Talk:Republic/Archive 11

Been Published

The Classical definition of republic and that Sparta is a Republic has now been published in an academic journal, "Sparta, Journal of Ancient Sparta and Greek History" on 5 May 2007. The link is here: http://www.sparta.markoulakispublications.org.uk/index.php?id=105) Please read it and see that you guys err in your whole article!!! WHEELER 02:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, I am editing this article according to PUBLISHED articles in books. The authors of this Wikipedian article, do NOT quote from a single ACADEMIC scholarly book in the definition of a Republic. I have many many sources. Please check the sources. I got my stuff PUBLISHED!WHEELER 04:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am open to some kind of modus operandi. If you don't want your article disturbed, return Classical definition of republic. I am open to negotiation. If not, well, we are just going to have to argue and argue and argue. Funny I don't see Paul A. Rahe's masterful magnus opus Republics, Ancient and Modern, referenced, or quoted, or noted. Is that interesting or not?WHEELER 04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting your work published, but your source does not seem to be an academic, peer reviewed journal. Its editor is described as being "a fully qualified IT-Systemelectrician" and most of the other submissions seem to be by hobbyists. - SimonP 14:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you read the first guy and stopped reading further. There are two other gentlemen who are qualified! And there is an Academic Advisor. Why did you totally revert? Why revert the edit of Paul A. Rahe? I have references. I referenced everything I said. Do you have any suggestions where those references can be used? Where is How the Greeks define governments in your definition of republic? Sir Thomas Smyth said all commonwealths are mixed:

"Now although the governments of common wealth's be thus divided into three, and cutting each into two, so into sixe: yet you must not take that ye shall find any common wealth or government simple, pure and absolute in his sort and kind, but as wise men have divided for understanding sake and fantasied iiij. simple bodies which they call elements, as fire, ayre, water, earth, and in a man's body four complexions or temperatures, as cholericke, sanguine, phlegmatique, and melancolique: not that ye shall finde the one utterly perfect without mixtion of the other, for that nature almost will not suffer, but understanding doth discerne ech nature as in his sinceritie: so seldome or never shall you finde any common wealthe1 or government which is absolutely and sincerely made of the one2 above named, but always mixed with an other, and have the name of that which is more and overruleth always or for the most part the other.[3]

From De Republica Angolorum by Sir Thomas Smyth. The title of his book is "Republic" and he uses the term Mixed! Where is that in this article! If it was the Doric Greeks that set up and influenced Roman government how can you deny the term Republic for Sparta and that Republic means mixed?WHEELER 15:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I, and many other users, have been over these issues many times before. Your additions have references, but original interpretations of sources is still original research. Your views run counter to everything else written about these topics. Moreover, as has also been demonstrated, your interpretations rely on mistranslations and coincidental connections between unrelated works. - SimonP 15:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I quote from Paul A. Rahe who wrote a THREE volume work with massive footnotes. You discount his work. I quote from two scholars, Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, who collaborated together on one book, Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, which define what a republic is, and you delete it! These are NOT original interpretations! I quote directly from Scholars! In the first 6 references on this article, YOU QUOTE original source and then a dictionary. In my article, I quote a printed academic book written by TWO people. And you harp on me because of what?

You are not being honest. You are being partisan. You can't accept the obvious. And you are determined to just 'frustrate' 'frustrate' until I go away. You just give a flat denial, and stick to propaganda. Well, the evidence doesn't match your statements. WHEELER 15:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is called NPOV pal!

• • De Republica Anglorum; the Manner of Government or Policie of the Realme of England, Sir Thomas Smyth, 1583. (England is described under Queen Elizabeth I as a republic, the term "mixed" does appear in it. Sir Smyth states that all commonwealths are of mixed character.)

See what is the difference between Sir Thomas Smyth and Jacques Rosseau and Niccolo Machiavelli? Sir Thomas Smyth is a GREEK SCHOLAR AND LINGUIST. He read the roots of Greek texts and got it right. Jacques Rousseau and Niccolo Machiavelli were not. Machiavelli read the Romans.WHEELER 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Even Niccolo Machiavelli called Sparta a Republic!!!!!!!! And you what,?

• "Two principal causes, however, cemented this union: first, the inhabitants of Sparta were few in number...that by not permitting strangers to establish themselves in the republic, (referring to the xenelasia), they had neither opportunity of becoming corrupt..." The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, trans. & ed. by Robert M. Adams, W.W. Norton & Co., NY, 1992. pg 96. What do you make of this? SimonPWHEELER 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe I did a good job of NPOVing. I like the article now. Now, if you don't like it, we can negotiate. Return, Classical definition of republic and I will leave this article alone. I am here to stay on this article to get the other side out. But if you decide to return "Classical definition of republic", I am more than happy to leave you all alone to your Modern republicanism/democracy article here. WHEELER 02:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267.

1. 1. Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265.
   2. "A mixed government, a virtous citizenry, the rule of law,--these were the republican ideals of Machiavelli's Discourses. If much of this sounds familiar, it is because this vision inspired the Atlantic Republican tradition--a way of thinking about politics that spread from Italy to Great Britain in the seventeenth century, and from there to Britain's American colonies in the eighteenth." Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 33.
   3. Classical republicanism emphasized civic duty and social cohesion. Founders and the Classics, Carl J. Richard, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994. pg 3.
   4. Sir Thomas Smyth in his treatise on English government of his time defined all commonwealths (republics) as mixed. De Republica Anglorum, 1583. ch. 6.

WP policy is NPOV. Here is a definition that WILL BE included Pmanderson! WP Policy is NPOV. All sides get to put their information in! This will be included!

Paradigm of the error of NPOV

This article as it now stands---NPOVed---is a classic basket case. The word "republic" now holds TWO contradicting meanings. All of Western Culture and Western civilization is built on Paramenides principle of non-contradition. This Wikipedian article of 'republic' and its policy of NPOV stands Paramenides on his head. This is NOT Western culture or civilization but Semitic. Non-contradicition is the hallmark of Western Thought. Socrates, "Define and divide". Logic dictates the principle of NON-contradiciton but this article is FULL of contradictions. It is anti-Western. This is NOT the scientific spirit. Science dictates non-contradiction. Either/or. This article is a perfect example of the error of NPOV. With all its contradictions, 'republic' is a nonsensical term.WHEELER 02:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey is anybody out there? Where did everybody go? Where is the resistance?

Anyway, got another stupid Question! Where is "mixed Government" in the Forms of Government? I mean where is Mixed Government? Why the obfuscation? Why the obscurantism? Why the Dynamic silence on Mixed Government? WHEELER 00:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

1. How come there is Classical republicanism, Classical republics, and Mixed government? There is NO such thing as "classical republicanism". And classical republics and mixed government mean the same thing. There needs to be some house cleaning here. Is there any agreement? Any feedback?WHEELER 01:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of my edits

1. "At the same time, however, Lacedæmonia was a republic." Rahe, Paul A., Republics; Ancient and Modern, Vol. I, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 1992. pg 169.
   1. "Sparta was neither a monarchy or democracy...The most subtle of the ancient authors described it as a mixed regime...In order to secure the consent of the governed, Sparta ensured the participation of every element of the citizen population in the administration of the city". Republics Ancient and Modern", Rahe, Vol. I, pg 152.
   2. "Lacedæmonia was, in fact, a mixed regime—an uneasy compromise between competing principles...". Republics Ancient and Modern, Rahe, Vol. I, pg 170.
2. The Lives, Plutarch, trans by John Dryden, rev. by Arthur Clough, The Modern Library, NY. pg 52.
   1. The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Müller, trans. fr. the German by Henry Tufnell, ESQ. & Georg Cornewall Lewis, ESQ., A.M., publisher: John Murray, London, 2nd ed. rev. 1839. Vol I, pp 35, 152, 236; Vol II, pp 13, 14
   2. "For Crete as the locus for the first Greek politiea, see Arist. F611.14 (Rose) and Heraclid. Pont. Pol. 3.1-2 (M?FHG II 211)." Republics Ancient and Modern, Paul A. Rahe, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1994. Vol. I pg 289, (n.123).

There it is in Black and White! WHEELER 03:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the quotes, and the references! Mixed government is the OLD definition of republic. It will be included. NPOV is WP policy. Some Wikipedians are NOT up for NPOV.WHEELER 23:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Did anybody do a google search? People have been calling Sparta a republic throughout history. I have put together a list of all the times that Sparta comes up as a republic: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/List_of_sources_identifying_Sparta_as_a_republic. Please notice that there are two articles on for the original French encyclopaedia that had an aricle called "Sparta, republic of" and an American magazine of 1837 that had a short article titled the "The Spartan Republic". There is huge amount of American colonial literature and the American Founding Fathers were schooled in Latin and Greek. Read Plato, read Aristotle and read Polybius. They all recognized that Sparta was Mixed and also a Republic!WHEELER 12:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Childish edits of Wikipedia

I would like the Adminstrators, the Powers that be of Wikipedia, take note of how Pmanderson has edited the Republic article:

""According to Karl Otfried Mueller's "thousand-page fantasia", written in 1824, before the modern sciences of epigraphy or archaeology existed""

""Modern classicists, however, no longer swoon over the beuatiful, strong-limbed, blond Dorians, who founded civilization.""

Do any of these statements come from an Academic source?

• Yes: Sir Moses Finley, Professor in Classics at Oxford. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But funny, I quote from academic sources and I get reverted. This is why I left Wikipedia a long time ago--just pure childishness. I approach everything I do with gravitas. And what I get in response is Childish acts. And this guy reverts me? These are only from Ad hominem attacks, not based on anything. I have read Müller's work and it is impressive, well sourced, and thorough. It is excellent! Mr. Pmanderson, I doubt could produce even half of the quality that Müller has done.

I think those edits by Pmanderson are like vandalism. Neither do I believe in "Bearing false witness". It is the Doric Greeks that created mixed governments, influenced Rome which called its government a "Republic". That is the truth of History. Athens is NOT the first nor was Athens a republic throughout her history. "Thou shalt not bear false witness".WHEELER 12:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Again here is List of sources calling Sparta a republic: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/List_of_sources_identifying_Sparta_as_a_republic WHEELER 12:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what "modern academics think". That is NOT Wikipedian policy! The Wikipedia Policy is VERIFICATION and NPOV. I have satisfied these TWO requirements.WHEELER 12:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That there IS a conspiracy amongst "modern academia", I do not dispute. "Modern" is a code word for "Marxist" and yes Modern (Marxist) academia will never teach, never acknowledge Sparta as a republic and will keep slandering her and degrading her--is a fact. But Propaganda is not "scientific". WHEELER 12:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to recover Forgotten Truths; we are here to express the illusions which presently possess mankind. Hire a blog. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"We are not here to recover forgotten truths". So very right you are Pmanderson. M.I. Finley is a communist. He must promote democracy because socialism and democracy go hand in hand. He is also a member of the Frankfurt school. This school has been most dangerous to Western Culture and Civilization. The whole goal of the school is the transformation of society to their ideology. Well, I don't accept that. I know what is going on. The transformation of society by the transformation of words. You yourself said, "We are here to express illusions". Well, I am here to dispell illusion and face reality. Truth is a FAITHFUL representation of reality. The Frankfurt school is to be opposed at all costs. I am not here to promote illusion but to give a faithful representation of reality. WHEELER 16:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Sparta article of A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Prof. Leonhard Schmits Ph. D. writes, "In all the republics of antiquity the government was divided between a senate and a popular assembly..." which was the case of Sparta (1875:1016-1022). The Harpers Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities article on Sparta recognizes her “mixed government”. (Peck [1896] 1962:1493) A.H.J. Greenidge, M.A., in A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History, writes that Sparta and Britain had the same form of government: "History has shown that such forms of government (speaking about mixed government) are suited to a commonsense non-idealistic people: the Phoenicians of Carthage, the Dorians of Greece, Romans, and Englishmen have all developed this type of polity" ([1911] 2001:76).

So you see Pmanderson, here are two reference books in wide use in England and a book expressly on Greek constitutional government. They all recognize that Sparta is mixed and by Prof Leonard Schmits placing that sentence in the Spartan article, Sparta is a republic. What you, simonP and others are attempting to do is rewrite history. There is plenty of evidence. WHEELER 16:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Per consensus

Notice in the history of this ariticle, Pmanderson he is reverting me "PER CONSENSUS". Can someone please point out Wikipedia policy that things are done "per consensus"? Is this Academic? Scholarly? Or is this censorship by a clique? Is the Wikipedia standard "per consensus"? What is going on here? What happened to verifiyablity? You have a logical problem here--if it is done by "per consensus" how do you have NPOV? You don't!WHEELER 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad, there is a policy of "consensus". It seems I have been taken out of the loop. I have been diktated to!!! Amazing. So I must please consensus, a group!!!! OHHHHHHHHH, Censorship! I love it. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy BUUUUUTTTTTTTTT You must have consensus! OHHHHHH what hypocrisy!! I get it now. Can this clique of consensus show themselves and vote here. Let the Clique expose themselves. I love this! What hypocrisy. If you have "Per consensus" what difference does it make how many references I put out! NONE! It makes NO sense! I mean how silly is this that "Per Consensus" trumps verifiability and NPOV. How can you have NPOV when it is "per consensus"? Illogical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You guys are really funny. WHEELER 19:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion page is where you can work to change consensus. You haven't been taken out of the loop, you've just started to participate in it. Thank you. It takes some time to change consensus. Some editors can take weeks to resolve their differences and achieve consensus regarding the state of an article. There is no hidden clique. All edits have been recorded in the history of this page. If you make a change that is reverted, the route to take is to discuss it civilly on this talk page until consensus is achieved, then to make the change that the consensus arrived at. It would also help in this discussion process if you struck out your less than civil comments above and continued in a more measured manner. Sancho 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr Sancho, after nine days of this, it does get a little frustrating don't you think? I have better things to do with my time---But it seems I must spend it here. I made good and great edits to the page. I am just reverted totally everytime. Then someone goes in and does editing and not a pep about it. I mean I placed this List of sources identifying Sparta as a republic, look on how long it is----And I get what? revert revert revert. And you want me to be civil?

Mr. Sancho, I may not be the coolest head in the bunch---but how much abuse must I take from Consensus? How much is enough abuse? And this is their plan---agravate agravate agravate and see if we can't get him banned. Well, I am plenty agravated when the ONLY persons that for NINE days have been TWO people. So this is consensus? Two people? Where is this consensus? Where is this consensus made? I answered everything! And what does it get me----REVERT due to Consensus. Mr. Sancho--I am not supposed to get angry after I provide VERIFIABILITY AFTER VERIFIABILITY? Anybody can edit at Wikipedia? Do you offer a guarantee on this? Because I am sure NOT getting any satisfaction here.WHEELER 20:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I POSTED THIS A LONG TIME AGOOOOOOOO;

Republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267.

Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265. "A mixed government, a virtous citizenry, the rule of law,--these were the republican ideals of Machiavelli's Discourses. If much of this sounds familiar, it is because this vision inspired the Atlantic Republican tradition--a way of thinking about politics that spread from Italy to Great Britain in the seventeenth century, and from there to Britain's American colonies in the eighteenth." Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 33. Classical republicanism emphasized civic duty and social cohesion. Founders and the Classics, Carl J. Richard, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994. pg 3. Sir Thomas Smyth in his treatise on English government of his time defined all commonwealths (republics) as mixed. De Republica Anglorum, 1583. ch. 6.

Paul A. Rahe says Sparta is a Republic due to her being MIXED. I have PHD Leonard Schmits says ALL REPUBLICS OF CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY HAD A SENATE.

THERE IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE. NOT my interpretation but in a college book on political science!!! There it is. NPOV How many times have I posted this? How many times is this reverted? Can someone please under NPOV this is NOT included? Mr. Sancho--I posted this and I have posted this. It Has not been included in the article.

I WANT A F#@$%#$ ANSWER!WHEELER 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that there are TWO meanings of the word. The old meaning can take a back seat to the modern meaning. I said I can negotiate. I am open to negotiation.WHEELER 21:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding additions by WHEELER, reversions by others

I'm splitting a section off because the above is a mix of content discussion in with criticism of process and it's a bit confusing to flesh out the details. So... it would be good if further discussion happened in this section and would be limited to details about the content that you wish to add, or wish to remove. Short reasons will be good (a link to a source, etc.), or a short statement about why even though material is sourced, that this is the inappropriate article for that content. Sancho 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that the old meaning of Republic meant mixed government. Here is My sources:

• Republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267.
• Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265.
• "A mixed government, a virtous citizenry, the rule of law,--these were the republican ideals of Machiavelli's Discourses. If much of this sounds familiar, it is because this vision inspired the Atlantic Republican tradition--a way of thinking about politics that spread from Italy to Great Britain in the seventeenth century, and from there to Britain's American colonies in the eighteenth." Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 33.

