Talk:Usurper/Archive 1

What about the non-derogatory term?

It says in the article that usurper is a derogatory term. If so, what is the non-derogatory term for.. erm... an usurper of the throne?

Same meaning. I don't think it is that derogatory. kind of like thief isn't derogatory. Rds865 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007-02-9 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 13:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The lead sentence in the Judicial usurpation section reads, 'The usurpation of political power by a panel of judges is not unique to America's "juristocracy."' If this is not stating a (fairly extreme) point of view, I don't know what is. This article could be made neutral, but it will take some work. --Russ (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the first sentence in the Judicial usurpation section to a nuetral sentence. J. D. Hunt (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections added by User:Martel,C

They are based almost entirely on sources that are not addressing the subject of the article per se, or are not addressing it in connection with the subject of judicial activism, and therefore constitute original research.
They obscure the subject of the article with material introduced by an abrupt segue, as described in WP:COATRACK.
They give extreme undue weight to a particular point of view, to the extent that it has been expressed by anyone.
They are partially cited to a web site of self-published writings, which this user has inappropriately cited in other articles.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a concordance.

I consider bot edits irrelevant for the purpose of 3RR. I will now remove these sections again, and I hope that other editors will not try to move the goalposts. WillOakland (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod

The article was proposed for deletion with the reason "dictionary definition," but my reading of WP:DICDEF and WP:Stub suggests that the article is more the latter (i.e., a stub). I feel that any problems of writing style can easily be fixed, and there is enough valid content here that a full AFD discussion would be needed if someone still wanted to pursue deletion. SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Usurpation"

The usage and primary topic of Usurpation is under discussion, see DRAFT TALK:Usurpation -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wdyw? 2601:646:4103:F090:D565:C5B3:BBFA:B3B (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]