Talk:Republic/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also

DO merge this! Or link to it at the top, like "If you wish to learn about --- visit this page: ________"

Note: Please put any future separate draft on a subpage: either User:Fubar/Republic or Republic/Draft1; so it can be edited there and discussed on the corresponding Talk page.

should be done? As in wikipedia:policies and guidelines? Or as in wikipedia:ignore all rules?

Separate drafts (discussion)

I take responsibility for the foregoing draft policy.

I take responsibility for stopping it - drafts on separate pages are usually not needed, if everyone knows how to behave --Francis Schonken 22:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I prefer the policy simply for the convenience of having a text and its discussion in separate files, as the present text and this discussion are. I agree that manners should make the existence of separate drafts unnecessary Septentrionalis 03:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Please read the 7 archives of this page - no use in going through the nth cycle of "more of the same" --Francis Schonken 22:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Introduction and plan

The only definition of Republic in common use in English is the anti-Monarchical one. So the OED s.v.: 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; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation. (on-line, not whenever R was done in the first edition). This dates back to Bacon 1626. Therefore the lead paragraph should be a condensation of this,

      • I second this interpretation. This article in its present state basically uses a definition of Republic = Democracy, which is neither accurate for the origins of the word 'Republic' (coming from Ancient Rome) nor for the contemporary world (which has many authoritarian republics). At its heart the idea of Republic is an anti-Monarchist one. It began to take on democratic connotations mostly in 19th-century America and France, but this article should not take an American/French scholarly viewpoint to the exclusion of the rest of the world and history. This problem is especially apparent in the 'Islamic Republicanism' section. The article simply stated - something I fixed - that this was not "generally" considered to be a form of republicanism, and that there is no reason why sharia law would be applied in a republic. Whose opinion is this? Certainly many scholars from the muslim world would disagree (in Islamic scholarship the term 'Republic' corresponds to the Arab idea of 'jumahhariya', which I am misspelling I'm sure).

In short, the Republic as a form of government was not democratic in its roots (Ancient Rome), and is only democratic in part of the world today, and therefore structuring the whole article around a vision of Republic = Democracy is bad encyclopedianism. ***

should be? There's no "should be" w.r.t. a Baconian definition. We already had Machiavellian, Kantian, etc..., etc... definitions, each with their should be proponents. Discussions whether any of these "eminent" philosophers has precedence over another is IMHO ludicrous. I never even had an answer whether there was a real difference between Kant's and Machiavelli's definition of a republic. The only definition of republic I think acceptable in wikipedia is the wikipedian definition. Not even necessarily the on-line OED definition - which I think a bit silly with the non-explained "applied loosely" - Wikipedia can surely do better than that. --Francis Schonken 22:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not propose we cite it exactly; and the importance of Bacon, at this point, is his date.(The quote from Bacon is not a definition, but: " It may be, in civil states, a republic is a better policy than a kingdom.") The anti-monarchial definition has existed in English for almost four centuries, and has been the only common meaning of the word for three. Of course it can be better phrased. Consider simply:

The word 'republic is now commonly used to denote those states which are not, formally, subject to a prince or monarch. The word has been, and in some contexts, still is, otherwise used; most of these definitions require that poltical power be derived from the people or some portion of them.

I believe the first sentence agrees with the de facto status of all your examples. Septentrionalis 03:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

followed by something like:

Various other definitions of republic have been used, either in the past, or in limited circles.. One of them is simply the body politic, the state in general. All other uses are some form or limitation of State in which political power derives from some portion of the people living under its rule.* These definitions will be our first section.

Then renumbering the other sections. (*This rephrasesn the present definition to get rid of the double negative; I do not intend to change its meaning.)

I'm not particularily fond of the double negative either. But what you propose is anyhow more complex, and I think it definitely a lot worse. For example: was Adolf Hitler an "elected representative" or was he a "ruler similar to a king"? Was Julius Caesar an "elected representative" or was he a "ruler similar to a king"? Was Octavian an "elected representative" or was he a "ruler similar to a king"? Was Saddam Hussein an "elected representative" or was he a "ruler similar to a king"? Mobutu? Laurent-Désiré Kabila? Joseph Kabila? etc... a "definition" that has so much more problems when one tries to apply it to real situations, and doesn't even look nicer when written down (notwithstanding not having a "double negative") is scarcely an improvement IMHO. --Francis Schonken 22:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Julius Caesar and Octavian did not rule a Republic in the modern sense of the word; the Roman Republic ended in the first century BC, although the Res publica Romana did not.

The best example of the force of Republic in English is the change from the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland (by which I mean the de facto state). The only difference between them is that George V was no longer an officer of the Republic, even in a formal sense. It was not a redistribution of power - his sole function was to sign the accreditation papers of Irish diplomats, and he was no more free to refuse than with British diplomats. [User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 19:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

best example in English? Isn't that how you feel it? - other people might have other best examples --Francis Schonken 22:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Anyone is free to come up with a better example or one showing a different sense; that's what the wiki process is for. Pending this.... Septentrionalis 02:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[::Small advise: please have a content for User:Pmanderson again - with the link to your user page everywhere appearing in red, this might make you look like a wikipedia:sockpuppet otherwise. --Francis Schonken 22:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am not yet persuaded; and I find the red color convenient for my watchlist. And if I were a sock-puppet, whose? Septentrionalis 02:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I meant wikipedia:sock puppet, which would imply - if you read that guideline - you might be perceived as being your own sockpuppet. --Francis Schonken 09:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)]

Comparing definitions

[A]rev At least since the late 17th Century, the word republic has meant, in common usage, those states which are not, formally, subject to a prince or monarch. The word has been, and in some contexts, still is, otherwise used; most of these definitions require that political power be derived from the people or some portion of them.

to:

[B] In a broad definition a republic is a state or country that is led by people that don't found their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country.