"Another definition of republic, which is the oldest and traditional, is mixed government. This is the definition that existed in Classical Antiquity till about the French Revolution. It is the combination of the best parts from each of the good, simple forms of governments, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and blends them into a fourth type of governmental form. The archtype of this form is that of Ancient Sparta."

^{I would like to add that above paragraph to the article.WHEELER 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)}

Now, Sir Thomas Smith (diplomat) did not have Wikipedia. All he had was Greek texts. He wrote a dissertation on England's government titled, De republica Anglorum where he states that all commonwealths are mixed

. The word Commonwealth is synonymous with the word republic. Yet he gets it right. WHEELER 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• _{WHEELER concedes (correctly for once) that this is not the current meaning of republic; it isn't. It is the obsolete meaning, last cited by the OED from 1684, of using "republic" as a translation of res publica or politeia; most often in their broad senses, as a synonym for commonwealth. We are not here to forcibly revive Elizabethan English, although an Elizabethan Wikipedia} would be an amusing idea; we are here to communicate with twenty-first century readers.

• WHEELER's quotations fall into three classes: the archaizing, the non-English, and the disingenuous. His recruitment of the unfortunate Terence Ball is in the last class; he quotes from Ball's glossary, not his actual text (pp. 26-8)
  • The result is incomplete: What Ball actually says is that the Roman Republic was a mixed government, and that "A republic, then, was a form of popular government, but it was not meant to be a democracy."
  • And it is out of context. Ball is summarizing the views of Polybius (and Aristotle). He is not stating his own.
• WHEELER's ideas about the Cretan states are from the "scholarship" of Karl Otfried Mueller, who wrote in 1824, before the present sciences of archaeology or epigraphy existed. His book was also a thousand-page fantasy about how the beautiful, strong-limbed, blond Dorians invented civilization. No modern scholar believes it.
• I see no profit to discussion with any editor who abuses his sources so badly, as WHEELER has always done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I also don't see a lot of profit in these discussions. If you look through the archives of these pages, the exact same debate has been going on for two years now. WHEELER's theories are almost wholly original research. While littered with references, his additions are unique reinterpretations of often mistranslated source texts. The bits that aren't complete OR are taken from minor writers who have long been discredited. - SimonP 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

1st charge As to the Charge of "archaizing" NO. What SimonP and Pmanderson are engaging in is Historical revisionism (negationism). "archaizing"? Means to "to give an archaic appearance or quality to". The old term of republic is NOT an appearance but reality! Cicero said, "Truth is not one thing in Athens and another in Rome, it is not one thing yesterday and another thing today". What Cicero is stating, is the Socratic principle of Consistency. The charge of "archiazing" is about minimalizing by a supposedly ad hominem attack. It is about marginalizing.
1st charge, 2nd rebuttalSecond, Machiavelli said that he was about changing the meaning of terms, to wit:

"He who desires or wishes to reform the condition of a city and wishes that it be accepted and that it be able to maintain itself to everyone's satisfaction is forced to retain at least the shadow of ancient modes so that it might seem to the people that order has not changed—though, in fact, the new orders are completely alien to those of the past. For the universality of men feed as much on appearance as on reality: indeed, in many cases, they are moved more by the things which seem than by those which are....And this much should be observed by all who wish to eliminate an ancient way of life (un antico vivere) in a city and reduce it to a new and free way of life (ridurla a uno vivere nuovo e libero): one ought, since new things alter the minds of men, to see to it that these alterations retain as much as the ancient as possible; and if the magistrates change from those of old in number, authority, and term of office, they ought at least retain the name."

This is called Revolution within the form. Paul A. Rahe's study and his three volume work Republics, Ancient and Modern, is just about this how the term "Republic" was changed by the Humanists and the Enlightenment thinkers!

2nd charge of WHEELER concedes (correctly for once) that this is not the current meaning of republic; That is completely false!!!! I have always said that Republic is mixed IS THE OLD TERM. That is why I labelled my article The Classical definition of republic. I never claimed it was the modern one. Look above. I stated that you can have your Modern definition. Except at the beginning of this, when I first started on Wikipedia, which I had no concept that there was two definitions, but with Kim Bruning many moons ago I did acknowledge that there was two definitions! And I have always since then acknowledged it! WHEELER 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that all modern republics are psuedo-republics. The modern meaning is a false meaning! And therefore the American republic and French republics are ALL psuedo republics.WHEELER 01:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

3rd charge of being disingenious FROM PAGE 27,

"The second noteworthy feature of Aristotle's classification is the inclusion of polity, a good form of the rule of the many. For Aristotle, polity differs from democracy because it MIXES ELEMENTS OF RULE by the few with elements of the many". (emphasis added). The virtue of this mixed constition...."

So right there Terrence Ball states that Polity is MIXED constitution. The Romans translated Polity as Republic!!!! Cicero, Aristotle, Plato, Polybius, Plutarch, John Alymer, all recognized the mixed character of Sparta! So does Paul A. Rahe. The glossary is NO different from what is on page 27.WHEELER 01:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Somehow someway, in the intro to this article there will be a mention that there is a classical meaning of the term.WHEELER 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To say that the glossary has no bearing is just the height of ludicriousness! There is not a sane man here that will agree with you dichotomizing and marginalizing a glossary. The glossary is there for definition of terms and is scholarly! To minimalize the glossary is partisanship. The very existence of a glossary is to define terms in the text! It is a study aid!WHEELER 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Now comes Paul A. Rahe. Prof. Rahe wrote a three volume treatise labelled Republics, Ancient and Modern". This is what he said:

• "At the same time, however, Lacedæmonia was a republic." Rahe, Paul A., Republics; Ancient and Modern, Vol. I, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 1992. pg 169.
• "Sparta was neither a monarchy or democracy...The most subtle of the ancient authors described it as a mixed regime...In order to secure the consent of the governed, Sparta ensured the participation of every element of the citizen population in the administration of the city". Republics Ancient and Modern, Rahe, Vol. I, pg 152.
• "Lacedæmonia was, in fact, a mixed regime—an uneasy compromise between competing principles...". Republics Ancient and Modern, Rahe, Vol. I, pg 170.

Notice that Paul A. Rahe states that Sparta was a republic and that Sparta had mixed government!

Cicero called Sparta: respublica Lacedaemoniorum. Rep. II. 23, Cicero, as quoted in The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Müller, 2nd ed. rev. 1839. pg 190. And why did Cicero call Sparta a republic? Because it was MIXED!WHEELER 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I want mentioned in this article that there are two definitions; one Old and One new. The term for the Old definition is "Classical republic"; to wit:

• "While Gordon Wood continues to emphasize the emergence of liberalism in post-Revolutionary American society in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, he also demonstrates the persistence of classical republican values, particularly among the founders' generation and aristocratic class." ~ Prof. Carl J. Richard 86
• "In a piece of high presbyterian cant that long was remembered, Cartwright wrote that the civil constitution ought to match the ecclesiastical, "even as the hangings to the house"...the architect had cribbed his plans from the decorator: he had built according to the classical-republican theory of mixed government." ~ Prof. Michael Mendle 68
• "The recognition that the unleashing of the commercial instinct would undermine the moral foundations of classical republicanism by destroying every vestige of martial spirit did not provoke consternation in all circles". ~ Paul A. Rahe 88

In modern scholarly texts, the OLD definition is called "Classical Republic". Mixed government needs to be put into Classical republic. The Classical republic is mixed government!

FURTHERMORE, the above selections from Prof. Richards and Prof Mendle and Prof. Rahe all use the term Classical Republic for the Old term. I am NOT archiazing. The Old term is called "Classical republic". These gentlemen are not archiazing. I am just giving a solid meaning to the term classical republic.WHEELER 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And could some send me the reference to the 1684 OED reference please!WHEELER 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Now from Terrence Ball page 29:

"The key to Rome's success, Polybius declared, was its mixed government." (emphasis in the original).

Talk about disingenious. Pmanderson writes this:

"A republic, then, was a form of popular government, but it was not meant to be a democracy."

BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SENTENCE SAYS:

"A republic, then, was a form of popular government, but its defenders insisted THAT IT NOT BE CONFUSED with a democracy." pg 29

So Pmanderson did not fully quote the text.

Terrence Ball writes: "Republican virute was the ability to rise above personal or class interest, to place the good of the whole community above one's own". pg 29

Whole community means royalty, aristocracy, and commons.WHEELER 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am finally getting somewhere. The Old term of republic will be in this article.WHEELER 01:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who has read so far through this rant, the quotations from Ball are a summary of Polybius' view of a politeia. They are quite correct, and would be relevant to that article. But the OED's last citation for that obsolete meaning of "republic" is from 1684, which is why there is a dab header to that article from this one. We are not here to write in Elizabethan, or even Jacobean, English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The view of Polybius who also calls Sparta with a mixed constitution IS ALSO Plato's, Aristotle, Cicero, Sir Thomas Smyth. Funny how Niccolo Machiavelli calls Sparta a Republic and that Sparta is Mixed. He is using the same definition as Polybius. Ball is NOT just repeating Polybius but the consensus of all Classical writers and beyond.

• Edward Wortley Montagu places Sparta in the list of ancient republics. He, like John Aylmer, sees Sparta as nearly identical as that of England's constitution and hence mixed (Rawson, pg 238).

• Alexander Hamilton "It adds no small weight to all these considerations, to recollect that history informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a senate. Sparta, Rome, and Carthage are, in fact, the only states to whom that character can be applied. In each of the two first there was a senate for life. The constitution of the senate in the last is less known."

• Jean Jacques BurlamquiXXXV. This species of Monarchy, limited by a mixed government, unites the principal advantages of absolute Monarchy, and of the Aristocratic and popular governments; at the same time it avoids the dangers and inconveniences peculiar to each. This is the happy temperament, which we have been endeavoring to find. XXXVI. The truth of this remark has been proved by the experience of past ages. Such was the government of Sparta, Lycurgus, knowing that each of the three sorts of simple governments had very great inconveniences; that Monarchy easily fell into arbitrary power and tyranny; that Aristocracy degenerated into the oppressive government of a few individuals; and Democracy into a wild and lawless dominion; thought it expedient to combine these three governments in that of Sparta, and mix them as it were into one, so that they might serve as a remedy and counterpoise to each other. This wise legislator was not deceived, and ...XXXVII It may be said, that the government of the Romans, under the republic, united in some measure, as that of Sparta, the three species of authority. The consuls held the place of kings, the senate formed the public counsel, and the people had also some share in the administration. The Principles of Politic Law, Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, part II, chap. II.
  • Furthermore Jean-Jacques Burlamqui uses this same definition to define England as mixed government and a republic.

• Paul A. Rahe "Sparta was neither a monarchy or democracy...The most subtle of the ancient authors described it as a mixed regime...In order to secure the consent of the governed, Sparta ensured the participation of every element of the citizen population in the administration of the city". Rahe, I, pg 152.
  • "Lacedæmonia was, in fact, a mixed regime—an uneasy compromise between competing principles...". Rahe, I, pg 170.
    • Rahe defines Sparta as a Republic because she is mixed. That is the common definition throughout Classical Antiquity.

In conclusion, that IS NOT just the definition of Polybius but the definition of all the Classical writers. That was Cicero's definition as well!!!!!! And he was a Roman Lawyer! WHEELER 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Another shining example of WP Scholarship

====Other meanings of Republic==== ^{@ List of republics}

For the archaizing meanings of the word republic, as the commonwealth, or as a translation of politeia or res publica, see those articles.

These were in some respects broader than the present meaning of republic, and would include not only the republics of antiquity, as above, but, for example, the following monarchies:

• Sparta
• the Roman Empire
• Elizabethan England
• the Ancien Régime in France

Since the Oxford English Dictionary last cites this meaning from 1684, it is difficult to tell to which present states it would have been applied.

That section was authored by User:Pmanderson.

I want everyone at Wikipedia to take a long good look at the above section, "Other meanings of republic" and if that is not the most stupidiest and insane sections I have ever seen. Does any one think that that is a good example of Scholarship and professionality? I think this needs to be spread around. I think a lot of people need to see that. First off "Archaizing" the meaning. Mr. Pmanderson lost the argument and now he writes it. And so right off the bat, he slants the content as "archaizing". Then he calls Sparta a Monarchy. Did Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero, Niccolas Macciavelli, or John Adams call Sparta a monarchy? No. Yet in the Past 24 hours NOT A SINGLE WP admin has commented on the talk page and this stuff remains. The Roman Empire is really a Republic? Why is called "Empire"? I changed it back to "Roman Republic" and he reverts me. Is that not the most supersilliest thing you have ever heard? Rome is Republic because it is Mixed; NOT because it didn't have kings. Do you all suffer from reading comphrension here? Why is a modern defintion transported back into time? When the Latins NEVER considered the definition of a republic as "not with a king". That is NOWHERE in Classical literature! If you don't find that above section silly, then I feel sorry for you people. This is an example of why you are the laughing stock in my book. That is one sick section.

Furthermore, Pmanderson lost the argument. But then HE gets to write the info. He lies on the Republic article when he reverts and says he has consensus. He never engaged in negotiation. He doesn't accept any reference. He doesn't produce any, but he is allowed to continue to control everything. Nothing has changed since I left. A clique still runs things at Wikipedia and Admin don't step in and correct this guy.

I think that above section needs to be publicly presented. I think that section needs the light of day.WHEELER 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's meditate on this situation. In 24 hours, with all the fuss I have caused, that NOT one Admin guy looked at the List_of_republics#Other_meanings_of_Republic and became a little constipated? Is there not a single History, Ancient history, Classical, Roman expert on Admin staff at Wikipedia and done some oversight? Maybe I should stay quiet and let that become mirrored onto other websites. It ought to provide with a huge amount of laughter. I referenced everything I did and I get reverted. This man can write the most ungodly stuff----and there is total silence. Amazing.WHEELER 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I will be of no help to this discussion as long as language like "Do you all suffer from reading comphrension here", "supersilliest", "he slants the content" (assuming bad faith), "It ought to provide with a huge amount of laughter", "This man can write the most ungodly stuff", "This is an example of why you are the laughing stock in my book", "any editor who abuses his sources so badly, as WHEELER has always done", as well as the frequent use of all-caps continues. I'm not an admin, I have nothing else eating up my time on here, and even I can't handle this tone. You will not attract an admin to your aid if this is the type of discussion that they see when they arrive... even the most hotly debated Article for Deletion discussions are frequently more pleasant to deal with than this discussion. You haven't made yourself easy to work with — this may be why you feel like you haven't been included in discussions. As a specific point for improvement, I suggest you take a couple days break, perhaps strike out any comment that you've made above that criticizes a person rather than content, and stop using ALL CAPS in your writing. Also, it might help that even if you know you are correct, to write with a style that leaves the impression that you're open to criticism and questioning about your beliefs. Once you believe you've started a nicer discussion, feel free to fetch me to help as a neutral third party... or maybe an admin even... they would probably be willing to help at that point. See you around. Sancho 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Boy doesn't this take the cake. A User is constantly abusing the system. He lies when he says he has consensus. Nothing is done. Then, he writes the most outlandish and outrageous section---And I am the one on the recieving end. In Doric Greek society, cowards are put up on display and ridiculed. On a football team---If you can't hack it, you are riduculed. On the farm---If you can't pull your weight, you are riduculed. If you are in the Military----and you act like a coward, can't pull your weight, or you are an idiot as a leader, you are riduculed.

If you are a effeminate, you are riduculed.

All those fields, Farm, football field, military, so on and so forth are all places of MEN. In manly society, ridicule is a proper way of correcting bad behavior and wrong behavior. This is how Manly society corrects its members and stresses Manliness.

Shame is a powerful device. Under Roman Catholic society or any other good Christian society like Victorian England, shame was about promoting virtue, discipline in society and checking the others from evil doing.

But I digress, All those places are places of MEN. Academia has taken on the mentality and characteristics of feminity---"All play nice now". Our society is growing increasingly feminine and men are increasingly effeminate. I forget my place, I am not amongst men of virtue NOR am I among men who love truth. There is no such thing as right or wrong and of course there is no such thing as Rule of Law or decent human behavior.

