Talk:List of republics

Republic

What about the Republic of Ireland?

What about the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago? could we also see, head of state ie, president, prime minister, etc.listed next to the name of the country.

Map

How about gettiung a map together? like the one for the Monarchy article? Although, it would be more populated... 88.106.186.34 18:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Indian nationalists

SOmeone should put a stop to the indian nationalist revisionist attack on wikipedia. THeir touchups in democracy, republic, and corporate hitsory is dishonest and undocumented. Outside of explorartory articles dealing with the respective topics they have no proof whatsoever to their statements.

Indiscriminate List

This article contains no citations. In addition, it's categorization scheme seems wp:or. What is the difference between a "Peoples Republic", a "Socialist Republic" and the states listed here as "Democratic Republics"? In addition, the list itself is indiscriminate. What does the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have in common? One is generally considered a republic, but doesn't have the word "republic" in its name. One is generally not considered a republic, but has "republic" in its name. As it stands, this article could be renamed "self-proclaimed republics" or perhaps "Non-Monarchies".--Work permit 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The present meaning, as the OED puts it is: 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. In other words, "self-proclaimed republic" is right; see also WP:NPOV on self-identification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps some sections need to be clarified, for example, Unitary republics are unitary states which claim to be governed constitutionally as one single unit, with a single constitutionally created legislature. To make the point clear, should this article be renamed list of self-proclaimed republics? Finally, can you name a couple of nations today that do not claim to be either a republic or a monarchy? --Work permit 00:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not, I think, helpful; if anything, a note in the lead, that we list states by what they say they are. Other than the Vatican City State and Andorra, what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Andorra is a Principality, which is a Monarchy led by someone with the title of prince. Can you name another example?

The chiefs of the Andorran state are the Bishop of Urgel and the President of France; if they are monarchs, so is the Pope. But I have no idea what other one you have in mind; presumably some state which claims to have evolved past republicanism. Libya? Myanmar? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just checking a hypothesis that most nations that are not self-proclaimed republics are monarchies, so I was looking for some counter-examples. The Vatican (a theocracy) seemed like a special case, so I was wondering of there were any others. Andorra is a good counter example. It's a principality with two co-princes: One a bishop and one an elected president of another nation.--Work permit 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, under which heading should I put the Italian Social Republic--Work permit 00:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)?

A heading of its own; "socialist republic" would be amusing, but I agree that it is technically wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've included it in the general heading (as well as the slovak republic, and rhodesia) for now.--Work permit 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the special category of Constitutional republics with the United States the only entry? I assume most republics on this list have some sort of "constitution". Assuming no objections, I'll delete it.--Work permit 01:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

America is a psuedo republic that ended in 1913. It is a democracy now. It never was a true republic without an true aristocracy and distinctions of rank which Cicero points out! In 1913, the voting for the Senate changed from the State legislators to that of the people. From its beginning America is a psuedo-repubic.WHEELER 01:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Accroding to the premise in this thread, a republic is any nation claiming to be. If North Korea is a republic, so is the United States--Work permit 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sparta Republic Debate

I've organized the sparta debate under this heading--Work permit 02:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson rv

Why is Pmanderson reverting this page, when the edit has a Reference! Nothing and I mean not a single one has any reference except the one I added on Sparta. There are references! And he reverts? I don't think so. WHEELER 03:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I will answer this, once. WHEELER's "references" are copied from two sources:

• a "thousand page fantasia" from 1824, about how the beautiful, strong-limbed, blond Dorians invented civilization. Even if Karl Otfried Mueller were not a crank, this would be too dated to be useful to us; not a reliable source.
• A three-volume tract by a Carolina professor who believes that the American Union has been decaying since the Constitutional Convention met. Fortunately, it is still easy to give due weight to the adherents of John C. Calhoun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the references Niccolos Machiaveli called Sparta a republic. It is. Alexander Hamilton called Sparta a republic. Actually if you look, Pmanderson, Karl Otfried Muller called Sparta an Aristocracy not a republic nor mixed government. He had no concept of the term. But like a good German who is very detail oriented AND not afraid to let others speak, he quotes Cicero. All Prof. Muller did was repeat what Cicero said. More than you people will do.WHEELER 23:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the case of Wikipedians NOT following the policy of Wikipedia NPOV. I have references. It also seems that the powers that be----have not googled the term "Sparta and Republic". The original French Encyclopaedia had the Article "Sparta, republic of". There was another from 1837 in America. Here is the list of the term Republic with the term Sparta: http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/List_of_sources_identifying_Sparta_as_a_republic. Notice that I have pulled up quotes from four different websites currently as of 2000 that call Sparta a republic. It is all there referenced for you. You don't have to work at all---not that you have done any research or work on this matter at all.WHEELER 11:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cicero reference is not useful, as the term res publica does not mean the same thing as the English term republic. The Rahe reference is also not useful. He doesn't use the term republic, only mixed government, which everyone other than WHEELER acknowledges are two difference concepts. Sparta could still be considered a republic. The most basic definition of republic is not a monarchy, and as a diarchy Sparta could thus qualify. This could be why Hamilton and Machiavelli feel free to call it so. However, modern scholars would not use this terminology. Until there are some references from recent peer reviewed works of scholarship that call Sparta a republic, it should be left of this list. - SimonP 12:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, YOU ARE WRONG. Paul A. RAHE does use the term republic with Sparta: "At the same time, however, Lacedæmonia was a republic." (Rahe, pg 169). I don't know how many times I posted that, but you are certainly WRONG. Rahe DOES use the term republic!