(please add pro's and con's as you think appropriate:)

[A]

pro's

  1. connects very well to a usual understanding of "republic"
  2. covers both sovereign and subordinate states, such as the constituent American states and the German Länder. (A set of some interest in this article; the American Constitution guarantees the States "a republican form of government".)
    1. Question: in English language: is the US (as a whole) considered a "state" or would it need to be named a "country"?
      1. The US is a state; for example, it is a member of the Organization of American States. In contexts not purely international, the term is unusual, to avoid confusion with the special meaning: 'State' = "member state of the American Union".
  3. reflects the parallelism between the Kingdom of Sweden, the Duchy of Saxony, the Republic of Venice.
  4. excludes subordinate non-republics,like the German and Indian princely States, and excludes States, like the Vatican, ruled by Princes of the Church.

con's

  1. uses "now" - encyclopedic writing tries to avoid such relative time indication (what is "now"? - has this "now" any significance when writing e.g. about the Roman Republic? When writing about Irak (Saddam Husseins Irak? G.W. Bush's Irak?)?)
    1. Conceded. [A] stands revised (now named [A]rev).
      1. "at least since late 17th century", appears to limit the applicability of this definition w.r.t. the Roman Republic - I suppose that in most modern writing the "Roman Republic" is considered a true "Republic" (e.g. in I, Claudius). The problem that remains with [A]rev is that it has more vague indicators than [B]: "At least since" (everything that happened before 17th century a "blank void"?); interpretation of "common usage" (where is the difference between common and non-common usage?), "formally" (and non-formally?), "some contexts" (which contexts?);... maybe good to consult Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms (which also reflects the basic wikipedia guideline of Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages).
        1. The definition [A] is a state not formally ruled by a prince or a monarch, which has been the only one in common use since the late XVIIth century; the rest of the sentence acknowledges that other obsolete and special definitions exist - which why I add a sentence explaining them. The word "republic" is not much older in English; the definition goes back at least to the High Renaissance in other languages.Septentrionalis 20:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Too dependent on the definitions used in the "prince" and "monarch" articles, e.g. "prince" is a very mixed-bag notion (I worked on the prince article some time ago); not even mentioning the discussion whether it is or is not a translation of princeps; the only meaning of "prince" the definition [A] would be interested in is the type of "prince" that is also a "monarch", and then the definition created a useless redundancy.
  3. Definition does not take account of the state/country ambiguities that exist, depending on where you are in the world (e.g. US: "state" means something completely different than using "state" w.r.t. to - for example - the Irish Republic)
    1. but this is an advantage. Septentrionalis 22:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. The definition does not even clarify half of the "de facto statuses" of the examples I gave, e.g.:
    1. The Julius Caesar/Caesar Augustus case: I wrote most of the following section in the Roman emperor article: Roman_emperor#The_first_Roman_Emperor - please have a look at that. Suetonius considered both to be a monarch; Tacitus considered Tiberius the first monarch after the Roman Republic properly speaking; Wikipedia articles differ in giving the date of the end of the Roman Republic... Isn't Roman Republic the literal translation of Res Publica Romana - with the [A] definition not shedding a shread of light on the transition from Republican to Imperial reign in ancient Rome (while indeed it depends on whether or not princeps is translated to prince...)?
      1. No, Roman republic does not translate respublica Romana. The latter ended in 1461, or possibly 1806. The former ended substantially when the Roman Empire began —whether it began with Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, or Sulla.Septentrionalis 22:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
        1. Well, than you'd have some work ahead rewriting all the articles related to Ancient Rome... Leave alone convincing your fellow-wikipedians that this minority view is the only correct one. See Res publica, I wrote a large part of that article.
          1. The intro to Roman republic says it ended in 44 or 27 BC. This is not a dispute over the definition of republic but over its application to the facts. (Yes, fine, other dates are defensible; I prefer 49 BC myself.)
          2. The Roman state referred to itself as res publica for as long as it continued to use Latin as an official language; see any work on Roman legislation or numismatics for examples. I have not yet checked, but I believe it was Diocletian who issued coins R[ei] Pub[licae] Vind[icator]. (Res publica quotes Augustine for the same sense.) Septentrionalis 20:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    2. Depending on how "monarch" is defined, e.g. Mobutu could be definitely be considered as a monarch, and then I don't mean so much his anti-democratic methods: I mean that he was a monarchial head of a clan in the North of Congo ("un roi nègre" in the sense of Le Petit Prince, ch. XVI), seizing power over the whole former Belgian colony...
      1. And that is precisely the argument that "Zaire" was not a republic....
        1. Question: according to the "initial definition" should Zaire fall under that definition as a "republic" or not in your view?
    3. etc...
  5. The [A] definition again sharpens the divide between "anti-royalist" and "political science" definitions of republic. It is my feeling that these two types of definitions are, in popular understanding, not as sharply opposed as some wikipedians would make one believe: in other words, a lot of arguing about a "marginal" difference, which can be avoided with a clever construction of the definition. I'm rather satisfied with the present version of the last paragraphs of the "heads of state" section of the article (starting with "the often assumed mutual exclusiveness..." etc) - what is your opinion, doesn't that cover a good and understandable account of that fairly useless discussion? Maybe also have a look at the republicanism article, that maintains that divide from the outset - is that more like you see it?
    1. I believe the "political science" definition is the attempt of an ideology to impose itself on common usage. It does not represent even a consensus of political scientists. Since it exists, it must be included, but not for more than its value. Septentrionalis 22:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
      1. Yes, Yes, that was my problem with SimonP - nonetheless I seem to still have a little more belief in the value of political scientists' approach than you do (in other words, I got a bit more convinced by SimonP's point of view), am I correct?
[B]

pro's

  1. A single definition (instead of a "set of definitions"), that covers as well most of the "non-monarch" angle definitions, and also does not annihilate what political scientists/philosophers said about republics (there's even compatibility with the "Kantian" definition). Anyhow it is my opinion that following the wikipedia:perfect article, as a working method to approach that ideal, it is often best to work on the bulk on an article first, then sometimes the wording of the "initial definition" pops up as a good summary of the rest of the article... How do you think about that?
    1. Was not intending to stop with intro; we can come back to this.Septentrionalis 22:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