As I see List of republics, User:Pmanderson continues. I am here attacked and given a talkin' to but User:Pmanderson, can reject all my references, He accepts none and goes off to do whatever--and he continues. Sorry, I am going back to Wikinfo. That List of republics is quite the kicker. This is the second day, and that thing persists. You all need to be ridiculed. Nine days of abuse by User:SimonP and by User:Pmanderson, and I am the one to get the ass chewing. That's great.WHEELER 00:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That was not an "ass chewing"... I was just describing to you what has made this discussion not attractive to me and possibly other admins. I have given you suggestions that if you follow, might lead to somebody being willing to help you. As well, this page is to discuss content, not who you feel needs to be ridiculed, or what other wikis you edit on. Sancho 06:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am Old school. I am a traditionalist. I don't conform to modernity too well but I see your point.WHEELER 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Third day and counting. let's see how long it takes Wikipedians to correct this List_of_republics#Other_meanings_of_Republic. Citations are asked and yet NO citations have been provided. I had immediate references. I get reverted. This man has NO references even to the older meaning of republic as monarchies, and he is still not reverted. So Third day, section up and no citations. And Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable. WHEELER 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth day, some citations. That the Roman Empire is the Old meaning of Republic is sourced by Original sources. But what I found interesting, is that NO Wikipedians wish to confront User:Pmanderson on his Section. You mean to tell me that the Wikipedians over at the Roman articles agree with Pmanderson? The Roman Empire is the Old meaning of Republic but the Roman Republic is defined by the New meaning of republic? Or am I supposed to do the dirty work? Four days now, no one at Wikipedia sees anything wrong? We have three votes in favor, User:Pmanderson, User:Work permit and User:SimonP. Are people scared? Is there no one to challenge Pmanderson, other than myself who is not a Wikipedian? I don't have a college degree, but I know there are a couple hundred here on this website, and no one has the courage, the wherewithal, or the Knowledge to challenge Pmanderson on those outrageous, outlandish claims? I guess the new section at List_of_republics#Other_meanings_of_Republic has survived, we all hope it will get mirrored.WHEELER 00:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fifth day List_of_republics#Other_meanings_of_Republic has survived.WHEELER 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Other Meanings

It seems there is two meanings to the word "republic". The original definition was a state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler. Forced to apply this definition to modern states, I suspect most modern academics would classify the Kingdom of Sweden as a "republic". Needless to say, no one would call Sweden a republic (democracy yes, but not a republic). In the same vein, WHEELER uses academics to make arguments (analagous to Sweden) that the Kingdom of Sparta was a "republic", or at the very least a mixed form of government.Septentrionalis counters that any nation with a monarch is not a republic. Do I have the summary of the issues correct? If so, perhaps we can create a section under antiquity for mixed form of government: include sparta, leave out the roman empire and the more modern monarchies like the UK, and be done with it?--Work permit 03:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have it backwards.

• When "republic" was first used in English and other modern languages, in the Renaissance, it was a translation of the Latin res publica, itself often a translation of the Greek politeia. This usage is now obsolete, according the OED; a few people, like WHEELER and his favorite author Rahe, are trying to revive it.

Translating this sense of "republic" into modern English is difficult, because both words it represents themselves had several meanings; and the Elizabethans represented all of them by "republic" - at least once.

• Res publica was the ordinary Latin word for the government, literally the "public thing", before any of them knew Greek. In this sense, Rome continued to be the Republic as long as it spoke Latin; our modern distinction between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire is early nineteenth-century. "State", or "Commonwealth" would be closest here.
• Politeia is also a very vague word. It means literally the property of being a city, a polis. It is now usually translated "polity", where no more specific word fits.
  • It can mean "government"; Julian speaks of the Spartans having the best government under their kings.
  • It can mean "constitution", in general. There are two works from antiquity (one of them by Aristotle) now called On the Constitution of the Athenians; in both, "Constitution" translates politeia. Aristotle uses it frequently, in this sense, in his Politics.
  • In other places in the Politics, Aristotle uses politeia of a mixed government. Exactly what he means by it is not very clear; the Politics was not published, it's a compendium of his students' notes.

Unfortunately, as I said, all of these were represented, in English, French, and Italian, as "republic", "republique", and "reppublica". WHEELER is clouding the issue by claiming that all these obsolete senses are one sense, and the one one he is trying to push.

• The modern sense of republic is Jefferson's; Workpermit's definition as a state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler is reasonable; some would include Sweden (or the United Kingdom) as a "crowned republic"; but this is an extension, not the proper meaning.
  • In any case, Sparta was not a crowned republic. The two kings commanded the two sections of the Spartan army, and led the government; they ruled, rather than reigning.

I hope this is clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Certainly the obsolete version res publica should not be a basis for inclusion as a republic, I never meant to suggest that. I was proposing we use the Jeffersonian definition a state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler, and use third party reputable sources to decide if Sparta fits this definition. Essentially, add a section under antiquity called "crowned republic" and put Sparta in it. I must admit, as I write these words, I lose enthusiasm for my proposal. The term "crowned republic" seems novel (only 395 ghits). Even if we decide to include the term, I'm not sure how we would go about deciding when a king is not a "ruler". And even if we could get comfortable with that process, I'm not sure Sparta would qualify. The Spartan kings did not rule with the absolute power of the Persian kings. But they did rule. --Work permit 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I encountered "crowned republic" as a standard term, as these Google scholar results should show (I forget where); but it seems to be a quote from Tennyson. In any case, that discussion belongs in Republic, if anywhere.
  • One of the Ionian city-states (Ephesus?) had "kings" who neither reigned nor ruled, but exercised a hereditary priesthood, indistinguishable except for the name from the many other such priesthoods in Greece, like the Eumolpidae at Athens. That might go in "crowned republic", but it was devised for Victorian England, and really doesn't fit Sparta. (Cartledge's Sparta is a good modern guide, if you can get hold of it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The wikipedia entry for crowned republic could use some expansion, perhaps the observations you make belong there. It would be interesting to contrast the power of the chief priest in ancient greece to modern examples such as the Ayatollah Khomeni. Contrasting the power of the Spartan Kings to the Potus would be interesting as well. Not sure where such analysis belongs. Perhaps as the topic of a college term paper.

Frankly, I don't care much whether the new section stays; but I've sourced the Empire, and France; sources for Sparta and England you can find in WHEELER's rants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You like quoting Jean Bodin. Well here is Jean Bodin who claims that it is the Old term:

"All the ancients agree that there are at least three types of commonwealth. Some have added a fourth composed of a mixture of the other three. Plato added a fourth type, or rule of the wise. But this, properly speaking, is only the purest form that aristocracy can take. He did not accept a mixed state as a fourth type. Aristotle accepted both Plato's fourth type and the mixed state, making five in all. Polybius distinguished seven, three good, three bad, and one composed of a mixture of the three good. Dionysius Halicarnassus only admitted four, the three pure types, and a mixture of them. Cicero, and following his example, Sir Thomas More in his Commonwealth, Contarini,[1] Machiavelli,[2] and many others have held the same opinion. This view has the dignity of antiquity. It was not new when propounded by Polybius, who is generally credited with its invention, nor by Aristotle. It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all others were imperfect forms. I should have been convinced by the authority of such great names, but that reason and common sense compels me to hold the opposing view. One must show then not only why these views are erroneous but why the arguments and examples they rely on do not really prove their point. ..." The Six Books of the Commonwealth, Bk II, ch. 1.

Jean Bodin rejects all of antiquity and then marches to redefine government and then goes and attacks mixed government because:

"If sovereignty is, of its very nature, indivisible, as we have shown, how can a prince, a ruling class, and the people, all have a part in it at the same time?"

Here Jean Bodin is changing the definition. He is deconstructing mixed government. He is changing the idea.

1st OFFJean Bodin clearly says that mixed government idea came from Herodotus! He gives the whole line of descent. So Polybius NEVER created the idea. Polybius did NOT create nor fantasize "mixed government" nor did he create the idea, or concept or recreate.WHEELER 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, Jean Bodin quotes people who call Rome a Republic because it is mixed:

"One of the examples given is Rome, whose constitution, it is alleged, was a mixture of monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy, in such a way that according to Polybius the Consuls embody the monarchical principle, the Senate the aristocratic, the Estates of the people the democratic. Halicarnassus, Cicero, Contarini, and others have accepted this analysis,..."

But then Jean Bodin attacks the concept: inaccurate as it is.

Rome is a Republic---because it was Mixed government.WHEELER 00:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Dignity of Antiquity is that Mixed Government. This was called a Republic.WHEELER 00:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jean Bodin, rejects Classical Authority, to wit:

"There is just one other point to be considered. The Republic of Rome, under the Empire of Augustus, and for long after, was called a principality. This appears to be a form of commonwealth not mentioned by Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle or even Polybius, who enumerated seven ... But I would reply that in many aristocratic or popular states one particular magistrate has precedence over all the rest in dignity and authority. Such are the Emperor in Germany, the Doge in Venice, and in ancient times the Archon in Athens. But this does not change the form of the state ... A principality is nothing but an aristocracy or a democracy which has a single person as president or premier of the republic, but who nevertheless holds of those in whom sovereign power resides." ibid.

This man rejects and rewrites what he wants to. "A principality is nothing but an aristocracy?" The man is confused. He rejects Classical antiquity and starts making up his own definitions.WHEELER 00:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(The following was copied from the Talk:List of republics) That the Roman Empire is the Old meaning of republic is supported by Original sources. I did not see a single quote from a single scholar that said the Roman Empire is really the Old meaning of republic. Where is this ONE Academic source? Can we find a peer reviewed, Modern Scholarship, that states the Roman Empire is the Old meaning of republic? Or is it called "Empire" to seperate it out from "Republic"?WHEELER 00:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what the beginning of the page ought to look like at List of republics:

This is a list of classical and modern republics.
==Classical republics==
This is the Classical meaning which is characterized by their mixed government.

• Doric Greek city states of Crete
• Sparta
• Carthage
• Athens under Solon and Cleisthenes
• Roman Republic
• Commonwealth of England (12th century - 1911)
• Venice (c. 12th century - 1797)

==Republics (modern meaning)==

Is this not sensible? This is per Wikipedia's own article on Classical republic Which I NEVER started nor edited. User:SimonP, when him and his gang of modern republicans, deleted Classical definition of republic, he created three new pages, Classical republic, mixed government, and classical republicanism. A classical republic IS mixed government---why is this split into two different articles? do these people here really know what they are talking about?WHEELER 23:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sparta as a monarch

WHEELER asks Sparta is a Monarchy? Citation is asked for Sparta as a Monarchy. As now for FIVE days, there has been none. Are you questionsing whether sparta had two kings? I will cite sources if that is your question. Or is your question deeper. On a practical basis, Sparta was a military oligarchy, monarchy, democracy, and timocracy all rolled into one. It did manage to keep its lineage of kings throughout its existence. But the two kings held little rule. The counsel below the kings (together with them) made many of the political decisions. Is that your point?--68.236.166.125 04:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

NO, that is NOT my point I was making. But yes, you are correct Mr. 68.236.166.125 that Sparta had Mixed government AND hence was called a Republic. My point "Sparta is a Monarchy?" is that User:Pmanderson lost the argument, to wit: "There is an OLDER definition of the term republic. He lost this argument and has finally realized that there is an OLDER meaning. The Old meaning of Republic is Mixed government. Yet, that nowhere appears on the article pages of List of republics and at Republic. Wikipedia does have the OLDER meaning of Republic split into two different articles mixed government and Classical republic. Why is it called "Classical republic"? Because maybe it is the OLDER meaning.

So now Mr. Pmanderson goes off the deep end and calls Sparta a monarchy. WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE provide some sort of Academic evidence, quotes from some Academia that call Sparta a Monarchy! I mean even Michael Grant that prodigious producer of classical history books calls Sparta an Oligarchy. This is the point Mr. 68.236.166.125. Pmanderson can write the most outlandish, outrageous stuff--nothing happens. I write stuff with references and it gets reverted. I quote a Wikipedia article and it gets reverted! Yet this childish explosion of User:Pmanderson sits here now for six days. All I have written is the Old definition of republic. The Old definition is MIXED government. It is not "Archaizing". My Point Mr. 68.236.166.125, is that Other Wikipedians are letting this stand and agree with this---without references and some have "original sources" to boot. And my stuff gets deleted. WHEELER 13:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, when is Sparta going to appear as a republic on this page? I am not leaving until Sparta shows up on that list. User:Pmanderson has called Paul A. Rahe an "Eccentric" and dismissed Rahe as a reference. Carl J. Richard who wrote, The Founders and the Classics, Greece, Rome and the American Enlightenment gives an adjective to Paul Rahe's work:

"Likewise, while Paul A. Rahe's magisterial Republics, Ancient and Modern..." (pg 7)

The term is "magisterial". Prof. Richard calls the work "magisterial". Paul A. Rahe calls Sparta a Republic and so does Cicero. Who better to define what a republic is than Cicero! If the Roman institutions of government derived from the Doric Greeks, who can dispute that. Sparta is a Republic. She is now a Classical repubic but she is a Republic. She will be on this list. Along with Crete. No one and I mean no one is going to deny that the Spartan institutions derived from Crete. Sparta is there, so must be the Cretan city-states.WHEELER 17:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Historically" is the first word on this Article. This is also slanting. The modern definition of "a state that does not have a monarch" is not historical. It is a recent invention of Niccolas Macciaveli. It is not historical. Sparta always had kings. The City-states of Crete didn't get rid of their kings until 6th century B.C. (Muller). And Cicero stated that the beginning of the Republic started under Romulus! So No, It is not historical. User:Pmanderson has acknowledged that there is an older meaning, so it is a lie that this is "Historically" the definition of republic.WHEELER 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Sir Thomas Smyth called England a republic which had a monarch, royalty.WHEELER 18:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What you keep failing to comprehend is that Cicero never called anything a republic. He called several forms of government res publica, a very different word that can only sometimes be accurately translated as the English word republic. - SimonP 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And so where does the word "Republic" come from?WHEELER 22:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Res publica is certainly the root of the English word republic, but they have very different meanings. When Cicero says res publica, it can't simply be translated as republic. - SimonP 22:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cicero "This equalized system, this combination of three constitutions, is in my opinion common to those nations and to ours. But the unique characteristic of our own commonwealth—I shall describe more completely and accurately, if I can, because nothing like it is to be found in any other State. For those elements which I have mentioned were combined in our State as it was then, and those of the Spartans (Lacedaemoniorum) and Carthaginians (Karthaginiensium), in such a way that there was no balance among them whatever."

If Carthage is a republic---Then Sparta is to.WHEELER 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Bill Thayer of his website(from an email response) has cleared up the matter and does support your contention SimonP. He states that:

There was no document called The Roman Constitution. Modern scholars speak of "the Roman constitution" much as we do about the British constitution. "Res publica" was the political community as a whole, the state, the governmental system, the government.

Lacedaemoniorum is not an adjective, but a noun: "respublica Lacedaemoniorum" here means "the government (governmental system) of the Lacedaemonians".

Cicero is not calling anything a republic in our modern sense. In de Rep. II.23.42 he is merely saying that though the governmental system of the Spartans was "mixed" (presumably: having elements of the monarchical, the oligarchical, and the democratic), it was not mixed in any proportionate way. Lewis & Short cites this very passage to explain "mixtus":

II. A. In gen. to mix, mingle, unite, etc. [...] opp. to temperare, since misscere signifies merely to mix, but temperare to mix in due proportion: haec ita mixta fuerunt, ut temprata nullo fuerint modo, Cic. Rep. 2, 23, 42.(end of message).

