --Xcali 23:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, we can't even call those people dictators on their own articles. Unless we want to leave it to only the Greeks who were officially called tyrants, get rid of it. RickK 23:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with RickK. Falphin 00:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I change my vote to neutral I don't like this article but User:Phillip Baird Shearer has a point. I'm really undecided right now, I might change my vote again once I make up my mind. Falphin 18:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I change my vote to Keep because I can across this List of purported cults and so why not have List of purported tyrants? Falphin 19:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, about as POV as you can get, who decides who's a tyrant and who's not? Columbia 00:22, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleteyou could make it NPOV but it would be more trouble than it's worth
Please look at the above this user's contributions, and then consider if this vote should contribute to the consensus. Philip Baird Shearer 17:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back to Tyrant, and redirect list of tyrants to that page. --Idont Havaname 07:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. Why do we have to have a list of "Tyrants"? Why not a list of "leaders" (or something more specific that ties them all together and isn't POV) and then you can point out all the (factual) nasty things about them on their individual articles. That way no-one can fight over who should and shouldn't be on the list. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is to remove the POV from the other two articles "Tyrant" and "Tyrannicide" which can then remain clean definitions with the POV restricted to List of Tyrants. For example at the moment the list of people on whom Tyrannicide was committed includes King Louis XVI of France and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Two autocrats who are not normally defined as tyrants. If one can argue on the Tyrannicide page that unless the victim appears in the list of Tyrants then they can not be a victim of Tyrannicide it will help keep POV out of that article. If the definition of tyrant is changed on the Tyrant page to mean only true Tyrants as defined in classical literature, then all the better because the list would cease to have any POV. But leaving aside the NPOV issue of the of list of modern tyrants for a moment, a list of classical tyrants would in itself be interesting and useful, as I am sure that like me most people do not know who they all were. Philip Baird Shearer 19:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A list of Classical tyrants could be fine, and interesting, but I don't think we should ever include modern people. It's just way too subjective. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But this is something to be decided long term by the contributors of the page not by a small number of people who happen to be voting on the issue now. Also it does not address the issue of removing POV from the other two pages. Philip Baird Shearer 10:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV. Kaibabsquirrel 05:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Irredeemibly POV, which means that the article is necessarily unencyclopedic, and arguably original research. Postdlf 17:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just added a bunch of ancient Greek tyrants, for whom the label is not necessarily pejorative, since it was just a title. If it needs to be moved to "ancient tyrants" or something, so be it, but I thought I would point out that there is a large list there now. Adam Bishop 18:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Delete. Inherently POV. I would, however, support a List of classical tyrants or a List of tyrants in antiquity. --Carnildo 18:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Classifying people into tyrants/non-tyrants will always be controversial, but if the general opinion among scholars of our time is that someone is a tyrant, he or she should be listed here. The list itself is a valuable encyclopedic entry. I may not agree with the inclusion of each and every person on that list, but I do recognize the fact that all of them are commonly accepted to be tyrants, which is the only thing that matters in a collaborative work such as Wikipedia. Please join me in keeping and expanding this list. OwenX 13:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Conti|✉ 23:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't agree that this is unsalvageable POV. -Mysidia 08:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Irredeemably POV. Ambi 08:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further the list can be defined not to include modern Tyrants if that is what the editors of the list wish to do. But it should not be a candidate for Deletion just because it is only a couple of days old and contains an unbalanced POV. Philip Baird Shearer 18:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I'd be willing to support retention if, and only if, this was renamed to a list of clasical tyrants - or tyrants in antiquity or simmilar. The tyranicide argument doesn't work as it is also POV. Most political assasins have considered their victims as tyrants or oppressors. --Doc (?) 21:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unless someone is defined as a tyrant then their death by another's hand can not be a tyranicide no matter what the thoughts of the assasin is, so a list of tyrants also helps to police tyranicides Philip Baird Shearer 10:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doc you have not answered the question of under which catagory for deletion you have placed this request here.

  • "inherently POV" is not given as a reason to delete a page Wikipedia:Deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category.
  • The title is not "inherently POV", it depends what is placed in the list. A title like "The Tyrant Hitler" is "inherently POV". The people who contribute to the page can decide if the page should or should not contain a list of "modern tyrants" as well as those in the classical period. Do you not see that you are trying to force your POV on others by using this deletion mechanism? Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are some (a minority for sure, but they probably exist) who would consider Hitler a great leader and a savior rather than a tyrant. There's a difference between an article that currently has POV problems and one that will always have POV problems. The policies you site are not the end-all-be-all of the way things work around here. Deletions occur by consensus, not necessarily what is written down. Past consensus has typically been to delete articles that are inherently or blatantly POV. I think that is an accurate description for this article. My vote remains unchanged: delete. Don't take it personally. This is about the article, not about you. --Xcali 14:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. There is difference between an article name, which has NPOV the title and one which does not. "List of Tyrants" is neutral in a way that "The Tyrant Churchill" is not.
  2. Explain how a title such as List of Tyrants will always have POV problems. It depends on how the introduction defines Tyrant. The introdution could define the a tyrant by using the Ancient Greek definintion or what ever. See List of military occupations as an example of how the definition can be a guide for the creation of a list.
  3. If "list of Tyrants" is inherently POV why is the title "Tyrant" not? By the logic being expressed by some here, it should be moved to "classical tyranny".
  4. What is the point of having policy guidelines for "votes for deletion" if people do not abide by them? Philip Baird Shearer 17:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • An article on ?tyranny? can discuss various definitions and concepts of tyranny - the concepts will be POV but an NPOV reporting of them is possible (just like definitions of Socialism, Christianity etc). A ?List of tyrants?, however, must per se apply one of those POV definitions - the selection is thus 'inherently POV'. You suggest the introduction can define tyrant - but that introduction will be POV itself - it will result in a dispute and there will be no 'neutral' ground to decide it.