con's

  1. A definition may have all the other virtues; but if it is not how a word is actually used, it is still pointless.Septentrionalis 22:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    1. Yes, here I agree with you. I'm, however, still convinced [B] is how most people actually & intuitively feel the thing, even if they usually don't sit down for half a day to think and write down a "wording" for how this is experienced. --Francis Schonken 08:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Double negation: note however that the [A] definition has a negation in the first sentence; the second sentence has a complex reference to all sorts of non-named exceptions to that negation... Is that better than a "double negation"?
  3. No *exact* copy of a definition one can read in other dictionary/encyclopedia type of works... but is that a "con"? In my view this would only be a "con" if wikipedia:cite sources could not be applied to it. The sources I referenced to are usual and standard works on history (though I'm still sorry some of these are in Dutch...). Anyway, this definition can not be accused to be wikipedia:copyvio.
  4. [B] does not exclude the Roman Empire; for what principle beyond the control of the populus Romanus is the Empire founded in?
    1. See e.g. Tacitus: in the Annals he describes Tiberius' coming to power as the result of inheriting power from his foster-father (other principle #1), and terror by immediately murdering the only other candidate for inheriting (Postumus, at that time in exile) and convicting in trial those who don't immediately agree with him ("terror" is other principle #2) - also the true exercing of power by the people at large in gatherings on the Mars field had been abandoned by the time of the Imperial form of government.
  5. Does [B] exclude either French Empire? The Second Empire was founded and ruled by plebiscite.
    1. Until Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, advocating the "religious" power of a subdue Roman Catholic delegate (other principle #1 in this case) and making clear he was installing a dynasty (e.g. making his relatives rulers over some domains of the Empire, and leaving no doubt he needed a son-successor; again "inheritance" as other principle, #2)
      1. Principle #1 would imply that seventeenth-Century Massachusetts, the Republic of Geneva, and other states which restrict the franchise on sectarian grounds were not republics [B]. This is a serious flaw.Septentrionalis 21:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      2. Principle #1 was very weak as a basis for Napoleonic power. Napoleon crowned himself; Pius VII was a spectator.
      3. Principle #2 argues that a monarchy is not a republic, which reduces to [A]. The choice of the Napoleonic dynasty, and the recognition of Louis Napoleon as heir to that dynasty (his legitimacy being in question) were both acts of the French people; so why is Second Empire not a republic [B]?


With the present state of pro's and con's my preference is still clearly the [B] solution. But let that not stop you from trying to convince me otherwise and/or improve your [A] proposition. --Francis Schonken 09:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Still the same after updates. Tip: try to get rid of the "weasel" aspects of the A definition; & see to it that it is applicable to the whole range of forms of government that are called "republic". --Francis Schonken 08:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I was perfectly happy with: Republic now means, in common usage, states not formally subject to a prince or monarch. Any weaseling has been added to meet your objections. Septentrionalis 20:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

monarchy

hahahaha....funny....hahaha

intro

The intro to this article is horrible. It's vacuous ...doesn't say anything. One doesn't have a clue of what a republic is by reading the intro. RJII 17:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Then feel free to edit it so that it does Septentrionalis 22:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It's true. The opening sentence, "In a broad definition a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country", starts with a clunky and unnecessary phrase, and defines Republic with a double negative. Many people won't get past this. (For example, my son, who often has trouble reading complex sentences, just paraphrased this for a school report as "A government that doesn't base it's power beyond control.") If it read "a republic is a government whose power depends completely on the consent of the people governed" it would be much better. I might be satisfied with "a republic is a state or country whose leaders' political power is based solely on control by its people," but I think that still beats around the bush. Tom Duff Sep 17/05.

I tweaked the intro to read better, to my ear. I hope I haven't changed the substance, except to make it clearer. The rest of the article is a train wreck, and I really don't have the time or the expertese to rewrite the whole thing. Tom Duff Sep 17/05 (later the same day).

The "Nationalism" topic

After working somewhat on the recent additions to the article yesterday, I had second thoughts about the "Nationalism" topic introduced into the article, so I decide to move it here for further discussion.

My basic objection is that Nationalism is probably not all that "typical" for republics, as the writer of these additions made it appear:

The experiences of the French and American revolution show the introduction of the next major strand to be woven in with Republicanism, that is Nationalism, the idea that people of a given culture and heritage share common characteristics which make them alike in their laws and customs. Nationalists argued, and aruge, that countries should be composed of people who share these common bonds and a national identity. The legacy of nationalism in the context of Republicanism is complex. On one hand it gave a principle of unity to replace loyalty to the crown, and an increased emphasis on democratic ideals as part of the standard to which a republic should adhere to, including universal male suffrage. On the other hand nationalism was, and still is, often associated with tendencies that are generally regarded as negative in the present: chauvinism and even racism. However, the most important aspect of nationalism at the time was the argument that a people needed a state which was their own.
It is this era which saw a series of revolts against the Spanish Empire in the new world, explicitly protected by the United States under the Monroe doctrine, and the beginnings of both separationist movements from established monarchies, and unificationist movements in Germany and Italy, neither of which were possessed of a central government.

My comments:

  1. The antecedents of Nationalism include, for instance, Colbertism, which was used to fortify the power of the monarch, with a "National" "Self Interest" argument.
  2. Nationalism was peaking in 19th century, to which "maybe" the 18th century Enlightenment philosophers contributed, but all in all Nationalism was equally strong in Monarchies as in Republics, e.g. Nationalism played a role in the (future) Belgians throwing out the Dutch king in 1830 - to be replaced by another monarch.
  3. The argument that "adherence to the monarch" was somehow replaced by "feelings of Nationalism" in Republics is an interesting way of looking at it - but I don't believe it's neccessarily true. Monarchs needed Nationalism to make their people adhere to their person, as much as republics needed Nationalism. The literature (and other arts) of the time do not show otherwise. "Nationalistic" literature in the 19th century (and beyond) implicitly or explicitly defended the own Nation, which was including the monarch when the author felt a monarchy was best, and excluding the monarch when the author felt otherwise. There is a lot of nostalgy for (idealised) monarchs of the past in the whole range of nationalistic art expression of the 19th century. Even George Washington appears to have fallen a victim of that nostalgic approach (which I didn't know, but only contributes to the point I try to make: "Nationalism" is in no way typical for republics)