So this tells me that even Cicero didn't even call Rome a republic? So throughout his works "republica" means state. Which at times is labelled commonwealth as well.WHEELER 00:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You know I love investigating..
Cicero said this: "...[I consider] the best constitution for a State (REM PUBLICAM) to be that which is a balanced combination of the three forms mentioned, kingship, aristocracy, and democracy, and does not irritate by punishment a rude and savage heart...And Lycurgus, who lived in very ancient times had almost the same idea. This equalized system, this combination of three constitutions (HOC TRIPLEX RERUM PUBLICARUM), in my opinion common to those nations and to ours." Rep. II. xxiii 42. Here he is saying that Lycurgus had the same constitution as his form of government. His government was called a Republic, and so the same name can be transferred to Sparta.WHEELER 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cicero
"itaque quartum quoddam genus rei publicae maxime probandum esse sentio, quod est ex his, quae prima dixi, moderaturm et permixtum tribus"
"Therefore I consider a fourth form of government the most commendable--that form which is a well-regulated mixture of the three which I mentioned."
Which states in this List of republics is mixed? None. Carthage and Sparta and Solonic Athens were all Mixed. Where is this list? Is this not what we call Classical republics?WHEELER 00:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear that the Fourth type of Government is MIXED. Those are the words of Cicer. Rome has the Fourth type of government. Sparta had the Fourth type of government. The Official title of the Fourth type of government is a republic, now called a Classical republic. This is the Old meaning of republic. Old takes precedence over New. O Palios Xristos estin. WHEELER 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I have found the sentence. It seems that Cicero uses "Statum" that means State but then the translator uses the word commonwealth for "rem publicam". So one is a title and the other the state. Did I get this right?

"Is dicere solebat ob hanc causam praestare nostrae civitatis statum ceteris civitatibus, quod in ilis singuli fuissent fere, qui suam quisque rem publicam constituissent legibus atque institutis suis, ut Cretum Minos, Lacedaemoniorum Lycurgus, Atheniensium quae persaepe commutata esset, tum Theseus, tum Draco, tum Solo, tum Clisthenes, tum multi alii;...nostra autem res publica..." Rep. II, 2.

"Cato used to say that our constitution was superior to those of other States on account of the fact that almost every one of these other commonwealths had been established by one man, the author of their laws and institutions; for example, Minos in Crete, Lycurgus in Sparta, and in Athens, whose form of government had frequently changed. first Theseus and later Draco, Solon, Cleisthenes, and many others; ...our own commonwealth."

See here where Statum is juxtaposed to rem publicam, one is the general word that is translated as 'state' but then rem publicam becomes a title. Rem publicam does NOT mean 'state' but the actual title of Republic! Can I read that here? Why does the translator then use the word 'commonwealth' where in other places of res publica he uses 'state'? Cicero is using Republica as a title. That is how I see it.WHEELER 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I am a dumb yahoo from Battle Creek Michigan, who doesn't have a college degree, who called Rome between the period of 590 B.C. to 24 B.C. a republic; i.e. Roman republic. You mean to tell me that the Romans never called themselves a Republic. They called themselves SPQR. So who called this period the "Roman Republic"? Can someone explain this? If nowhere did Cicero call his own country a repubic but the "State of Rome", who called Rome a republic?WHEELER 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, I created a List of the multiple definitions of republic. And so at Wikinfo this is what the List of republics looks like.WHEELER 21:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How does one square the circle

How does one square the circle? This is quite a conundrum for me. Awhile back, I put in Thomas Jefferson's quote from his first inaugural address as President, who said: "We are all Federalists, we are all Republicans".

Then, I find out that Jefferson writes this: "the introduction of the new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us."

"A new principle"? What is this New principle? And that is the definition of republic? Says who? Is a democracy a republic? Is a republic a representative democracy? Then why have the word "democracy" and the word "republic"? "We are all republicans?" But if he says republic is "representative democracy", why does he say we are all republicans? Why doesn't he say "We are all democrats"? How does one square the circle? Is Mr. Jefferson such a dweeb, confused in the head? The Greek meaning of democracy is the rule of the dominant caste, the demos. I find this all too hard to fathom and this man is duplicitious to the core. It is malicious and evil. He knew what was going on. There are some sneaky shenninigans from the FFofA. Thomas Jefferson has purposely mangled the language.

Here on Wikipedia, do we take this into consideration?WHEELER 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Three Elements of the Roman Republic

I have just about had it. Has any of the Contributors here at Wikipedia in political science and in Classical Antiquity read? Because I come across stuff that blows everything away that is going on here at Wikipedia.

Two consuls instead of a king now stood each year at the head of the community; the assembly of adult males which elected them remained the same, as did the body of elders who advised them; this was the senate, composed in practice of former magistrates. Time and circustance produced various modifications in THE THREE ELEMENTS whose interplay WAS (italics in original) the Roman political system, including notably the creation of a large number of lesser magistrates; NOTHING ALTERED THE CENTRAL FACT OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, THAT IT WAS THE COLLECTIVE RULE OF AN ARISTOCRACY, IN PRINCIPLE and to a varying extent in practice dependent on the will of a popular assembly.

Michael Crawford, The Roman Republic 2ND Edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978, 1992. pg 22-23.

I don't know but right there refutes what is said in this article about "Republic" being democracy. Do you see your WP article on Republic with ANY of this information? NOOOOO. All your articles dealing with Republic are messed up!!!WHEELER 00:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I got another piece of the puzzle for you:

Machiavelli's Error. WHEELER 02:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Crawford, wrote The Roman Republic. He says, "A republic is a Collective Rule of an Aristocracy". Now please someone demonstrate where and oh where "collective Rule of the Aristocracy" is on this page? Anywhere? Please can some erudite Knowledgeable person show me on this Republican page Where "Collective Rule of Aristocracy" is? Do you people know what you are talking about?WHEELER 01:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See here for discussion --Nema Fakei 02:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Spartan Republic redux

Here is a good reference: "Continuous service was considered the only public pursuit, and therefore the only proper activity for a citizen of the Spartan republic; all men shared in politics in that they all were devoted to the public defense."

"Around the seventh or sixth centuries B.C.E. two Greek cities, Sparta and Athens, seem to have developed the first republican political orders. Although these two regimes differed remarkably from modern republics, such as the United States, and were strikingly different from one another,..."

From: International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: R-Z. Volume: 4. Contributors: Jay M. Shafritz - editor. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1998'. Page Number: 1964.

My question is 1998 "modern scholarship". Is this "encyclopaedia" "modern scholarship"? Is Sparta a republic by the standards of this "encyclopadia"? Or is it a crank case? the author is a nutjob? sparta is still NOT a republic? Does the Consensus accept "Jay M. Shafritz" or will they find some adjective in order to denigrate and then deny Sparta on the list of republics?WHEELER 03:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research, my ass

Constantly, the guardians of the republic articles have consistently charged me with "original research". Everytime, I edit, they revert. They call everything I do "original research".

Well, Jay M. Shafritz writes:

"This reflected an understanding that citizenship was not a right but a privilege. indeed, the lack of any belief in "rights" in the modern sense led the classical republics to focus on the duties of citizens and constitutes the great theoretical difference between the ancient and modern conceptions of republicanism.

The modern republic originated in and draws its principles from modern political philosophy. The shift started with Niccolo Machiavelli's ( 1469-1527) rejection of the classical understanding of virtue and justice. Classical republics had sought through rigid education and carefully prescribed duties to inculcate a certain view of duty in their citizens. However, Machiavelli rejected this standard on the basis that human beings did not, in fact, seek to do what is good per se, but only what is good for themselves. With Machiavelli, self-interest or the desire for self-improvement, not the advancement of transcendant societal interests, was identified as the primary motivator of human beings." International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: R-Z. Volume: 4. Contributors: Jay M. Shafritz - editor. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1998. Page Number: 1965.

That Machiavelli changed the meaning of republics? I quote Paul A. Rahe and I am told he is an "eccentric" and his writings are denied. What does this ENCYCLOPAEDIA say "THE SHIFT". And I am doing "original research?

You know what this all boils down to is that "the Consensus", i.e. "The Hive Mind" doesn't know anything. And I am doing "original research"????? It says right there in an Encyclopedia of politics that there is a shift in the meaning.WHEELER 04:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, just a moment, you give the editor, but this appears to be a compilation. Any chance of giving the actual author of the article? Or was that Shafritz himself, too?--Nema Fakei 23:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am now a Questia member. And I am finding all sorts of things. I am armed and dangerous now. The article doesn't say who the author is. It does list a bibliography. Here are the editors:

EDITORIAL BOARD
EDITOR IN CHIEF

• • • 1555555 Jay M. Shafritz University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
      

CONSULTING EDITORS
David H. Rosenbloom The American University Washington, DC
E. W. Russell Monash University Melbourne, Australia

ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Geert Bouckaert Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Belgium
Beverly A. Cigler Penn State Harrisburg Middletown, PA
Peter Foot Royal Naval College, Greenwich United Kingdom
Arie Halachmi Tennessee State University Nashville, TN
Richard Heimovics University of Missouri, Kansas City Kansas City, MO
Marc Holzer Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Newark, NJ
Abdullah M. Al-Khalaf Institute of Public Administration Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Jerry L. McCaffery Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA
J. Steven Ott University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT
David O. Renz University of Missouri, Kansas City Kansas City, MO
Norma M. Riccucci University at Albany, State University of New York Albany, NY
Larry Terry Cleveland State University Cleveland, OH
Kenneth F. Warren St. Louis University St. Louis, MO

The bibliography does quote Rahe.WHEELER 00:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, well, it's convention in academia to cite the author as well as just the person who happened to edit the publication. Usually, the author's name will appear at either the beginning or the end of the article itself, as well as in the contents page of the volume (which in English language publications are almost always to be found at the front of the volume). --Nema Fakei 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what it says in the preface:

"In my view, there is no other work that comes even close to bringing together so much knowledge about public policy and administration. The IEPPA contains excellent contributions by a phenomenal array of leading scholars. The associate editors, who worked with these contributors, are all outstanding scholars. The result is a work that is authoritative and definitive. It will be the standard work to which one first turns to gain an understanding of the core terms, concepts, constructs, and techniques used by academics, students, and practitioners dealing with public policy and administration." (emphasis added)

Notice the words "authoritative and definitive". Rahe is NOT mentioned as any of the contributors!WHEELER 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's wikipedia, their full of shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.208.135 (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Process

"All articles were reviewed by at least two editors (one editor and the editor in chief). However, because considerable discussion of articles had to take place, particularly for longer articles, many were reviewed by more. Indeed, the editors felt free to call upon experts throughout the world for ad hoc reviews of articles.

"The list of articles to be included was determined by a three-step process. First, the editor in chief and the consulting editors developed a list of several hundred entries that was shared with all the associate editors. Second, a negotiating process began during which editors accepted responsibility for entries (meaning responsibility to find someone to write them) and suggested additional entries. Third, as the editors approached contributors, negotiations began anew as contributors had new ideas for entries. All editors had the right to approve the inclusion of entries provided they informed the editor in chief, who acted as a clearing house to avoid duplications. This three-level process was extremely useful in developing the comprehensive list of articles that is this Encyclopedia. The judgments of the various editors and the contributors about what should be included was critical. Thus, the role of the editor in chief was mainly that of coordinator, judge, and, of course, editor. While he conceptualized it, it was the editors and contributors who created it. Any intellectual credit belongs to them. In the final analysis, he was, alas, merely an administrator."

I think the point is VERY VERY clear.WHEELER 00:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are the two writers of that article in the Encyclopaedia: JOSEPH H. LANE, JR. AND DAVID E. MARION. So there were TWO writers and their work was reviewed by the Associate Editor and Editor. And we don't know if the article was also sent out for review! So Paul A. Rahe HAD NOTHING to do with the article, but his work is quoted.WHEELER 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And What quote says it is minority now?WHEELER 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So it is a bogus LIE and unethical to have the Roman republic be the Wikipedia Machiavellian definition of republic! The Roman Republic is not a republic due to the Machiavellian definition! Wikipedia is putting out False information! and you deny me from correcting here, you deny me to edit, and you are driving me away! I have the Scholarly and Academic credentials materials (I don't have any credentials at all)! And YOU deny. How much longer is this going to go?WHEELER 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul A. Rahe states in "In the Shadow of Lucretius: The Epicurean Foundations of Machiavelli's Political Thought", History of Political Thought, Vol. XXVIII, #1, Spring, 2007, that Machiavelli is NOT a classical republican! The man rejected much if not all classical learning.WHEELER 01:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to take the opportunity to point out to the Hive mind here that the Journal History of Political Thought is:

"One of the reasons for our high peer evaluation status is the rigorous standard that we set for acceptance of articles for publication. All material is submitted anonymously to referees, who are all specialists in their particular subject area."

And I suppose that you will still call him an "eccentric"? His work is peer reviewed before publication----------and it was accepted! I don't know what the heck is going on, but the Hive Mind here needs to wake up! It seems that the standards of the Journal History of Political Thought is pretty tough! If Paul A. Rahe is good enough for the thought police in the United Kingdom, who are you to say no?WHEELER 03:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the article by its authors: Joseph H. Lane, Jr. and David E. Marion. This is being discussed at Talk:List of republics#Lane and Marion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Logical error??

“ Often "republics" and monarchies are described as mutually exclusive.[1] Defining a republic as a non-monarchy, a common short definition,[2] is based on this idea. ”

Using the term non-monarchy for a republic technically is collectively exhaustive rather than mutually exclusive... what is the author trying to imply? shampoo 06:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Democracy vs. Republic

Im young and not educated in this sort of politics, but I wanto know..what the difference betwen a Republic and Democracy.--Philip Auguste 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern republics are synonymous with democracy. On the other hand Classical republics are very different. Here is a link that will help you: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Classical_republics_and_democracy_contrasted. A democracy is rule of the poor and a Classical republic is mixed government.WHEELER 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Philip, there's a variety of answers. A country that is formally a republic (as in, without a monarch) may not be democratic (personally, I'd say we've yet to really see a democratic state at all), while it is also often argued that constitutional monarchies are in practice democracies. Though Wikipedia Talk Pages aren't really here for discussion of the subject, the fact that someone can't tell from the articles is perhaps a problem with the article.--Nema Fakei 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

TELL THE WIKITRUTH

Constantly, the guardians of the republic articles have consistently charged me with "original research". Everytime, I edit, they revert. They call everything I do "original research".

Well, Jay M. Shafritz writes:

"This reflected an understanding that citizenship was not a right but a privilege. indeed, the lack of any belief in "rights" in the modern sense led the classical republics to focus on the duties of citizens and constitutes the great theoretical difference between the ancient and modern conceptions of republicanism.

The modern republic originated in and draws its principles from modern political philosophy. The shift started with Niccolo Machiavelli's ( 1469-1527) rejection of the classical understanding of virtue and justice. Classical republics had sought through rigid education and carefully prescribed duties to inculcate a certain view of duty in their citizens. However, Machiavelli rejected this standard on the basis that human beings did not, in fact, seek to do what is good per se, but only what is good for themselves. With Machiavelli, self-interest or the desire for self-improvement, not the advancement of transcendant societal interests, was identified as the primary motivator of human beings." International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: R-Z. Volume: 4. Contributors: Jay M. Shafritz - editor. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1998. Page Number: 1965.

That Machiavelli changed the meaning of republics? I quote Paul A. Rahe and I am told he is an "eccentric" and his writings are denied. What does this ENCYCLOPAEDIA say "THE SHIFT". And I am doing "original research?

This is what it says in the preface:

"In my view, there is no other work that comes even close to bringing together so much knowledge about public policy and administration. The IEPPA contains excellent contributions by a phenomenal array of leading scholars. The associate editors, who worked with these contributors, are all outstanding scholars. The result is a work that is authoritative and definitive. It will be the standard work to which one first turns to gain an understanding of the core terms, concepts, constructs, and techniques used by academics, students, and practitioners dealing with public policy and administration." (emphasis added)

Notice the words "authoritative and definitive". Rahe is NOT mentioned as any of the contributors.

Yet, The Hive mind here at Wikipedia will not allow nor take this into account. I quote an encyclopaedia already printed with numerous editors calling itself "authoritative" and the Hive mind rejects this? Why?

Yet, Wikipedia has the Roman Republic defined as Republic which is the Machiavellian definition! If Machiavelli is NOT a Classicala republican, why is the Roman republic described by Machiavellian terms?WHEELER 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing new, either here or in your crosspost. Please don't spam the talkpages.--Nema Fakei 21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hive mind has spoken, Consensus rules--forget NPOV! The Hive Mind is greater than NPOV!WHEELER 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First sentence as of 2007-12-17

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch,[1][2] where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of that people)[3] have impact on its government,[4] and that is usually indicated as a republic.[5]

A republic is ... is usually indicated as a republic.[5]

Instead, for starters, something like:

• A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, where its people (including at least some of those not already in the government) are periodically able to collectively decide who shall lead the government. --JimWae (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Would not work for State of the Vatican City, erroneously characterising it as a republic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Seems existing sentence has even more problems with Vatican. Revision deals with cardinals since they are already part of gov't - revision also eliminates one-party system (where only party leaders get to vote) from being a republic. Anyhow, existing first sentence says "A republic ... is usually indicated as a republic." --JimWae (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "cardinals [...] are already part of gov't", no, incorrect: "at least some of [them are] not already in the government". --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The State of the Vatican City is not usually indicated as a republic. Only "... and that is usually indicated as a republic" can solve that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Guyana

Its official title is "Co-operative Republic of Guyana". What does "co-operative" in fact mean here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.96.184 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"politico-philosophical???"