  1. The guidelines are guidelines - and an attempt to record community consensus. If you look back on the debates in VfD, you will find that there is a consensus that 'inherently POV' is grounds for deletion. --Doc (?) 17:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If they are only guide lines they why does it state at the top of the template in bold: This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.? If it is policy which part of the policy are you following by proposing this page for deletion? Philip Baird Shearer 13:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The part that states: Is not suitable for Wikipedia. Consensus for/against deletion (or alternatives) will determine whether it is/isn't (~). El_C 13:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category says "Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)" Which part of WP:NOT does this deletion come under?
PLEASE DO NOT ACTION ANY DECISION ON THIS PAGE UNTIL IT IS AGREED THAT THIS REQUEST FOR DELETION HAS FOLLOWED THE POLICY AS STATED ON THE "Votes for deletion" PAGE.
--Philip Baird Shearer 09:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
At the moment I would say that it increasingly falls under WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOAPBOX, Philip Baird Shearer. WP:NOT is in parentheses and it most certainly dosen't say that 'suitability' is limited to its provisions. Again, consensus will determine whether this article is "suitable for wikipedia." This is policy, and I urge you to desist from these senseless procedural circularities. El_C 09:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In what way is "List of Tyrants" anything to do with a soapbox? If you are refering to what I have written here, I have asked a reasonable question and your answer is that there are no policy guidelines to follow other than whatever is placed on "Votes for deletion" and votes which take place. In which case why have a Policy statment on the template? If the policy guidelines are not being followed why have them at all? Philip Baird Shearer 09:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, the bolding and CAPS seemed a bit of an overstatement, is what I mean. And, no, what I am saying that consensus can play a loose role in the realm of suitability, beyond perhaps all the provisions of WP:NOT, fitting 'precisely' for every subject. In this case, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base seems to be fairly applicable, but my point is that so do other policies mentioned in WP:NOT, such as: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. El_C 09:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I said above the title "is neutral in a way that "The Tyrant Churchill" is not". A list of tyrants is no more "Origial Research" than many other lists (please see my comments on list under Wikipedia talk:No original research). So I disagree with you. The title is not related to any of the subsections in "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" nor was that the reason that Doc gave as his reason for posting this request. He wrote "This is inherently POV" which is covered in the Policy "Procedure for deletion" under "Problems that don't require deletion"->"Article is biased or has lots of POV" with a solution of "List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention." The policy does not advocate deletion. So This request should be withdrawn as it does not following policy. What is the forum for putting requests to delete "votes for deletion" pages? No action should be taken on this request to delete until it is agreed that it is within policy --Philip Baird Shearer 20:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Prove me wrong by gathering the consensus to dismiss the VfD on those grounds. Otherwise, it stands & will be followed through. El_C 00:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Where should this consensus be gathered? If the request does not follow policy, why should it stand as it is? Philip Baird Shearer 17:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know where does one post a request to have a page like this one removed as it has not followed the policy guidelines for RfD? Philip Baird Shearer 09:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • further remarks I have serious doubts about the very possibility of a NPOV in many cases. See my remarks on the article's talk page. Too Old 17:18, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Nearly all lists are shit. They are all too often POV -- for the reason stated by Doc glasgow (they apply one definition out of many possible). One person's tyrant is also another's benevolent prince. The big problem with pages like this is that they are sinkholes for shitstirring and editwarring. If I added George W. Bush, someone would take him off. If someone else added Fidel, I'd take him off. But I daresay we could each find someone somewhere who calls both a "tyrant". However, the problem is with the modern guys. Greek tyrants, I think, are not something we're liable to squabble over. There's a case for moving to List of classical Greek tyrants or something similar and editing out the modern stuff. Banning a page title just to avoid the POV pushing doesn't strike me as a great solution. But if it's that or this page, delete it has to be. Grace Note 08:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Graceful phraseology, Grace Note, but you could have said not worthwhile. El_C 00:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I wrote on the talk page and mentioned higher up this page "I have created this list to move the modern POV out of the definitions of Tyrant and Tyrannicide and to create a list of ancient Tyrants. To be listed here they ought to meet the definition of Tyrant as defined on the Tyrant page.". All the modern tyrants appeared as a list in Tyrant. The list in Tyrannicide has been restored since I chopped it and includes Louis XVI of France. It is better to have the POV in one "sinkhole" than in the defining articls. Also the list now contains many people who were classical tyrants, so only one small section at the end will have POV if the editors of the page define tyrant to include modern ones. I think this is better than the solution proposed by those who whish to delete this page. Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep. As long as the list of "tyrants" have citations then there is no way a list like this is "inherently POV". This type of issue has come several times before and I wish people would stop making the same mistake over and over and over. Pcb21| Pete 12:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Question - I don't think I understand your remark Pete, what type of citation would neutrally verify that some one was a tyrant? If I can find a few cites calling Bush or Blair tyrants, can I add those names? If this was a list of 'leaders who have been described as tyrants', then fair enough (although most leaders have been at some point). But the lable tyrant is just far too subjective. What criteria would we agree on? --Doc (?) 13:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How about using the definition(s) given on the Tyrant page and altering that if it throws up too many matches with which you disagree? The other way to do it is to find definitions from respectable organisations/publications like people have done for the Definitions of terrorism article Philip Baird Shearer 17:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Pseudo-keep as list of Classical tyrants per Silversmith. Listing "modern tyrants" is inherently POV.--Pharos 23:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but cut out the hnadful fo modern ones and turn this into a list of classical tyrants per Silversmith. - SimonP 20:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.