Concluding: with a sound reference to some reliable author the "Nationalism" topic can be re-introduced in the article as something related to the topic of "republics as form of government", as far as I'm concerned, applying however proper "space and balance" (meaning: not taking too much space for such topic that only seems indirectly related) - thus far the evidence has not convinced me. --Francis Schonken 07:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

POV? Where

Please be specific as to the point of veiw sections you claim to have removed. My edits were strictly aimed at improving the readability of this article. As it is, this piece is difficult to read and has many many grammatical errors. Myself and a wiki admin have agreed to work on this edit in a collaborative effort. If you wish to respond to changes that WILL happen to this piece, I suggest you take your own advice and respond here in the talk page before making reverts that likely will be reversed. Thank you. Hamster Sandwich 13:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi,
A few examples:
  • Mixing up "republic" ("form of government") and "republicanism" (ideology) - there is a long history over this: please consult archives, on this topic particularly archive 6.
  • "The establishment of the republic as a form of government in the modern era invariably results from the overthrow of a more oppressive form of government." Questionable generalisation, e.g. Iran: the POV is in stating that the "Shah" was more "oppressive" than "sharia" (which might be true in the eyes of some, but as a generalisation is POV). Some "modern" republics were "created" by the soviet union, without any (not even formal) change in "oppressiveness", etc.
  • "Republics are created with the ideal of benefiting the populace." are they? There's a lot of historical evidence against this, some republics were primarily created to enrich an already rich upper class, without even an intention to make a difference for better or for worse for the "populace". So, POV.
  • "...the president [...] is the position of ultimate executive power." Not correct for Germany, Israel, and so many other republics. So, POV.
  • "Broadly defined, a republic is a state or country that is led by principles established by the state for the benefit of its own populace, independent of the political power of outside influences.": Principles are maybe implemented by a state, never established by a state, only people establish principles.
Apart from that, the sentence in this last example doesn't even define a republic: what is said about some republics in that sentence doesn't even apply to all republics (think e.g. Germany, just before second WW, which was still formally a republic, but wouldn't be so in your definition). Likewise, the sentence would apply to some kingdoms (I happen to live in such a kingdom), while likewise it is not applicable to other kingdoms. So basicly it doesn't say anything about the "definition" of a republic.
Note that this definition has bias towards a political science analysis of what a republic is, what often differs from other ways of understanding the term "republic", for instance the "common" way of not being a monarchy. There is a lot (and I mean a really great lot) of info and discussion about this political science POV in the archives.
So sorry if I have to present this article as being a bit of a minefield (I really wished it was otherwise). Even sysops have been blocked over it several times. So I'm not very impressed by your "sysop backup", and would like to invite you to use this talk page as much as you can prior to intrusive change. But really, that's up to you, you can really tackle this the way you prefer. Causing trouble will however only cause trouble, and in the long run probably not affect the article all that much.
Note that I didn't see much readibility improvements - but not all the deteriorations (like the "imputus) were due to you, I suppose)
And yes true, language of the article can be improved & simplified I suppose, certainly the pieces I wrote, since I'm not a native English speaker. Note that moving to "simple English wikipedia" is an option too, if you're that much in favour of "simple" use of language. Maybe also read this conversation with a guy tackling "language" improvements to an article I largely contributed to: Talk:Erik_Satie#Problem_sentences --Francis Schonken 19:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Large revert to bold anonymous efforts

First, original research is not permitted on wikipedia. Our job is not to define, but to capture. The definition you provided was inaccurate. There have been plenty of republics where the legislature was either subordinate, or a rubber stamp to an executive. While arguments over what is "properly" a republic go on and on, it is the mode of wikipedia to document, not decide, these controversies - though placing relative weight on viewpoints given their prevalence and solidity in general usage. Stirling Newberry 02:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Stirling, thanks for your interest in this article!
I'm not sure who you meant by the "you" in the second sentence of your comment above, but I take it you meant the "anonymous editors" spreading some vandalism every now and then. Yeah, this article is subject to such deteriorating "efforts" every now and then.
Note that many of the "political science" definitions of republics are POV, while reflecting an ideology. That's not a problem, that can go in the article, but it's not a good idea to select "one" of these political science definitons of a republic, and present it as a "neutral" definition of republics in the intro paragraphs. There's a separate section for the political science approaches to republics. And there's a separate article republicanism for the more "ideology"-coloured approaches in that sense.
Syria identifies itself as a republic; that state has a form of government, so the general definition of what a republic is, should not pre-emptively exclude this type of state. In most Western Political Science approaches Syria would not be described as a republic, so that goes in the Political Science section.
Please look around a bit on this talk page, the issue has been treated several times before. --Francis Schonken 07:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

How about a change to this argument. Because this word is bastardized so much, How about three articles on a republic Classical definition. Renaisance definition and a Modern definition. The definition of the OED is a modern defintion NOT recognized by the damn Greeks who invented that form of government.

WHO INVENTED IT? Answer that---You can't.WHEELER 18:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Appendix 4

This excerpt is important for understanding of the transformation of the word 'republic'.