What exactly is "politico-philosophical" supposed to be/mean? Politics, political thought/theory, whatever one wishes to call it, is a branch of Philosophy, thus it is philosophy. Call it Political or call it Philosophical, but don't make up jargon to fit your perceptual lenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC) ^{Fucking Boring}

Immature statement

soamone needs TO GET RID OF THAT IMATURE STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ARTICLE. I WOULD BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT. CAN YOU REPORT ARTICLES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopats92 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing

While this may seem trivial after the epic battle on this talk page, I'd just like to note the awkward phrasing here:

For full-fledged representative democracies ultimately it generally does not make all that much difference whether the head of state is a monarch or a president [...]

What is "full-fledged" in this context? When is "ultimately"? How general is "generally"? How much difference qualifies as "all that much difference"? Since I'm not exactly involved in this article I'll stop short of editing anything, but I'd like to propose an edit somewhere in the line of the following:

For true representative democracies, it has been argued that whether the head of state is a monarch or a president is not a watershed issue [...]

... or something to that effect. -- WolfieInu 07:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Republic means Representation of the General Public

Other meanings people ascribe to republicanism are opiniated.

Representation gives authority to the general public, republicanism is just another form of democracy. A politician who totally ignores the senate and the population is not a republican, true republicans have a sense of democracy & justice.

Justice also means prosperity.

Best regards, Phalanx Pursos 18:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't all of what you said rather personally opinionated in itself? Huck2012 E. Novachek (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarified intro to section Influence of republicanism

I felt the introductory paragraphs to the section Influence of republicanism were a bit wordy and hard to follow. I tried to rewrite them for clarity, preserving the original as much as possible. I feel one could argue the new introductory paragraph is still a bit POV and invite others to try to massage it more. WakingLili (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Res public" is NOT Latin for "Democracy"

The Greek "democratia" means "rule of people", which has completely different meaning from "common affairs" or "public matters", or whatever one wants to translate "res public". Consequently, the misleading phrase claiming that Greek "democratia" means "republic" is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.71.138 (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph is incorrect. A republic is a form of gov't, not a type of country. Now that should be obvious based on the "Forms of Government" box on the top right of the article. Countries that use the republican system do often calls themselves a republic, but it's because of their FORM OF GOV'T. Democracy, republic, monarchy & communism are all forms of gov't, not types of countries. As mentioned above under "Definition", your defintion in the opening paragraph is WRONG: "A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have impact on its government." According to this definition, Sweden is a republic. Sweden is of course not a republic so this definition must be wrong.

Here's how the opening para should read, based on other form of gov't pages like monarchy. It mentions that the word "republic" is also used to describe countries that use this system of gov't, but it's not the PRIMARY definition:

A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a hereditary monarch but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.The term republic can also refer to the state or country that uses this republican system. The word originates from the Latin term res publica.

--208.38.59.163 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A republic is usually a country. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A monarchy is usually a country too, doesn't mean it isn't more accurately described as a system of gov't. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, "Kingdom" would be how the country/state is usually indicated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The term state is very ambiguous and is in a disambiguation page. A country according to Wikipedia's own definition refers to the territory of a state. Defining a republic as "a state or country" is vague and unhelpful. While republics certainly are states, so are monarchies. A republic is really a kind of state, but this is also very vague as a liquid is also a kind of state (of matter). It is better to describe a republic as a form of government as this is much more specific, sends readers to a more appropriate page and corresponds to the navigation box. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"better"? What you or I think to be "better" is of little or no relevance: it's what the sources do: if they usually describe a republic as country then we do so too (however vague or defined the definition of country may be: that is irrelevant). If usually sources say "monarchy" when they want to refer to a form of government, and "kingdom" when they refer to a country with such form of government, then we do too. It's really not about how *we* think the world (and its languages) should be organised "better" than they are.

So, what you want to do is a travesty of the used sources, read the opening paragraphs of Machiavelli's Prince, the dictionary definition quoted from Webster's etc... If you know "better" then please write a book (outside Wikipedia in order to avoid original research) that sells as many copies as English translations of Machiavelli's Prince (etc). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research doesn't come into it. It's just a matter of writing clear and unambiguous prose. We are meant to do desk research - read up on the appropriate sources and condense down the result into an encyclopedia article. Anyway what you say is nonsense. Look up dictionary.com, the different dictionaries offered use the following definitions:

• "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."

• "A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president."

• "A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them; a commonwealth."

• "a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them"

• "A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives."

• "state in which supreme power rests in the people"

and last but not least:

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

• "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government"

Three out of seven dictionaries choose to define a republic in terms of a state. The rest don't. Even the dictionary you told me to look up describes a republic as a government rather than as a state. As with most editorial decisions on Wikipedia, it just a choice between different possible alternatives. I'm not inventing anything. And I would point out again that state is a disambiguation page. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Webster's "Third new international dictionary" (as used in the article) of course precedes the more specialist "Dictionary of Law" by the same publishing house, for a general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, "form of government" is more precise and more accurate. If you look at our own List of republics you will see many that wouldn't really be considered "a state or country." - SimonP (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "If you look at our own List of republics you will see many that wouldn't really be considered "a state or country"" - Pardon? Which one is nor a state, nor a country? And of course NONE (absolutely NONE) of that list are a "form of governement". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with "state or country" is that they are different terms which mean similar of slightly different things and none of your sources back up describing a republic as a "country". The only countries which are republics are also states. Even poor old Machiavelli isn't much good to you either since The Prince begins: "All the States and Governments by which men are or ever have been ruled, have been and are either Republics or Princedoms." — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The addition "or country" of course makes "state" less ambiguous. Making clear that we're not referring to "state (of matter)" here. So this does away with your "ambiguity" argument. Yes, they're slightly different: both can be republics. "Germany", a country, can be a republic -as it is for some time now; City-states of the Hanseatic league, none of them a country, can be republics, as many of them were. Nothing vague or ambiguous if you call them by the name they're usually called by. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The ambiguity of state is not between the state the political entity and state of matter. The ambiguity is what is meant exactly by the term state as a political entity. As our own article notes, the modern state system was "first consolidated beginning in earnest in the 15th century." One has to use great care in earlier times, and by preference it should be avoided in favour of more specific terms. - SimonP (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. "The ambiguity of state is not between the state the political entity and state of matter" - according to B-HL it was (see above).

Re. "the modern state system was "first consolidated beginning in earnest in the 15th century." One has to use great care in earlier times, and by preference it should be avoided in favour of more specific terms". Irrelevant, the definition used in the republic article does not use "modern state system" which would be erroneous, also states before "the modern state system" have been (and still are) called "republics". That's not a fault with the concept "state" which is, of course, broader than "modern state system". --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you could format you comments are clearly and indent them so I'd know when you quoting someone else and what you're saying yourself, this discussion would be easier to follow.

Avoiding ambiguity is never irrelevant. By invoking the word "state" you are liable, however unintentionally, to invoke the modern state system, as this is what the word means today. State is not a more inclusive term just because you'd like it to be.

You have/had no sources to prove that a republic could ever be defined as a "country".

Please cite the exact passage in the Prince where is says that a republic is a state and not a form of government as it appears to be entirely your own interpretation of the English translation of the original Tuscan written almost 500 years ago.

While you're at it please go to the principality article and change the lead to read "A principality is a country led of a hereditary monarch".

You have chosen to ignore that state is a disambiguation page.

You seem to entirely miss that dictionaries define republics as either forms of government or states as it is not of fundamental importance. We are thereby left with a choice of how to define it ourselves and a very short read of state and form of government should explain why the latter is preferable. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit warring really needs to stop. Would it be possible to come to some sort of compromise wording, e.g. by some definitions refers to government, but others might use country? - SimonP (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

...said the edit-warrior --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A republic is usually a country or a state. The outset of the article should properly reflect that. Are you proposing to compromise on reality? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead with a discussion of what a "state that is a republic" is, and also added something on what republicanism as a form of government implies. I've made clear that "most often a republic is a sovereign country," and noted some of the few exceptions to that rule. Does this work? - SimonP (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As an additional point, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but pretty much everything else in this article also describes republics as a form of government. The side bar to the right is headlined "forms of government" the article is in the category "forms of government." The phrase "form of government" occurs fourteen times in the article, many times in sections written by yourself. - SimonP (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please propose new wordings of the lede on talk, and leave some time and room for discussion before implementing unilaterally.

Re. your additional point: I answered that before. It's still on this talk page. The way you present it is bogus too: e.g. the expression "republican form of government" used quite a few times is clear and understandable, while replacing this expression by "republic" (which you pretend to be a synonym) would make the same sentence quite unfathomable, eg.

In the example of the United States, the original 13 British colonies became independent states after the American Revolution, each having a republican form of government.

on the contrary,

In the example of the United States, the original 13 British colonies became independent states after the American Revolution, each having a republic.

is gibberish to put it mildly, and in fact wrong to nail it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes 'republic' is a noun 'republican' is an adjective, I don't think that is major news to anyone. Here is a sentence from further down in the article "and the form of government of their country "republic"." The oddest thing about that one, is that you yourself wrote it. Why in some parts of the article have you yourself written that republic is a form of government? - SimonP (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

USUALLY a noun is not an adjective. Of course we know verbing, and something similar between nouns and adjectives, but again, USUALLY a republic is a noun and USUALLY it is not used as an adjective etc., that's why in the sentence you quote "republic" is in quotes while is an odd grammatical construction (as in: that is not what one would say usually). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You can also write "and the form of government of their country is a republic" and it means the same thing and is a perfectly usual usage. - SimonP (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can, who said you couldn't, but still it is the less usual format of the expression, mostly people would say "their country is a republic". --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it is certainly not less accurate to say that "its form of government is republican." Country might be more common, but form of government is more accurate, since not all republics are countries. Note our article monarchy calls it a "form of government" for the same reasons. - SimonP (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"more accurate"? lol --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re. "Note our article monarchy calls it a "form of government" for the same reasons." - says who? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is more accurate, in that republics are not always countries but it is always a form of government. - SimonP (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In sum: the reasonings are becoming more unwieldy, and they had already stopped to convince me some time ago: them becoming more and more unwieldy doesn't help. No consensus for the proposed change, and for sound reasons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also no consensus to go back to the previous version. No consensus does not mean the previous version stay, it means we should try to find a version we can all agree with. What we should do is try to work through some sort of compromise wording. Do you have any suggestions? - SimonP (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

BRD seems the best way forward. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, BRD in no way means that you do not have to work towards consensus. - SimonP (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

B.R.D.: of course the "D" part is nothing but working towards consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Which should be what we are doing now. You've reverted changes to the intro many times, so lets start working towards a consensus on what the intro should state. - SimonP (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Role of religion

I've cut this section. It was poorly referenced, the entire section seems to be based on a single Dutch source from 1946. Every other footnote just contained more expository information that read like unreferenced original research. While the arguments in the section might not be wrong, it is certainly undue weight to a pretty minor side issue in the study of republics. Does any other encyclopedia give such central coverage to the role of religion in republics? - SimonP (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"single Dutch source from 1946"? Seems a poor reading of the reference material.

Removing the section entirely seems unwarranted. Yes, additional sourcing would be welcome: entire removal seems like killing fat people in order to solve overweight issues. Maybe a slimming strategy would be less aggressive. But still, preferable to find some English-language sources that would reliably consolidate the content. If none exist, I'd gladly agree to some slimming (never knew why the section should contain so much US-centric detail), but as far as I see now, not an entire removal.

As far as I can remember, weren't there some more or less aggressive attempts at removal of this section in some distant part? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

After giving some time to have that section properly referenced and some evidence presented that it belongs I have removed it. Looking through other encyclopedias and political science guides, none of them talk at all about republics affecting the role of religion in a state. The role of religion is not an important issue in the study of republics. Some studies have been done on the issue, but they are still tangential to the subject. This information would thus be best placed in a separate article. The current content is not worth basing an independent article around, as it is almost unreferenced and reads like original research. - SimonP (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Which comments? That section still has not been referenced at all. There are some similar issue with the economics section- SimonP (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The ones right above? That something is there does not mean we should keep. Our goal should be rigour and high quality. If there is text that does not meet Wikipedia's high standards it should be removed. This section has a lot of comments that simply aren't true. For instance: "by the time of the Enlightenment in Europe there was not a single absolute monarchy that tolerated another religion than the official one of the state." Prior to 1685 you had the Edict of Nantes in France giving religious freedom. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688 you had toleration at least for various sects of Protestantism in England. For most of history you thus had one of those two. Throughout the period the Ottoman Empire, while officially Muslim, certainly tolerated the other religions. Most of the other Muslim states also had policies to accommodate both Christians and Muslims. - SimonP (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your high-handed rhetoric, the source is valid. If it WOULD be the only source for that material, then yes the section could be shortened, but imho not deleted. The material is germane, and I'm sure plenty of other sources to confirm. Trimming is something that might be considered at this point, deleting outright is rather to be categorised as an act of vandalism though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Some see the Glorious Revolution (1688) as the start of the Enlightenment, so, "by the time of the Enlightenment" is in line with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and England after 1688 was both a monarchy and tolerant thus is an example of an Enlightenment monarchy that allowed multiple religions. Not to mention the Ottoman Empire was there long after 1688. If these "facts" are coming form the sole source from this section, then we really shouldn't consider it very reliable as those statements are quite incorrect. - SimonP (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem may be merely grammatical: by the time the Enlightenment was about to start (1687-ish) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How does reading it that way solve the problem? It still doesn't account for the fact that tolerant monarchies existed post-1688. - SimonP (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By 1687 in Europe there was not a single absolute monarchy that tolerated another religion than the official one of the state. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the Ottoman Empire it was an absolute monarchy that tolerated other religions in Europe in 1687? - SimonP (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Full bloom of Millet was much later, I don't know about 1687. Not so sure about the absoluteness of the Ottoman monarch either "...Throughout Ottoman history, however — despite the supreme de jure authority of the sultans and the occasional exercise of de facto authority by Grand Viziers — there were many instances in which local governors acted independently, and even in opposition to the ruler..." it says in our Wikipedia article (didn't check, just taking this at face value). I also don't know, despite the Ottoman Empire ruling large parts of Europe at the time, it would be seen as typical "European". If you still have doubts I don't think the adjustment would need to be all that intrusive: "by the time the Enlightenment was about to start in Western Europe there was not a single absolute monarchy that tolerated another religion than the official one of the state." Enlightenment is something that happened in Western Europe at the time: it is correct to state that the reason why the Age of Enlightenment rather produced republics than monarchies is partly explained by what happened before: absolute monarchies tended to adhere to a single religion, which Enlightenment thinkers sought to alter, both the monarchy part as the religious straitjacket part, that's why Enlightenment republics usually had less of a single-religion framework than pre-enlightenment monarchies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Supra-national republics

The term "supra-national republic" does not seem to appear anywhere outside of this article. That section is also unreferenced. Are there any outside sources that seriously discuss whether the EU is a republic, and the role of republics vs. monarchies within the EU? If not we should cut that section. - SimonP (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

??? Weren't you the one proclaiming that "republic" is primarily about government system, and not on whether the governed entity is to be considered either a state or a country? Then surely sources must abound discussing the EU in terms of republic, because that's the system used in its governance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm the one looking for this article to be well referenced, and this section matter doesn't seem to exist anywhere outside of Wikipedia. - SimonP (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, for your proposed changes to the intro: end of discussion: "republic" is a country or state (usually), not a form of government.