  • "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, tosee 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. Niccolò Machiavelli as quoted in Republics Ancient and Modern, Paul A. Rahe, University of North Carolina Press. Vol II, pg 291. from: http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Classical_definition_of_republic/References#Appendix_4

This excerpt clearly says that the meaning of the word was purposely changed. You need to take this into account.WHEELER 20:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Aristotle noticed that the republic (politiea) was a product of the military caste system. Cicero in his De republica, says that "Distinction of rank" is an essential element of a republic. Where is this in this article????WHEELER 15:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wheeler, I have a proposition: the Republic article does not summarize all the thoughts of all political thinkers on republics. The De re publica article, about Cicero's dialogue, is however linked from the section "In antiquity" from the Republic article (Republic#In antiquity). A long time ago I worked on the article about Cicero's De re publica, but that article still needs a lot of work: for instance there isn't even a real content summary of that dialogue yet. So that article doesn't even make the slightest allusion to "Distinction of rank" or how Cicero thought about republics, etc...
So I invite you to help complete the De re publica article: if it gets a good summary of the content of Cicero's text, at least the link from the Republic article to the De re publica article would start to make sense, and maybe after that we might start to think about improving the Republic article, if there is more to be said about Cicero's text than there is now.
Similarly, the article on Aristotle's Politica might benefit from some extention, for example, I don't know presently whether Aristotle's Politica is rather a book about political theory than a book describing existing states and countries. Note that Aristotle never used the word "republic" and that the word politeia does not fully correspond with "republic", nor even with the Latin res publica, which can have a host of meanings in Latin texts, only a few of them corresponding with something we would today call "republic".
Also, I invite you to start the Republics in political theory article, now linked from the Republic article, but not started yet. Also when such article is completed it might help in an improvement of the Republic#Republics in political theory section, etc..., etc... Don't get too fixed on the Republic article itself (it is already over 30 kB, so it would normally not be made any longer any more) - there are possibilities enough to unleash your creativity and scholarship. --Francis Schonken 21:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I got to think on it. Usually, if I comment on something without it being from a professor or a book it gets deleted and I do not know any straight commentary on Res publica of Cicero. Of if any commentary would catch that "distinctions of rank".WHEELER 23:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is still horrible.

Unclear and imprecise. Please revise it further.

"Broadly defined, a republic is a state or country that is led by principles established by the state for the benefit of its own populace, independent of the political power of outside influences.

This article will attempt to explain in two sections what specifically chacterizes a republic and the republican form of government. The first section will discuss in detail the republican form of government and offers some examples of different types of republicanism. The second section will provide a more comprehensive profile of some of these influential republics. List of republics.

(There is a third section about the history of how people came to think about several forms of government as republics. This section is a summary of what is in the republicanism article.)"

From a rewrite I did July 31st. Some seems to have remained, while other bits have been added to. I agree now and I agree then that the prose style of this piece is lacking, hard to understand andit seems to be redunant of itself in several sections. Peer review? It couldn't hurt, it could only help. Hamster Sandwich 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So that's it? You're all more or less satisfied with this piece?
Compare with my long discussion with Francis at the top of the page. The header has improved: it's still failing to correctly describe English usage, but at least it's not prescriptive about it. Septentrionalis 00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Article is still horrible

I'm sorry to be so critical, but this article is horrible and shows no sign of improving in the near future. It is boring, poorly written and far too long for the sparse information it contains. As with so many other controversial WikiPedia articles, in an attempt to satisfy everyone you've managed to put together something so vague, so broad and so nonspecific that it fails to capture anything.

WHEELER may indeed be a lunatic but his unilateral piece on WikiInfo is vastly superior to the combined efforts put forth here. It is well written, well researched and packed densely with information. It is a joy to read. I suggest you people swallow your pride and admit the inferiority of your work, apologize to WHEELER, and--with his permission--adopt his piece as your own.

No comments? What, have I shamed you all into silence?

I agree w you. Sam Spade 00:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that there may be reasons to worsen WP to make a point, but I think that would be a trifle excessive. The present text has at least some relation to actual consensus usage. Septentrionalis 00:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To the response of the anonymous contributor above. Thanks for your generous comment. Wikipedians can bring it back at anytime and do with it whatever they want and make it conform to Wikipedian policies----SO LONG---as it is referenced back to Wikinfo the original article at the bottom of the page.WHEELER 23:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Understanding the shift in meaning

Do you know why you are having so much trouble defining this term??? The term "Republic" has undergone a Revolution within the form. Check it out for it will soon be deleted.WHEELER 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Will Durant in his Life of Greece describes the mixed government of Sparta on pages 79-81. "It was the boast of ancient conservatives that the Lycurgan constitution endured so long because the three forms of government-monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy-were united in it and in such proportions that each element nuetralized the others against excess." Will Durant backs up to what I have been saying.
Second, you need to read A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History by A. H. J. Greenidge. First written in 1896, reprinted in 1911 and republished in 2001. I just started reading it!!!
"History has shown that such forms of government are suited to a common-sense non-idealistic people: the Phoenicians of Carthage, the Dorians of Greece, Romans, and Englishmen have all developed this type of polity." pg 76. So the Classical definition of a republic that you people deleted is confirmed by this man. He has a whole chapter and the inference of this sentence alone confirms everything in that article. He has a huge chapter on mixed government.WHEELER 01:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
None of these quotes are about republics. They are describing mixed government, which is not the same thing as republic. - SimonP 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me remind you what a "politiea" is "The definition he (Aristotle) gives for this kind of government is a "politean"; the form intermediate between a democracy and an oligarcy, which is termed a republic, (mesi de touton in kalousi politeian) for the government is constituted from the class that bears arms."
The Romans titled "politeia" as Republic.
Cicero called Sparta a Republic.
Nicolo Machiavelli called Sparta a Republic.
The Federalist Papers called Sparta a Republic to wit: "Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind."
Xenephons discourse on the Spartan constitution was once labeled "Republic of Lacedeamonian.
Cicero in his "de republica" wrote: Laelius: There is no government to which I should more quickly deny the title of commonwealth than one in which everything is subject to the power of the multitude....I cannot see how the name of commonwealth would be any more applicable to the despotism of the multitude." Vol #213, pg 221-223. He is speaking of democracy.
Countless people have labeled Sparta a Republic. That is the official title of "mixed government".WHEELER 16:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Note what Cicero states in De re publica 1, 45: "itaque quartum quoddam genus rei publicae maxime probandum esse sentio, quod est ex his quae prima dixi moderatum et permixtum tribus." A mixed government, to Cicero, was merely one of four different forms of republic. All mixed governments are republics, but not all republics are mixed governments. - SimonP 17:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That is correct. Cicero wrote in his De republica that:
Quote:
a kingdom can be a commonwealth as can be an aristocratic government but denies that a simple multitude is a commonwealth. De re publica, Loeb. Vol #213, pg 223.
See, a monarchy exists with the aristocracy and the commons. Monarchy presupposes a class/caste system. That is why Cicero wrote what he did. It is a commonwealth for it is a society of mixed individuals of different status that combine under the leadership of a monarch; who is the "Father" of the nation.
Again, an aristocracy presupposes a class/caste system. Aristocracy, like monarchy, does not exist by itself. It presupposes a state with commons also. That is why Cicero included aristocracy as a commonwealth.
Again, a classical republic is one that includes royalty, aristocracy and the commons. It is a commonwealth. Classical republics presuppose a class/caste system. Society is made up of classes.
To see that the first thing a republic is "one without a monarch" in the Wikipedian article, and you have Cicero, A Roman Lawyer, who wrote a treatise on the Roman Word "Republic" says that a Republic can be a Monarchy, buggers the mind. Yet your article states that it can not be. Aristotle said, "A state with all persons alike is not a state." Cicero by inference is echoeing Aristotle and the rest of the Greeks when they conceive of a polity that has numerous citizens involved. It goes to Cicero (and probably Diearchus treastise the "Tripoliticus") with Distinctions of Rank. Without distinctions of rank, (a caste system or social classes) there is no commonwealth.WHEELER 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Cicero was not talking about republics, he was talking about res publica. As our articles make clear, the two terms have quite different meanings. - SimonP 01:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the Latin 'res publica' could (by Cicero's time) just refer to "the state of affairs" or a constitution; it had acquired meanings other than just the initial definition of a 'res' that was 'publica'. Hence for Cicero to refer to the respublica of Sparta was not necessarily an assertion that Sparta was not a res privata or that the core meaning of res publica was never a state without a monarch.--Nema Fakei 02:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You dance and you dance and you still can't get it right. You are mangling history, reading too much into words that it becomes nonsense. I grant that things are complex but they are also simple. You are making it so complex that you need a doctorate to understand what they heck is going on. I go to six articles "Res publica", "Classical republic" "Classical Republicanism" "Republic", "Mixed Government" so on and so forth. No sixth grader can follow this. You have gone to an extreme of complexity and sophistication that knowledge is now impossible. This is what goes on when there is so much "academia" and no commonsense involved. You are attempting to squeeze this word thru a sphincter hole of minutae that the original idea is lost in the process.
Scipio: "You understand, then, that not even a State whichis entirely in the control of a faction can truly be caled a commonwealth? (Laelius: yes) Vol #213, pg 221.
This quote again goes to Aristotle saying that commonwealths are defined by NOT having a dominant factor. Face it, Romans are NOT original thinkers, they were not philosophers by any stretch of the imagination. Cicero is not an original thinker; Cicero copied Greek ideas. There is nothing new in "de republica" that hasn't been said by Plato, Aristotle, or Diearchus(spelling is atrocious).
In the "complex" you have to remember the simple. But then again, you have to be an ancient Greek to understand that.
Besides that, you are transporting modern thought back into ancient thought. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and any of the Roman writers----none were egalitarians. you are transporting your egalitarian, humanist thought back into Greek and Roman history.WHEELER 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Again I want to point out to all the writers in the "Republic" area. The Term "Republic" has undergone a shift in meaning....purposely. To understand this you must understand this Revolution within the form. It is going to be deleted soon, So I point you to this so that you may understand what is going on. You can not write an encyclopeadic article without taking this into consideration. All your difficulty is because you don't take that into account.WHEELER 01:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:DNFT. Septentrionalis 04:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
A troll does not have over 110 footnotes to an encyclopaedic article. References to the classical definition of a Republic. Another short article I have written has 28 footnotes. Trolls don't have footnotes to their articles. Trolls don't get praise like the above section. All I try to do is to spread information. My saying: "Knowledge is like manure, it does no good piled in a heap; it only does good when spread around." Just trying to get information out there.WHEELER 23:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Why have two different words for the same thing: Republic and Democracy. This Wikipedian Article actually says that "Democracy" and "Republic" are the same thing??? What is a purpose of a definition??? Is it not to identify it singularly??? Is it not to differentiate it from other things??? Why not merge this article with Democracy??? Why not have Republic be defined thusly??? The point of an encyclopaedia is to DEFINE; to seperate it from something it is not. A republic is a Democracy that is what this article says!!!!