Re. supra-national republics: I've added a "fact" tag: let's see if references for the expression are available. That doesn't affect the content of most of that section though. Maybe we only need to find a different section title. Of course an update of the content of that section might be necessary too after the EU "constitution" failed (although it is announced it will return in another guise). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed it. Adding a fact tag to information that all research seems to show doesn't belong is not ideal. The section didn't really say anything interesting anyway? - SimonP (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I object to the removal of the entire section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reason for that objection? - SimonP (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, see above. The EU is an important body, and its form of government is widely discussed, with a peak of that discussion around the time of the "European constitution" proposals. And then of course, the EU's form of government is republican (or "republic" if you prefer), so a reflection or summary of that discussion belongs in this article. Shouldn't be too difficult to find sources, should it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the EU being a republic? Or own article certainly doesn't call it such. Searching for the phrase "republic of the European Union" gets pretty much no hits on Google. According to Google it doesn't seem like anyone has even once stated the "European Union is a republic." If this is an important matter, it should be easy to find references related to it. If you find some references I would have no problem with it being readded. - SimonP (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Do you have a reference for the EU being a republic?" - Do you? As said, irrelevant unless you maintain that republic is usually a form of government.

There are sources describing the EU as republican as far as the form of government goes, as I said: around the high tide of the "EU constitution" polemic a few years ago there were published plenty. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Great if there are many they should be easy to find then. I look forward to seeing them and having that content readded. I'm having trouble finding any myself. Both the phrases "EU is republican" and "European Union is republican" get zero Google hits. - SimonP (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, couldn't find many on short notice. Nonetheless, it remains true: the EU is an important body, and its form of government is widely discussed, with a peak of that discussion around the time of the "European constitution" proposals. And then of course, the EU's form of government is republican (...), so a reflection or summary of that discussion belongs in this article. Shouldn't be too difficult to find sources, should it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, when we find some sources, or even a source, that say the "EU's form of government is republican" then we can put that back in. Until source a source appears there is no way to verify the information. Saying it's true doesn't make it so. - SimonP (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, but that's a single phrase: that doesn't say anything pro or contra the other content you removed, some of it referenced. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So what other supranational entities can be considered republics? If we are going to discuss the subject there must be at least one example. The other content about republics making up supra-national entities also needs to be referenced before it is put back in. - SimonP (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, my main thrust is that we can't pass by Europe: whether the European Union is simply a republic (intended as "form of government") or something that can be compared to a republic, it should be mentioned in the "republic" article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And my main thrust is that there is no way we should be doing that unless there are some references to back it up, in keeping with Wikipedia policy. - SimonP (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Nobody said anything different. Not all most suitable sources can be found in a few hours, and that's what you're trying to press towards, thus trying to find an excuse for taking ownership of the article. No way. Improvement may have gone slowly these last few years (your symptomatic edit-warring coming in showers every so many months was rather part of the problem than part of the solution I think), but launching, again, an ownership campaign, rehashing very old inferior content, did far from improve the article the last few hours. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've invited others to help improve this article. Hopefully some other input will be of use. As to time, I agree take all the time you need to write some good content, just don't add it to the encyclopedia until it meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. - SimonP (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The bloat you added over the last few hours IS NOT UP TO THAT STANDARD, the lot will be subjected to BRD, there isn't an edit that is flawless in what you were trying to push in the last few hours. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please show me where it is problematic, and I will fix it. Blanket reverting without discussing does nothing. - SimonP (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And reverting to canvassing (see WP:CANVASS) to get your points across: you've lost your last bit of credibility: why not just an RfC instead of canvassing for people you care to invite? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Asking uninvolved third parties for input is exactly what one should be doing in these circumstances. I'm glad to see you didn't revert me, as that would be a claer violation of policy. - SimonP (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

re. "Asking uninvolved third parties for input is exactly what one should be doing in these circumstances." Not in WP:CANVASS fashion as you apparently did, not even disclosing what platform(s) you used for the operation.

Re. "I'm glad to see you didn't revert me, as that would be a claer violation of policy." - will be reverted per WP:BRD, as this seems the most useful step forwards, coherent with policy. I wanted to have this discussion first, in order to have prejudice against applicable guidance (WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD,...) out of the way first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Once you revert will you work towards us reaching consensus as to the changes I think are necessary for this article? - SimonP (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"us" as in "us two"? - I didn't think in that category.

I'd call a RfC, maybe not on all raised issues at once: maybe better to take them in coherent groups: RfC seems the best way forward, to achieve "D" in the BRD cycle, and have a broad basis for it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, I've filed an RFC. - SimonP (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oligarchies not always republics

Is there a reference for "oligarchies or aristocracies are not always indicated as republics?" We have the Montesquieu saying that they are, but we need some evidence for oligarchies or aristocracies not being considered republics. - SimonP (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK they usually aren't: should not be too difficult to find a reference, should it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked and couldn't find anything. Certainly by the most basic, not a monarchy definition oligarchies would count. - SimonP (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

see? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

see what? Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics, but that is not what is being discussed there. - SimonP (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

see that it is easy to find a reference for "oligarchies or aristocracies are not always indicated as republics". --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But that is a source for just the opposite. An oligarchy is not a monarchy, which means many would consider it a republic. - SimonP (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics" - well in political science they write books don't they, shouldn't be too difficult to find such a source confirming what you said, should it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But not excluded as oligarchies, but because they are not liberal democracies. If that is the only basis that oligarchies are to be excluded then that section needs to be rewritten. - SimonP (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

stop the handwringing, it confirms that oligarchies are not always indicated as republics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be "handwringing" to you, but finding references is important. We can't just go by our own judgement. We don't have any reference specifically saying "oligarchies are not republics" and I don't remember having come across one. Unless we can find such a reference the content must go. - SimonP (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics", reference please? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what we need a reference for. I don't have a specific reference for that sentence, which is why I don't think it should be in the article. - SimonP (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You contended "Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics", then you find a reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No we find references to add content, unrefereneced content is what we remove. Wikipedia policy is that "each fact presented by an article must be concretely verifiable" if we can't verify it, it should be removed. - SimonP (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You contended "Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics", well is that true or not, or are just trying to play some weird political games? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, if you read the very first line and all the others I have been saying that phrase should be removed unless it is referenced. - SimonP (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You contended "Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics". --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, and I agree with that, if we find a reference to that effect that would justify that section. But my making it so doesn't make it true. I haven't been able to find a good reference. One might exist, but until we find one to verify this supposition of ours the text should go. - SimonP (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

... handwringing. Do you mean what you write, or are you just filibustering? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I very much mean what I write. In this case I am waiting. I'm still hoping to see you present a reference for that content you wrote before I remove it. - SimonP (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You contended "Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics", please provide a reference, I ask you politely. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't find any references, and am not sure any exist. Which is what a sentence saying that shouldn't belong in the article. - SimonP (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You contended "Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics", please make clear why you did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I do think a logical case could be made for that, but we don't keep things in Wikipedia because a logical case can be made for them. We keep them because they are referenced and verifiable. - SimonP (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, merely filibustering. You could've said so from the outset. Would've saved us both some time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, so it's agreed that we can remove that? I've gone ahead and done so. - SimonP (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Be as bold as you like, the next step will be R anyhow, for reasons explained multiple times now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please present a reference for that section before replacing it. Or suggest some sort of compromise wording. We can then hopefully not have to do any reverting. - SimonP (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate monarchy section

The primary and most basic definition of a republic is "not a monarchy." We should highlight that a bit more in the characteristics of republics, I propose moving tosme of the content on that issue out of the head of state section. - SimonP (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re "The primary and most basic definition of a republic is "not a monarchy."" - could you give a reference for that, I mean not putting that conclusion together from an array of references in an OR sense, or the faulty interpretation of Merriam-Webster's (meaning "1a" IS NOT BY DEFINITION the most common meaning of a word)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, how about the The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science. It says "Today to state that a country is a republic means that it is not a monarchy: its head of state is a president and not a hereditary monarch." That is the only definition found there. - SimonP (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you not object if I reinstate this change then? - SimonP (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I object, it's not because "The primary and most basic definition of a republic is "not a monarchy."" is confirmed by a source, that we couldn't treat the head of state material as a single section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But if you agree that that definition is primary, shouldn't it also be a primary subject of this article rather than buried halfway down a subsection? - SimonP (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Who said Blackwell's POV is the dominant one? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source or any evidence saying that it isn't? - SimonP (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not funny, you need a positive proof it is if you say it is more or less mandatory that it is to be treated as separate topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I do have a source, the Blackwell's, which is a reliable and legitimate source, presents "non-monarchy" as the only, and thus primary, definition. Here is another source "Most of the world's people ... mean nothing more by it than a state without a monarch." William R. Everdell. The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. Do you have any sources that suggest this is not the case? - SimonP (talk)

CIA Factbook makes more distinctions if I remember well.

Anyway I don't see a real reason why head of state and non-monarchy should be treated in different sections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the CIA calls a republic "a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation." But this simply fits with the alternate definition of a republic as any representative democracy as is used in the United States. We could have more of a discussion on that meaning here, but I personally think it is better contained in its own article as it is now. - SimonP (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is missing the point. CIA factbook distinguishes dictatorial regimes from monarchies and republics (that's the distinction I was referring to), which is not unlike what other thinkers do (from Antiquity on - so no US exclusivity), so there's no problem treating "head of state" together with "monarchical" aspects as far as I can see. I simply don't agree: and where you present it as if there is a compelling reason to move forward with the separation, I see nothing more than your personal preference. I respect that personal preference, but don't agree. I don't respect the somewhat fraudulent proceeding to present it as an unavoidability, where there is none. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are other primary definitions we should also give them precedence. You can't deny that the non-monarchy definition is an important, if not the most important meaning, and that it currently is not placed in a location of primary importance. - SimonP (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

lol. Do you really read what you write?

This can all be treated in the "head of state" section, you really don't give a reason that appeals to do it differently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm aware that English is not your first language, I will try to be clearer. What I am saying is that the most important defintion of republic is that it is not a monarchy. Most people coming to this article will be looking for information on that area. We should thus put that sort of stuff near the top in clear sections so that people will be able to find it. Right now it is not clear. - SimonP (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's all about who is (or isn't) head of state in a republic (which is the first section), no reason to make separate sections imho. There's no self-evidence, not even any evidence at all in why a split would be more useful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as a compromise what if we moved the monarchy stuff up to the top of that section? - SimonP (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no need. The narrative is coherent as is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest any sort of compromise here? We obviously disagree on this matter, but I'm sure some common ground can be reached. - SimonP (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for a discussion via RfC: I have one opinion, you have another. Your attitude that there is some unavoidable logic behind what is merely a personal preference on your side ticks me off, and basically shows you're not interested in proposing compromises. Let's wait till others arrive. No need to rush after the R in BRD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, I've filed an RFC. But again, reverting without first stating what is wrong with the changes is counter to policy and please stop suggesting that you will do so. - SimonP (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Again I've listed quite a few objections. Your arrogance in ignoring I wrote them down is what shows that you didn't participate in this discussion decently thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have raised objections to this section, and I know what they are. What I am asking for is if you could suggest a compromise solution that could make both of us happy. - SimonP (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Intro

I've switched back the second paragraph in the introductory section isn't very good. WP:Lead states that the lead section of an article should function as a quick introduction to the subject matter. Something that can stand as an article on its one for those who only need a quick summary of the subject. The current one simply summarizes the article to follow, which is counter to standard practice. It is also unreferenced, unlike the version I put together. - SimonP (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're still edit-warring the first para. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But do you agree we should follow policy and present a summary of the subject? And that the version with references is also superior? - SimonP (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're edit-warring the first para, without talk page consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Map

Re. the proposed map [1]:

• I have verifiability concerns;
• caption should state "as of <date>";
• more suitable in List of republics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a date. I do think it is suitable to this article. If you look at most similar articles such as monarchy, federation, communist state, form of government they all have maps just like this one. - SimonP (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I still prefer it for the "list of republics" article, as it does not clarify the concept of republic so much as it indicates examples of republics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It usefully shows how many republics there are in the world today, and how the various types are arranged geographically. Which is valuable info. - SimonP (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

...Which is list of republics material par excellence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But there is no reason to have not have it in this article. If we are ever going to get this page up to featured status it does need more images. - SimonP (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer it in List of Republics, for the reasons I stated above.

With your recent series of questionable edits this article is quite somewhat further from FA status than it was this morning. That includes adding pictures that don't really belong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been adding well sourced content, removing unsourced original research, written a proper lead, and adding images. All of those things bring this article much closer to FA status. At the very least the page is starting to look like a standard encyclopedia article. - SimonP (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The bloat is surprising: the map is a WP:V problem, as I indicated above, large portions were unearthed from long ago: then problematic for their references, and still so. Unreferenced content supplanting barely more referenced content, extrapolation of the sources' content when references are used, etc... large steps backwards, especially while it's one-sided POV being pushed: so no, the bloat is surprising, and these steps backwards should be overturned ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What references are problematic? What content that I have added do you consider "barely referenced," where are sources extrapolated from? What POV is being pushed? Give me specifics on any of these and I will try to fix them. - SimonP (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There will be ample time to discuss this in the BRD cycle. Really, this article has been stable a few years slowly improving every now and then, and now your POV-pushing should all rewrite it in a few hours, rehashing some unreferenced content we had got rid of (and good riddance too!) in the last few years... Really, there's no hurry for you to assume ownership of the article in so short time. The lot will be subject to a BRD cycle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What POV am I pushing? I am to the best of my abilities trying to make an important article, that for the last few years has been practically illegible, better. - SimonP (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the POVs you're pushing is that "republicanism" is somehow a synonym with "republic". That was very prominent in the last editing campaign by you on this article I was involved in, it has re-emerged. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The words are related, though they certainly don't mean the same thing. Could you show me where you think I am confusing the two concepts? If there is somewhere where I am in error I will work to improve it. - SimonP (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The confusion was re-introduced in the lead section (2nd paragraph), a handful of times in the "History" section. (e.g. we really don't know whether REPUBLICANISM (in ANY conventional meaning) had anything to do when in the late middle ages republics started to emerge - at least I have not seen a single source contending that, currently it is without any reference in the Wikipedia article: this is UNSOURCED, and I don't think there is really a source for such POV nonsense). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What part of the second paragraph. Every sentence is referenced, most to books on republics rather than republicanism. Which part do you have a problem with. As to the history, I agree that republicanism probablyt has nothing to do with things like the Hanseatic League. They were still republics, and that is what that section is, a history of republics. - SimonP (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Again THE PARTS WHERE YOU START TO USE THE EXPRESSION REPUBLICANISM AS SYNONYM FOR THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE, which I'm sure is not in sources generally speaking (as such it isn't even referenced). Please improve or revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are misinterpreting. Republicanism can refer to the ideology, but it can also refer simply to any belief in republics. When I write "republicanism was revived in the late Middle Ages" I don't mean the ideology, this article isn't about the ideology. I simply mean the idea of a state being a republic. This is perfectly valid English language usage, and standard in all of the sources on the subject. - SimonP (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, weren't you the one saying its better to avoid confusion where possible? The terminology is confusing, and as far as "standard in all of the sources on the subject" goes, I don't think so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the word republicanism from the history section. Any other problems with that section? - SimonP (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you *read*? The main problems I see with the history section you introduced today is that it is a *rehash of old material* that was cleansed out over time, and that it mainly *doubles the history-related narrative already contained in the article* (I prefer the history to be absorbed in the narrative and not set separate too). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with old material if it is accurate and well referenced? There is some duplication with the "Influence of republicanism," but I plan on rewritting that part so it actually matches its title. - SimonP (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

THAT YOU IGNORE CONSENSUS FORMING OVER THE YEARS, and again that preposterous "well referenced" - e.g. the "history" section is not "well referenced": its references are minimal and largely insufficient. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you point out the multiple other users that you worked with to create this consensus? Please invite them to participate, I would be glad to have more input. As to the references being minimal, that section has far more references than any other part of the article, but if you feel it needs more I will try and find them. What sentences in particular do you feel need to be better referenced? - SimonP (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"History" section

Introduced unilaterally by SimonP [2]:

• doubles a lot of material already there;
• this is a rehash of old material that used to be in the article isn't it, the antiquated expression "Levant" is back etc. I think the article has evolved away from that, an evolution I agree to.
• uses Classical republic as a pivotal concept, that concept is maybe fictitious reconstruction, and all in all not that important that it would be used commonly in most sources describing early developments of "republic". At least the Classical republic article hasn't been able to collect a single source: is there any?
• In Europe republicanism was (etc...) - this is VERY old stuff rejected before, while confusing "republic" and "republicanism". Please stop these steps back in the history of this article, for no sound reason. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you disagree that the article should have a history section? It's standard for almost any other article. There is some overlap with Republicanism, but that is to be expected as the are closely related concepts. I agree with the classical republic thing, and I've clarified that. As to the word Levant when speaking of the eastern Mediterranean in this period of history that is the standard term, and by no means archaic. I will alter it though to try and reach a compromise on this section. - SimonP (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't have THIS history section, that's for sure. The history was intermingled throughout the article, that's more than fine to me. Anyway, don't impose such sweeping changes before leaving room for discussion and working by consensus (which also means enough TIME for others to consider it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Be Bold. There is no such crime of "unilaterally" adding content to Wikipedia. That is what we do here. I've been pretty exhaustive about discussing the changes I've been making to this article. - SimonP (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But then don't be surprised of the BRD cycle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that is why we have policies against people removing well referenced content. - SimonP (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So,

• don't remove well-referenced content;
• be prepared to discuss the references as part of the BRD cycle.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I have not been removing the small portion of this article that could be considered well referenced. - SimonP (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheer arrogance, you removed well-referenced content. The lot will be subject to BRD for a better treatment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If I have, I was in error, could you show me where I have done so? - SimonP (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There will be ample time for that in the BRD cycle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What better time than now? Please point out errors so we can work to correct them, rather than simply threatening to revert. - SimonP (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, it all has to happen in a 24h time-span. No way: please stop to try to take ownership this way. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine this article isn't going to go away any time soon. Take all the time you need to find references, and locate any problems. Just make sure you don't revert things until you do. - SimonP (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, R would be the next step in BRD, live with it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, but the BRD page isn't something that justifies you reverting any changes made by another user. You still have yet to point out any real flaws in this content. - SimonP (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The sweeping changes can be reverted per the broad reasoned objections I made above, the minutiae can be discussed one by one, seeing whether some of the changes can be retained. As a whole it was a major deterioration, and as the few potentially useful parts are very intermingled with stuff that can and should be outright deleted, it's not possible to separate the two in a single pass. They can be discussed here one by one, but not under this amount of pressure that by shear lapse of time too much of the bad editing might start to stick under semblance of stability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please present some evidence of these sweeping problems. You have yet to do so, and there is no way you can justify reverting without presenting them. - SimonP (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sweeping changes (don't distort what I say). Above I gave and explained enough objections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And I have been working to fix them, please present more so I can fix them as well. - SimonP (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

???You glanced at a very few of them: the main objections remain. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think is the most important problem with that section? I will try to work on that next. - SimonP (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

huh? I wrote those down above, in multiple sections, each time diligently replying to your questions. You really don't read what others bring into the discussion do you? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed many of the issues you have raised, and I am interested in what you think is the most important issue so I can fix that next. - SimonP (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From 3O

It's unclear to me what specific issues need to be resolved or need a 3O, besides lots of poor-Wikiquette and personal attacks. If the editors could summarize the heart of the dispute, that would be appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Tx for the effort, but this is not what this is about. WP:BRD with WP:RfC for the D part will suffice - tx anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Working on the rewrite

I've been out of town for a bit, but am eager to get back to improving the article. Hopefully we can do this without edit warring. I agree with BillMasen that there is no reason to move the rewrite off to a separate article. Very little content has been removed, and it's not as though the rewrite is a construction site that doesn't stand as a viable article. Having the previous version of the article up is also a problem as it is even missing the cite needed and other reference tags.

As to moving forward, I want to try to get this article to Good Article status. There are a few areas of improvement needed to get the article to that standard. Here are some of the things we need to work on to get to that level:

• References: We need more references. We need to add references to the parts lacking them, or in some cases simply remove the content if it doesn't belong
• Writing: The overall legibility and quality of writing is low, and we need to improve this
• Structure: We need a better overall structure for this article. I would suggest basing it around the Renaissance period where the idea and word republic first developed. We can then look forward to how republics developed over time, and backwards to see how scholars have used the word republic to describe states of the past.

What do others think? The article does need a lot of work, but I do think this is an attainable goal. - SimonP (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And after I suggested that he air his objections on the talk page (he hasn't) I am "taking it to talk" like he asked. So, Francis, what do you think is wrong with my version? BillMasen (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

explained above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I must be being stupid here: where above have you commented on my edit, except to say that certain edits "need a wider community input" (where you did not single out my edit)? Why do they need that input? I have tried repeatedly to work with you to meet your objections. BillMasen (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrespective of what version is on display now, Francis what do you feel is the way forward with this article? What do you think needs to be done to get it to Good Article status? - SimonP (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's agree on using /rewrite. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your confindence that I will agree to this, when you provide absolutely no rationale whatsoever, is completely unwarranted.

I ask again. Why do you think my edit is wrong? I am perfectly prepared to consider arguments against it. You have provided none. And please do not direct me to 'see above', when everything you wrote there was before my edit. BillMasen (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's agree on using /rewrite. I've given a rationale for that proceeding. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there an echo in here? You have given no reason why my edit is wrong or why it shouldn't remain in the article. Obviously you find it objectionable for some reason. What's the big secret? BillMasen (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's agree on using /rewrite. Please stop ignoring my arguments on that point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I do prefer to work here, and the version you revert to contains errors that even you have admitted. I also feel the work is more likely to get the attention and aid of others if we work in the main space, but I am willing to compromise. I will work at /rewrite, if you agree that I can replace the main article when I feel that it is ready to be nominated for Good Article status. - SimonP (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Come on now, don't be ridiculous: work by consensus please. Remember "SimonP is cautioned to respond appropriately to the expressed community consensus" - no to any system that short circuits the development of community consensus in the first place. If you're proposing a large-scale rewrite, work by /rewrite or anything similar, unconditionally. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What arguments have you made regarding my edit? None. This is getting ridiculous. BillMasen (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's agree on using /rewrite. I've made plenty of arguments on that point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If I get /rewrite to a level that I can nominate it for Good Article status will you let me replace the current page? I will work at /rewrite, but my work is pointless if I can't ever move it to the mainspace. - SimonP (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't even move it myself. If I get Bill or another user to agree that it is better, will you agree that it can be replaced? - SimonP (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am more than willing to do so. BillMasen (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop demanding preliminary agreements. I'll agree when I'll agree it's OK for mainspace, and an improvement, not before, and certainly not as a preliminary condition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise by working at /rewrite. All I ask is that you agree to a process for getting that article to the main namespace that doesn't involve your having a personal veto. My concern, given your past behaviour on this article, is that you will never agree to replacing the article. Could you suggest a neutral third party who could make the decision? - SimonP (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re. "My concern, given your past behaviour on this article, is that you will never agree to replacing the article" - I consider that an inappropriate PA. Please discontinue this MO. When it's OK, it's OK - but I can't tell before we get there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You must understand my frustration. I have put several weeks of work into this page, and so far not one change I've made has met your approval. I've made dozens of edits, and you have reverted every single one of them. That is why I am asking you to propose a method whereby we can overhaul this article that doesn't involve you having a personal veto. How about we use the Good Article mechanism? If a month after the rewrite goes live I have not managed to get it to Good Article status, I will agree to give up trying to make changes. You can then revert to whatever version you prefer. - SimonP (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved with this debate, but I've noticed that a dictionary definition is used for the lead. My experience is that with such subjects, dictionaries often have a definition that is different from that used by the subjects practitioners. For instance, I've seen Archaeology defined as the study of the ancient past (archaeology covers all human time periods). Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#republic, I have restored the contributions that were removed. As I said, I am still willing to listen to objections from Francis or anyone else regarding what I have written. BillMasen (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been bold and deleted the rewrite page. I am happy to restore it if everyone agrees that working on a separate subpage is the way to go but that's not what I am seeing at the moment and am concerned at Francis Schonken's tactics here. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"ideal republic" - foundation of ideology of republicanism

Moved here from mainspace:

He also described the governance and foundation of the ideal republic, which is the foundation of the ideology political scientists call republicanism.

Please give the literal quotes from both Pocock and Haakonssen that support this, for others to check whether they covered exactly the same proposed Wikipedia content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The is the thesis of Pocock's book, and his work largely defined the current nomenclature. Haakonssen reviews the history of the concept of republicanism and says the same thing, even though he disagrees with the idea of a distinct republican tradition. I don't have his with me for an exact quote, but here is a direct quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "In the first sense, republicanism refers to a loose tradition or family of writers in the history of western political thought, including especially: Machiavelli and his fifteenth-century Italian predecessors; the English republicans Milton, Harrington, Sidney, and others; Montesquieu and Blackstone; the eighteenth-century English commonwealthmen; and many Americans of the founding era such as Jefferson and Madison. " - SimonP (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"...Machiavelli and his fifteenth-century Italian predecessors..." (bolding added), so Machiavelli being the first as you would have it in the Wikipedia article seems to be contradicted by Stanford.

Based on the current reference material: no, not suitable for Wikipedia.

For the rest, I'm sure we all have patience until you can produce sufficient reference material before any further attempts to put this in mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a reliable source, so that alone would justify it going back in. If anyone picks up a copy of Pocock they can also easily verify that this is what he writes about. - SimonP (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please also indicate page numbers, for others who happen to have access to these books. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The current idea of a republic first appeared in the writings of Italian scholars of the Renaissance, most importantly Niccolo Machiavelli.

"Current" is not OK imho, should not be used in an encyclopedia.

Also same questions as for previous mainspace proposal: give the quotes you base this upon, and the page numbers please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What wording would you suggest as an alternative to current? Here is a quote from Everdell: "Machiavelli's new diadical usage ('monarchies or republics'), which implies that all republics must be aristocracies or democracies - but never monarchies - grows stronger from one end of the Discourses to the other. This is a fact of immense importance to the influence of Machiavelli as a seminal political thinker - particularly his more recent historiographical incarnation as a republican thinker." pg. xxii - xxiii - SimonP (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't - I haven't read any of the sources you propose, you don't cite any page numbers in them, and frankly (but I could be wrong) they seem somewhat exotic on first sight. Don't these sources have ISBN's either? Could be helpful if you mentioned these. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I just cited a page number for Everdell. None of these sources can't be found in any major research library. Others are from common encyclopedias, most of which can be accessed online though services like Gale. - SimonP (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Found a good summary quote for Pocock, just had to look at the back of the book: "the ideal of the classical republic revived by Machiavelli and other thinkers of Renaissance Italy." - SimonP (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The RFC might be a broader response if it is asking more focused and specific questions. Asking "what content should be in this article" seems quite vague. There seems to a small number of highly passionate editors clashing here over many different sections. Could whoever posted the RFC either provide a brief summary of the specific points that need comments from the community or rewrite the RFC?Ngaskill (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Least Developed Countries

Should we mention that the vast majority of countries on the list of Least Developed Countries are held under the republican system? Out of the 47 countries which are on the list 42 of them are republics. While countries who oppose the concept of an elected head of state such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Japan are based on a constitutional monarchy and are highly developed. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed

Removed this paragraph:

• In 1938 the Irish Free State, which was renamed Eire, removed all association with the British Empire with the return of the Berehaven, Cobh and Lough Swilly ports, giving true independence and the establishment of true neutrality.

Absolutely nothing to do with this article. Ramore (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

RfCs regarding multiple changes

A request for comment regarding many changes on the article Republic. —harej 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

These changes by SimonP et al. might require a wider community input.

I've given some views I'm committed to above: these hardly suffice for expressing all the pros and cons I see regarding this broad-scale rewrite (notwithstanding I've been giving it several hours of typing as fast as I could trying to keep up with the changes that were implemented), so I'll be participating in what follows too.

The working version of these changes is at /rewrite. Despite SimonP's arrogant assertions above, this rewrite does only too superficially take into account a too limited part of the issues I raised. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC - History part

How are the historical developments of the Republic concept to be treated in that article? Does that article need a separate History section? And if so, is it desirable to have that History section as the first section?

• For my views, see above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

a Republic is a government ran by written law, such as the consituition. find old dictionarys and you will find the truth. that means the u s congress and senators are bound to obey the constuition. They may do what the people want as long as it is with the bounds for the constuiton. Our Senators and Congress have forgotten that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.226.57 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Society part

How societal aspects to be treated in the Republic article?

• For my views, see above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Religion part

How much elaboration does the relation between the concept of republic and religion need in the Republic article? Does it need a separate section, and if so: can such section be referenced broader?

• For my views, see above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced it has v much to do with religion. Also there seems to be a confusion between "republic" and "democracy". There are plenty of monarchys which are democracies (Japan, UK, Netherlands) and plenty of self-styled republics which were not (USSR, GDR). NBeale (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Economics part

How much elaboration does the relation between the concept of republic and economics need in the Republic article? Does it need a separate section, and if so: can such section be referenced broader?

• For my views, see above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Politics part

What should be in the Republic article for the political approach?

• For my views, see above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Legitimacy

While I don't actually think comments on the legitimacy of selection process are appropriate to a discussion of Republics, and I looked through the discussion and archives for any discussion of the topic for guidance, I found none. So rather than remove material from previous editors, I have attempted to clarify the issue in relation to the question of legitimacy of indirectly elected presidents with reference to the Constitutional articles concerned. I would rather just see the paragraph simplified to note that presidents are geneally elected, either directly or indirectly, and leave it at that.CSProfBill (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

It has been discovered that this book:

• Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive after it goes there.   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How were you able to determine that the material in the book was plagiarized from Wikipedia and not the other way around? 98.71.218.226 (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How can the first mention of republicanism...

How can it be started when the article states if Plato who died centuries before that time period wrote the republic?--209.181.16.93 (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Plato wrote in Greek and the title he used was "politeia". The English translation "the republic" came much later. 83.250.226.209 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yea of course he wrote in greek but why did we misstranslate it then? and also it should be mentioned in the lead with a link if that is so and a reason should be touched on in both leads of course more drawn out the the one for the book --209.181.16.93 (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, Plato’s work being titled “The Republic” is a result of a Roman mistranslation, I think a result of them just inserting their form of government as the title.--Lairor (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's justified to accuse the Roman translator of "mistranslation". The Latin phrase res publica means, literally, "public thing"; it does not really imply a specific "form of government". Res publica might be an entirely reasonable translation of politeia. --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a mistranslation. Check below, Paul A. Rahe in his book (2008) Against Throne and Altar pg 28 says that Cicero, Livy and Sallust ALL started the republic under kings. The Roman Republic was influenced by Sabines and the Spartan Republic. All early republics were started under kings. Please check, my definition, http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Classical_definition_of_republic A 'politiea' is a 'republic', mixed government. WHEELER (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Republic as nothing to do with republicanism, Ben franklin Gave the us a rebublic, not democary... know the truth and the truth shall set you free Phil Wright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.226.57 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew Republicanism

Recent research has exposed that Modern republicanism has its roots in the Talmud: Eric Nelson The Hebrew Republic, Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought . This book is quite enlightening! Modern Republicanism is a teaching out of the Talmud! John Milton promotes regicide as evil due to a Midrashic teaching. That is Judiazing. My article "Classical definition of republic" gets deleted but this article something that has jewish roots is kept. I promote European culture and I get deleted? Francis Schonken you need to take this into account. Are we to promote European culture or Talmudic culture? Why was my article booted from Wikipedia?WHEELER (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The British Republicans ganged up and deleted my work. This book justifies a "Classical definition of republic" because the roots of British Republicanism exist in the Talmud. What is European culture and traditions and institutions? Are those condemned? Because of the Talmud? If Modern culture was transformed and European Political thought was deconstructed---Should we not bring back what was once real true traditional European culture? What does Modern Republicanism have to do with European culture? I think that the "Classical Definition of republic" needs to be brought back! That book says it all. Should not Europeans see and read about their REAL institutions?WHEELER (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Just began reading Paul A. Rahe's book Against Throne and Altar, Machiavelli and Political Theory under the English Republic. In there on page 28, he states that Cicero, Livy and Sallust, all three of them, start the republic under the Roman kings!!! The Spartan and Cretan and Roman Republics were all started under kings! What you have here is that modern Republicanism, what I call "psuedo-republicanism" started with Machiavelli, John Milton, who was a big Judiazer, and others. Can I not bring my "Classical Definition of Republic" and put it under "classical Republic"?WHEELER (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Shift in meaning

Here is a scholary paper published in Political Theory journal "Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic" James Hankins, April 2010, where he records the change in the meaning of republic. Italian Humanists in their battle against princes and the papacy changed the meaning of the word and Thomas Paine carried that on. The traditional European meaning of republic can have kings. The whole idea of republics was started by the Doric Greeks, (i.e. the Spartans). Where are the guardians of this article? Where are the powers that be?