Furthermore how is a republic in the Kyklos??? How come with all your political science you can't fit this term into any of your articles??? Where is a Republic in the Kyklos system and methodology??? What you mean to tell me that there are only three forms of government "monarchy" "aristocracy/oligarchy" and "Democracy/Republicanism"??? Where is this "fourth" type of government?? What is Bicameralism??? and how does it fit in??? Can a democracy be bicameral??? Can a republic be unicameral??? How does "synoecism" affect a republic??? Where is the connection??? And what is the official title of "mixed government"??? Isn't what is meant "mixed government" a Republic???WHEELER 23:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this area controlled by British republicans??? Where is the American interpretation?? Why is this socialist humanist definition approved??? Do you know the real problem---The Classical definition of republic and Revolution within the form attacks and undermines the very basis of British republicanism. British republicanism is based on a lie. Your very foundation is based on a revolutionary tactic that changed the meaning of a word. In other words, Republicanism, Modern, is totally false. These two articles undermine your whole ideology and threaten your ideological basis. They are a threat to your world view.WHEELER 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't quite work out whom you are addressing. I feel like I'm looking at one half of a heated telephone conversation. --Nema Fakei 16:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Answer some of those questions---Where is the "kyklos" used in any article dealing with republic???
Answer Where is the concept "synoecism" used in the destruction of the classical republics?
Answer Where is the description on how the Cretan republics worked? Where is Sparta's Republic described? How did the republican form erupt in Sparta and in Britain 1300 years later?
Answer Is not the official title of "mixed government" titled Republics???
None of your articles answer these questions. NONE.
You have Republic, Republicanism, Classical republic, Classical republicanism, politeia, res publica, mixed government, All talking about the same subject. And in all of these subject material you miss a very important concept which Socrates talks about in Plato's The Republic which is dikaios. Dikaios is the central philosophical and ideological feature behind republicanism. How the hell you can write copious articles on the subject of republicanism and miss the most essential element of the classical republics is beyond me. I don't have a @##@#% college degree but you people with all your copious letters after your name can't get it right. There is not a single mention of dike in mixed government, in your res publica, in your politiea, or in your classical republicanism or classical republics. How you can write with accuracy and truth on a subject when you miss the MOST essential and defining feature of the republican form of government and how it bloody works is beyond me. You have NO understanding of ancient governments and societies. You don't mention that Machiavelli purposely changed its meaning and workings. How humanists have changed the term. Yet all your SEVEN articles do is back up British republicanism. British republicanism is only socialism in disguise. British republicanism's main ideological and philosophical raison d' etre is egalitarianism!!!!! British republicanism is only democracy. Yet, you have managed to write seven articles all defining republic as defending British republicanism which is ONLY democracy in disguise. SimonP is a democrat. You are all democrats. Yet you have construed the word to be democracy. WHEELER 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The word politeia has two connotations, it means "constitution" and then a form of government a "republic". Rackman translates the word "politiea" as republic. Just like the word arete (excellence) is most of the time translated as virtue without the adjective "ithiki" before it.WHEELER 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Please! I think you may be confusing me with someone else. I've not written any of those articles. I'm not necessarily even vouching for their accuracy or completeness. All I have done is made a few observations, as a classicist and a philologist, about the meanings and uses of words.
However, I want to help. I think (hope?) that some of these issues can be resolved with some calm reflection on the concepts we are trying to get across. Hopefully, we can agree on a few principles.
Firstly, words can have more than one meaning across time and at any given time, even within any given work.
Secondly, words acquire and lose new meanings, connotations and usages over time for a great many reasons.
Thirdly, when translating (across language or time), we cannot guarantee that the translation will be able to fully convey any or all of the concepts within the range of meanings the original had, nor can we guarantee that translations will not add unwanted connotations.
I hope these are fairly agreeable statements; if you want to delve further, by the way, the field you're looking for is pragmatics.
Now, more specifically, I understand that many of your objections are that the concepts that Plato (in particular) explored are absent, correct? On that, I would agree: Plato needs to be acknowlegded as one of the most important influences and one of the earliest writers on political (cum philosophical) theory.
However, we must remember that the word republic is an English word (albeit derived from Latin - but then so is the majority of our vocabulary). WP should define it first as an English word. Note that I'm not saying that the current definition is correct. WP should at the outset include its etymology, which should link to a discussion of the original and subsequent classical meanings of res publica - which may or may not be within the Republic article itself.
Now - and I would very much you to regard each of the points as seperate and severable, in the legal sense - when we come to original definitions of words, we must take care to select the meaning of word at the point of coinage, and then note any substantial early developments in meaning. For example, the word integer originally meant untouched (from the privative prefix in-, the verb stem -teg-, and the adjectival suffix -er). However, it acquired numerous meanings, including 'complete', which was later used in a mathematical context and became a technical word. We would assume that analysis of the word should include this information (apart from perhaps the composite morphology I have bracketed).
Just so with words like Republic and Politeia. These words hae been used by any number of authors across the millenia; some have conserved meanings, some have added meanings or connotations, some have simply not used certain meanings, some have even eschewed newer uses in favour of more original meanings. I'm not saying any of these practices are good or bad: I'm just noting the phenomena.
Ok, let's get a bit more specific again. Plato is well known for using words in very technical sense. Let's take one example. The word κύκλος originally meant something like 'circle'. In literature, it developed the meaning which we call the 'Epic Cycle', beginning (arguably) with the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, and stretching out across the beginning Trojan war, the Iliad, Aethiopis, Odyssey, and so on. Plato gave it another meaning, a political meaning: it became the name for a one of his political theories. Our word cycle is not so technical. We can use it technically, in contexts, but it is at heart a generic term.
Likewise, Plato developed his theories using common Greek words, ascribing to those words specific definitions as he went. Hence, in Plato and certain amounts of Aristotle and Hellenistic philosophy, words like κύκλος, αρετη and δικη had connotations like 'δικη as defined by Plato', as opposed to the everyday concept of law or justice (which, incidentally, seems to have begun as a concept closer to the English word 'revenge'). However, we must be careful: at no point did the man on the street look at a juror - a δικαστης - and think 'tripartite division of the soul', or something along those lines. And so, even within political and philosophical theory, δικη could still be used to mean justice in the everyday sense. Indeed, they too, were free to go their own way, and instead of using δικη for Plato's idiosyncratic use of the term, could air their own views on what justice meant.
So what is the upshot of this for the word republic? Well, I'm going to have to leave you to ponder that one for a bit, because I have to go; hopefully, I'll have the time tomorrow to make it more explicit. In any case, do bear these ideas in mind, and I hope they help to address some of the misunderstandings that we've been having.
I realise I'm doing this somewhat laboriously, by the way, but I do find that even the simplest things sometimes benefit from a fuller consideration. --Nema Fakei 01:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