If there are no answers soon, I will begin to rewrite this article. WHEELER (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"republic" and "republicanism" are different words with very different meanings. Wheeler refers to "republicanism", but this article is about "republic." So leave it alone. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The word "republic" as the Romans translated it is a "politiea". My question to you is Have you read "Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-monarchical Republic"? Are you keeping up on Scholarship on Republic? I am NOT refering to "republicanism", Mr. Rjensen! I am refering to what Aristotle called "politiea". A politiea which the Romans translated as Republic. The Romans had a "republic", and that included Aristocracy and the commons in their assemblies. Did you read any of these sources that I have posted? All talk of the transformation of the word republic into your "republicanism". I have pointed out the books. Have you read them. Has anybody here read this literature that I have posted?WHEELER (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Exclusivist Republicanism and the non-monarchical republic" quote: "The Key figure in the emergence of the NEW meaning of respublica as "non-monarchical government" was the Florentine humanist and hsitorian Leonardo Bruni," ...(pg 12)

"So it is surprising that in his immensely popular Latin translations of Aristotle, Bruni uses respublica in a STRIKINGLY NEW, indeed revolutionary way." (pg 13)

The author of this article, James Hankins, in the acknowledgements of his paper says he consulted Paul A. Rahe.WHEELER (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This Wikipedia Article talks about the "New meaning". What you have here is the revolutionary meaning of republic. The Wikipedia article is NOT the traditional normal meaning of the term. This article needs to encompass the traditional meaning of the term republic. Sparta is a republic and a republic is mixed government.WHEELER (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Rjensen. I went to your homepage and it says that you are a PHD. A professor with high academic training. Have you read any of this material I have posted? Are you knowledgeable? Paul A. Rahe wrote a 1200 page three volume work on Republics Ancient and Modern. I have read that. I have read also the above mentioned works and myself am a published author on the first true republic. James Hankins work proves my point. The definition of republic was politicized and then changed. This article does not state this but expressly puts out a revolutionary meaning. Furthermore, Guido Bartolucci in his article "Carlo Sigonio and the 'Respublica Hebraeorum': A re-evaluation" Hebraic Political Studies, Vol., 3, No. 1 (Winter 2008), PP, 19-59, Shalem Press, documents that Carlo Sigonio ALSO used the term to push a political agenda. Carlo Sigonio changed the meaning of the term republic, the same that Leonard Bruni did. I have read all these works. I'm sorry, A republic is not 'a government without a king'.

Now Mr. Rjensen, is it in academia to hide the facts? Is not the business to point out the facts? I have four publications to prove this fact. Until you have presented evidence contrary to these four publications, this article will be rewritten in accordance to FACTS.WHEELER (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Shift in Meaning References

1. "The modern republic originated in and draws its principles from modern political philosophy. The shift started with Niccolo Machiavelli's ( 1469-1527) rejection of the classical understanding of virtue and justice." Shafritz, Jay M., Ed., International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: R-Z, Volume: 4. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1998. Page Number: 1965.
   1. "Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic" James Hankins, pub; Political Theory, 23 April 2010.
   2. "Carlo Sigonio and the 'Respublica Hebraeorum': A re-evaluation", Guido Bartolucci, Hebraic Political Studies, Vol., 3, No. 1 (Winter 2008), PP, 19-59, Shalem Press.
   3. The Hebrew Republic, Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought, Eric Nelson, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2010
   4. Republics, Ancient and Modern, Paul A. Rahe, North Carolina University Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

These are my references. I think I have sufficient grounds to incorporate this material in this article and put the traditional definition of a republic means mixed government in.WHEELER (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, The citations are to a DIFFERENT concept--"republicanism" which is about individual citizens. Rjensen (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This sounds very typical. "NO". I'm sorry. The book "The Hebrew Republic" is NOT talking about "individualism", it is expressly talking about how the word "republic" was defined. A midrashic teaching said that monarchy was evil. John Selden picked that up and ran with it. He defined a republic without a king because of a midrashic statement opposite of what Aristotle, Cicero, Livy who all started republics under kings. What am I missing. Please explain what page of this work talks about individualism.WHEELER (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you cite Nelson re three new ideas brought into European political theory by study of new Hebrew texts: 1) republics are the only legitimate regimes; 2) the state should force an egalitarian distribution of property; 3) a godly republic will tolerate religious diversity. Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That is for the Modern definition. What I point out is on page 52, "The Miltonic position with which Harrington engages, according to which monarchy is always and everywhere illicit because it constitutes the sin of idolatry, would continue to capture the republican imagination." Here, he is talking about monarchy being evil. His conclusion of this chapter is "If this is so---and if, as I have suggested, there is something to the idea that the rise of a recognizably modern kind of political thought should be related to the demise of constitutional pluralism." (pg 53). Now, Mr. Rjensen, if a high schooler reads this article about republic he can NOT then go and read anything about the Roman Republic because this definition does NOT match Classical Antiquity!

What I am saying is that this article must tell High School students that (a) there is two different defintions of republic, (b) That a shift went under way, (c) both definitions are stated in the first paragraph, (d) that one half of the article deals with the Classical Aristotelian definition of the term. And then, your modern definition. Ultimately, this definition has NO correlation to what a republic is in either ancient Greece or Rome or in understanding the British Commonwealth. WHEELER (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The article makes pretty clear that the word didn't always mean what it does now: "While Bruni and Machiavelli used the term to describe the non-monarchial states of Northern Italy, res publica has a set of interrelated meanings in the original Latin. The term can quite literally be translated as "public matter". It was most often used by Roman writers to refer to the state and government, even during the period of the Roman Empire. The English word commonwealth derives from a direct translation of res publica, and its use in English is closer to how the Romans used the term res publica." I don't think anything more is needed. There are not two meaning for the word. There is the current meaning, and archaic meanings that are no longer in current English use. Those archaic terms are covered in our res publica and politea articles, which is where they should be. - SimonP (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Before I go any further, SimonP: Did you read any of these works? Did you read Paul A. Rahe massive tome Republics Ancient and Modern? Did you read Eric Nelson's The Hebrew Republic? Did you read Guido Baralucci? Did you read the most recent research of James Hankins? Did you read any of these works? Has anybody else read these works?WHEELER (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article it states: Niccolò Machiavelli described the governance and foundation of the ideal republic in his work Discourses on Livy. These writings, as well as those of his contemporaries such as Leonardo Bruni, are the foundation of the ideology political scientists call republicanism. This is wrong. Paul A. Rahe specifically states that Machiavelli proposed keeping the old term but substituting a new meaning underneath the old term. Machiavelli was re-writing, re-defining the term.

The idea of a republic first appeared in the writings of Italian scholars of the Renaissance, most importantly Machiavelli.[9][11] Machiavelli divided governments into two types, principalities ruled by a monarch and republics ruled by the people. This is wrong. As Hankins points out principalities like in Milan used the term 'republic' for themselves and Catholic authorities objected to the taking of this term out of its classical meaning!

While Bruni and Machiavelli used the term to describe the non-monarchial states of Northern Italy, res publica has a set of interrelated meanings in the original Latin. The term can quite literally be translated as "public matter". This is wrong. "Defenders of the monarchical mixed constitution, on the other hand, protested that the term had been appropriated by the anti-monarchists." This is what Hankins wrote. and is footnoted. People complained about the seizure of this word. By NO means did Machiavelli create the term "republic"!!! He was part of a movement to transform the world. Other people from Classical Antiquity, the Middle Ages and all the way up to the 19th century used this term for mixed government! Revolution and popular opinion does NOT define words. It is a Greek word, for a Greek idea which the Romans translated as "republic".WHEELER (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Defenders of the monarchical mixed constitution, on the other hand, protested that the term had been appropriated by the anti-monarchists." I AM a Monarchist believer in the mixed constitution. I may be a minority of one. But I will NOT let this slide. Republic means first of all monarchical mixed constitution! That is the First definition. I am a Monarchical mixed constitutional guy. Check out my page. I have stated so. I am living. Not archaic. This is my government. I have no place at Wikipedia? There is no room for this definition here? There is no place for tradition? No place for European Tradition and institutions? Why won't you work with me. I am perfectly able to work with you. Have your definition. Where's mine? I am a living person who hold these values. I am a European. So long as I live this idea lives and it needs an encyclopaedic entry here at Wikipedia! I had an article here. You had yours. And then you and your compatriots drove me off. Well, Now buster, I have the ammunition. So are you going to work with me? Or is this a censoring campaign?WHEELER (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Try writing a blog! — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Smyth, in 1583, described England under Queen Elizabeth I as a republic; to wit: De Republica Anglorum; the Manner of Government or Policie of the Realme of England. It was the title of his book, a study of the English government at his time. Sir Smyth points out that English government is mixed and therefore a true commonwealth.

John Aylmer saw the resemblance between his form of government and Sparta.

In his influential collection The Tudor Constitution (1960), Prof. Geoffrey Elton concurred with John Almyer's description of Tudor constitutional arrangements.

There is NO article on Wikipedia describing Republics as mixed government. The two articles that SimonP points out are not about Republics, their history. Is 1960, Archaic? When I first joined, the sidebar on politics had 'mixed government', now it doesn't even appear. I thought this was the age of reason. What article on wikipedia speaks to Sir Thomas Smyth? This is the point I'm making. Sir Thomas Smyth specifically states that "all commonwealths are mixed". How come we don't have a separate article on this?WHEELER (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

See Etymological fallacy. Just because a word might once have had a different definition in no way means that that meaning is still valid. The other uses of republic are not in common use, and today one definition predominates. - SimonP (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I want to see a Political Science scholar's work that says the old meaning of the term "republic" is an etymological fallacy. I want to see a Reference, and page number so I can read it---otherwise you have just stated your opinion in order to delay. You saying it, doesn't make it so. Second, for standards of Wikipedia, it has to be the consensus of the Academic field. Do you have a record that this is the "consensus" of the Academic field? Did you take a poll? Read it in a scholarly peer-reviewed journal?WHEELER (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A student wrote a paper in 2004 http://www.veritasnoctis.net/docs/Sidney.pdf "The form of government that best performs these functions, Sidney argues, is a mixed government, a republic, consisting not only of monarchic elements but also of aristocratic and democratic." I see that Algernon Sidney failed to get the memo from Machiavelli. As of 2004, people are writing about this and using republic to signify its classical meaning. Archaic? 2004 is not archaic.WHEELER (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Algernon Sidney lived in the 17th century, so yes I would consider that usage archaic. - SimonP (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for the Reference to where republic as mixed government is an etymological fallacy. Why don't you supply the reference.

More Evidence
Mara van der Lugtd in her book The True Toland (it is online and can be downloaded freely) has some good research:

Like Toland after him, Harrington was interested in the ancient Jewish commonwealth and its foundations in Mosaic law; furthermore, both were inspired by the writings of the Venetian rabbi Simone Luzzatto. In his Discorso circa il stato de gl'Hebrei (1683), Luzzatto had argued for the toleration of Jews by insisting on their role in the Venetian economic system. Such arguments had strongly influenced Toland in writing his Reasons for Naturalizing the Jews, and had contributed to Harrington's valuation of the Jews, which was perhaps connected to his admiration of the Republic of Venice (as noted by Toland). Hence, we witness, in the Appendix to Nazarenus, a close connection between Toland's political and 'Jewish' work, a connection that is strengthened by the Harringtonian link and rises to the fore in the announced project of a Respublica Mosaica.

Harrington and Toland did much to create the idea of modern republicanism. You all should read about Toland---one disgusting vile person; loudmouth, brash, without virtue. The whole modern republican movement was based on Atheists. Paul Rahe, in his new book Against Throne and Altar, Machiavelli and Political Theory in the English Republic, discovers that many of the characters involved in this movement, Machiavelli, Seldon, Milton, Harrington and others were all Atheists. Atheists who concerned themselves with "the Law of Moses". Tell me people, what is Machiavelli concerned with "the Law of Moses" for? Why does Babeuf mention this phrase? What are Atheists concerned with "the Law of Moses" for? John Toland is the poster boy of Modern Republicanism. That is a movement you want to be with? Align yourself with?

Classical Republicanism, Mixed Government, is Standard European Government. It is what European government should look like. I will be offline to about Monday or more. I hope by then people take the oppurtunity to read all the New Research out there. And for Simon P to produce a Scholarly peer reviewed journal that or any academic paper saying the definition of a republic as mixed government is a etymological fallacy.WHEELER (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Israel "The Intellectual Origins of Modern Democratic Repubicanism (1660-1720)" European Journal of Political Theory, Sage Publications, 2004 3:7

"It was this Dutch-French trajectory arguably, and not the English tradition which - despite having been largely submerged and ignored in histories of western political thought - constitutes the main line in the emergence of modern western democratic republicanism." pg 10

"Dutch republicanism was philosophically altogether more radical...than English republicanism"

"the Dutch tradition simply needed more and better arguments for rejecting the prevailing hierarchical vision of society generally prevalent in baroque Europe with its built-in stress on princely authority, aristocratic values and ecclesiastical authority"

"Seen in this light, the political thought of the de la Courts and Spinoza appears not, after all, to have been a dead-end, or abortive endeavour, but, rather, as I have said, to have constituted what in the broader European context can be construed as the main strand of early modern western republican political theory, the strand which developed ultimately into Jacobinism, and attempted, after 1789, to eradicate monarchy, social hierarchy and church power by revolution." pg 13

Jonathan Israel's article is pure gold! "Republicanism" was NOT invented by Machiavelli! It was a "revolution". This Wikipedia article details the Revolution of the term. Modern Republicanism is about Destroying Standard European Culture with its anti-clericalism and its egalitarianism! He purposely lays out that Dutch Republicanism fueled the French Revolution which destroyed Throne and Altar. They changed the meaning of the term "republic" to use it as a destroying device for revolution. And you can tell from his abstract and the word "democratic republic" that modern republicanism is just democracy! Where is Mixed Government? Where is traditional Old Order European culture and civilization, traditions and values? Is not traditional European society constructed around the three classes of "those who fight", "those who pray", and "those that work"? This article talks about "democratic republicanism". Where is Aristocratic monarchical republicanism? Where is our articleWHEELER (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

More evidence Here is another nail in the coffin:

Radical Republicanism in England, America, and the Imperial Atlantic, 1624-1661, John Dohoghue, thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 2006 (online and can be downloaded for free)

"The Atlantic history of republicanism has figured centrally in the scholarship of early modern political thought, although in osme ways it proves just as elusive as 'puritanism' to conceptualize. The American and French Revolutions gave 'republicanism' its modern meaning, that is representative government without kings. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, however, this understanding was far from universal, although Machiavelli, deemed subversive by most Englishmen at the time defined it as such. Translators rendered Thomas Smith's 1583 De Republica Anglorum as The Commonwealth of England, where Republica, from the Latin res publica, meant government for the public good. Englishmen called this a commonwealth, where upholding the interests of the nation provided the maxim for the just exercise of the king's authority. Commonwealth government in this sense could mean absolute monarchy if the king put the welfare of the public before the private interests of his court. Englishmen in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century usually made no distinction between monarchical and commonwealth governments. They understood 'commonwealth' to mean a political system where kings exercised their divine prerogatives in accord with the public good, and in consultation with the nation's aristocracy (the House of Lords), and the democracy (the people's representatives in the House of Commons). As Edmund Dudley wrote in The Tree of Commonwealth (1510), this system relied upon the king to provide justice, the nobles to safeguard truth, and the commons to supply condord and pacific order. pg 18-19

There is your Mixed government. Notice where he marks that the American and French Revolutions gave impetus to the new meaning! Do you see that "NEW MEANING". See, what is going on is that the revolution is still going on and what we see here is the preservation of revolution by denying the Old term and its meaning! Its time for TRUTH! You have absolutely NO ownership of the word "republic". What you have is a bastardized, revolutionary atheistic kabbalistic meaning. Republic needs to go back to its original term. The criteria of Truth is consistency. The consistent meaning of the term republic is mixed government.WHEELER (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading WP:TRUTH! — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Truth is the Faithful representation of reality". Apostolos Makrakis, Greek Orthodox Theologian. The question is reality. What revolutionaries do, is skewer reality in order to change the existing order. It is called Lying, deceivement, obfuscating. What is the Faithful representation of reality is important.WHEELER (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we need more time to research? Shall I wait another week?WHEELER (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)