My point is that none of these articles pointed out, describe Ancient republics. Any student who came across the word "republic" describing Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome, neither of the multitudinous WP articles describe ancient Republics. Not a single one. SimonP divorces "mixed government" from "Classical republic" and he is allowed. This is a major faux pax. No one does anything to correct it either.
Definitions, Nema, must be good to describe the word in time and its historical context. This has not been done. And they can not answer.WHEELER 00:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"...and when all the power is in the people's hands, even though they excercise it with justice and moderation, yet the resulting equality itself is inequitable, since it allows no distinction of rank." De re publica, Cicero, trans. by Clinton Walker Keyes, Loeb Classical Library, 2000. Vol #213, pg 67.
"The distinction of ranks, which we find existing in the Arcadian towns, may be satisfactorily explained by the opposition between the city, properly so called (polis), and the country villages (demos, komai), which in later times most of the Arcadian cities, ...incorporated with themselves." (Synoecism) The History of the Doric Race, Müller, Vol. II pg 68-69. Where is this "distinction of rank" anywhere discussed in the multitudinous articles here at Wikipedia??? does anybody read anymore???WHEELER 00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll reiterate that I'm not making any judgement, positive or negative, about other users' comments, and articles resulting from others' edits. I'm just making observations
Right, then. I think we need to be more discerning than to try to . Of the examples you have given, only Rome was contemporaneously called a respublica (to different effect over time). Calling Sparta (at its peak, at least) a republic is anachronistic, and as far as I'm aware, the Spartans spoke Greek, not Latin. They would have described their government as a πολις, or a πολιτεια at a stretch: they, like Plato, certainly would not have used the word republic/respublica.
In the case of Rome, the word respublica was born of, and was originally intended to mean, the state of affairs after the Tarquins: the res was now publicus - "of the populus", rather than privatus. Of course, as the Roman state developed, the word respublica, tied to the post Tarquin state, began to move with it, and, in addition to just meaning a res that was publica, it also meant the Roman state in the time of the speaker (or whatever time the speaker is idolising). Thus, to a 300BC Roman, the respublica was Rome as it was in 300BC, while to Cicero, the respublica was Rome as it was in about 70BC. Finally, during the principate, the word respublica split again: it was either the Roman state at the time of the speaker, or Rome as it was before Caesar et.al. got to it (or just a res that was publica).
What, you ask, is the student to do on seeing the word "republic"? Aside from attending more to the left hand page of the Loeb than to the right, the student should look up Republic_(Plato), Sparta#Constitution, Roman_Republic, Solon, History of Crete lacks the information you're asking for. Feel free to expand on these articles, by the way. Just be careful to use the words appropriate to the subject in a manner comprehensible to the reader - avoid the idiosyncratic definitions of Plato (+Cicero?), except when discussing those concepts directly.
But if you're saying the student needs WP to provide an analysis of the words politeia and respublica and account for every context in which it arises, I would disagree. Something like that is the subject of an article in a classical journal or of a PhD - there's enough material!
I'm guessing that's not the case, though. I'm guessing you just want WP to be clear, relevant, and, ideally, complete. The best way to do that (it seems to me, at least) is to start with facts. Ensure the known and functioning elements of each system (e.g. dual kingship, voting procedures) in the articles. Then look at how they've been categorised by authors like Herodotus, Plato, Cicero, and more modern scholars (bearing in mind the authors' own POVs and the possible meanings of words in each case). Everything that can be said about what you term classical republics can be said in the articles on those constitutions themselves.
Now, we need to ask how much we accept the term 'classical republic' as a significant and verifiable category. It's one thing to note the major claims of prominent classical authors about political theory, quite another to endorse them. The only reason we're able to classify countries as republics in any sort of consistent/NPOV manner is simply by taking our classification by name: in practice, the term is arbitrary and optional for most nations, and it doesn't mean a thing about the way the country's constitution really works.
If we applied the same principle to ancient republics, we'd find, as I have said, that only one called itself a respublica: the definition of a classical republic would be very small: a redirect to Rome. The only alternative is to categorise them by analysing their political workings - but whose definition of 'republic' do you follow? Plato's definition of his ideal politeia? Cicero's usage of respublica? Müller's republic? de Ste Croix's? The modern definition? And how loosely do we interpret the definition we do pick?
My answer is that by making such broad decisions and trying to directly infer such relationships is, however reasonable, original research. I say that because I look at your posts and edits to the aforementioned effect and they do look like just the sort of thing that you can find in classical journals... say "Readings in Cicero, De Re Publica: Echoes of Plato in Doric constitutions", or something of the like. Hence, the only option (as far as I can see) is not to try to make judgements about the equivalences of constitutions, just to describe them as an encyclopaedia ought.
What do I propose, then?
One, a clear use of language: avoid the word republic (where possible) except where defining the term. State, government, constitution, and polis cause less confusion, and make more sense in English. Respublica and politeia should be treated similarly. If you want to comment on their use in other articles, try to contextualise: e.g. "Cicero considered Sparta to be a [[Republic#Etymology|res publica]] (a term which gives us our word republic) and drew favourable comparisons with Plato's ideal state he defines in his Republic."; not "Sparta was a republic, which in classical times actually meant a mixed government."
Two, expansion of any articles on the states in question. There's no point talking about the division of government in any article on Republics if there is no information on constitutions whose government was divided.
Three, expansion of classsical political theory pages. I don't mean creating pages on theories about classical politics, I mean improving pages on classical works, like Republic_(Plato). Modern theorists' pages should also contain summaries of their stances.
Four, a section within the Republic article, briefly outlining the history of the word and its uses, possibly including links to classical poltical theoris and similar concepts, like polis. The section on the word's history should be linked to from the initial definition.
But please do suggest alternative plans, or modifications to the above. I would like to see a consistent and accurate resolution to the problems of the various articles involved.--Nema Fakei 00:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Democracy and Republic

Is there any difference between democracy and republic and if yes what are they? Sauron 11:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the Renaissance, at least, republic has meant any state that is not ruled by an monarch - with disagreements about what both "ruled" and "monarch" mean. This need not be a democracy: see oligarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy. Conversely, it is normal to hold that Great Britain is a democracy, but not a republic. Septentrionalis 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article does not answer this, it needs work badly. Septentrionalis 03:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks they were helpful. I also found some other difference in net. It says In democracy, the majority rules. Individual rights does not count but in republic, even if an individual loses in voting,etc yet still his individual rights counts.[ http://www.tmra2.org/images/democracyvsrepublic.pdf 1].for example, U.S.A is a republic but not a democracy. Sauron 10:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In defining the differences between both and differentiating the two forms of goverment, I offer this Wikinfo:Classical republics and democracy contrasted. This should help in clarifying things and ending confusion.WHEELER 18:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional republic

Anyone want to help develop Constitutional republic? I'm amazed that this article didn't exist until I just created it, as it's the form of state for the U.S. RJII 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic/Archive_8&oldid=583243798"