Second, you moderns have changed the term and definition of republic. That is NOT the definition of the Classical term republic. Where do you find that definition "not a monarchy" in classical literature? Plato imitates, Aristotle uses the word Mixed, Cicero, a Roman Lawyer uses the term Mixed, Polybius says mixed.

Third, this "from recent peer reviewed works of scholarship that call Sparta a republic, it should be left of this list" IS NOT WIKIPEDIA policy!!! Show me where that is SimonP. What recent peer veviewed work labelled any of those places as republics?

Where are the MODERN SCHOLARLY WORKS that state each and every state you have on there as a republic? Where? You are making the rules tougher for me but every body else gets a free pass?WHEELER 13:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This page does need references for the others listed, but none of the others are contested. When multiple users doubt the veracity of a fact, it is perfectly common to demand more evidence. As to your other point, if you reject the modern definition of the word republic, you shouldn't be working on this article, nor the republic page. There are two classical terms that can be translated as republic: res publica and politeia. Wikipedia has articles on both of them clearly outlining what they mean. - SimonP 14:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In your last argument of 12:02, 16 June 2007 SimonP, I have refuted every one of your charges and your bogus statement that it has to come from peer reviewed works of scholarship. I have done that with Paul A. Rahe and with Taggert. Also did a google search; Sparta has come up numerous times as a republic. What you are doing SimonP is that after I refute all your arguments----you change the goalposts. You keep advancing and changing the bar. Truth is not subject to the Majority. You may hate that Sparta is a republic---But the evidence is there. I have done posted enough evidence.WHEELER 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The first words of Wikipedia:Verifiability state that truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Googling is not scholarship; and WP:NPOV forbids us to give equal time, much less more time, to extreme minority views, like Rahe's. As for Mueller's fantasies, they are no longer scholarship; they were dubious in 1824. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That being said, I can see a case for including links to res publica and politeia, if not here, then at Republic. If WHEELER will stop reverting, and Simon permits it, I shall insert them. If he will not yield to consensus, he will be reverted, and eventually blocked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• You just can't stop learning at WP. A facinating discussion here. I propose a compromise as added at [[1]]. Perhaps some of the discussion above could be condensed into a footnote to accompany the entry. --Kevin Murray 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I can agree with that. That is fine! I had the references. All I wanted is that Sparta be included in the list and the Cretans.WHEELER 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Including Sparta, as long as there are several caveats, is fine by me. The current wording is still a bit clunky, but it will do. - SimonP 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There we are; I hope the present phrasing is less clunky. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WHERE IS THE NEGOTIATION

I am here. I see that now the article has been changed. I don't agree. They can't even make up their own f#%#@$%# mind. Is Sparta a Monarchy now? Or an Oligarchy? And England? No. Sparta is Republic!!!! Where the negotiation? I see none!WHEELER 21:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am here Pmanderson. I have given enough copious amounts of evidence and quoted extensively. I am not leaving until the word Sparta is on that page. You may want to add caveats, I am open to that. But you must also recognize evidence and verifiability.WHEELER 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't take off Sparta and leave Athens. Was Athens a republic under the leadership of Psitratus?WHEELER 21:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If Athens is there WITHOUT caveats---Then Sparta must be there as well.WHEELER 21:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am NOT accepting the current edit!WHEELER 21:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• We have a new compromise which gets Sparta on the list and seems to satisfy PMA. A concern expressed in a side discussion is that the footnotes were too cumbersome and detailed for a list format. This could be true. Maybe the information in the footnotes could be included in text or footnotes at the Sparta article. I find the information interesting. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 22:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As for having Sparta without caveats: any version that implies that Sparta did not have kings differs from all the authorities, including the ones WHEELER wishes to quote. Suggesting falsehood is WP:SYNTH. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • What is "PMA"? I accept the compromise. But I want to add the city states of Crete because that is where Sparta got it from in the first place. As to kings, All the Classical republics were started under kings, to wit:

Muller states that King Minos of Crete instituted this direction and that only in the 6th century BC did the Cretans remove their kings.

Sparta kept her kings throughout the lifetime of the commonwealth.

And Cicero marks the beginning of the Roman commonwealth when Romulus "gave complete obedience to the auspices" and the foundation of the Senate. It was after he had adopted this policy that Romulus first discovered and approved the principle which Lycurgus had discovered at Sparta a short time before—that a State can be better governed and guided by the authority of one man, that is by the power of the king, if the influence of the State's most eminent men is joined to the ruler's absolute power." De re publica, Loeb. Vol #213, pg 123-125.

Furthermore Cicero says, He also writes that a kingdom can be a commonwealth as can be an aristocratic government but denies that a simple multitude (a democracy) is a commonwealth. "[And indeed many of the arguments] cited to prove that a kingdom is a commonwealth, "property of the people", could be applied [with equal justice to an aristocratic government]." 2nd citation is above this on same page "...I cannot see how the name of commonwealth would be any more applicable to the despotism of the multitude." De re publica, Loeb. Vol #213, pg 223.

• • • So you see all the Classical republics started under Kings--Only Sparta kept hers.WHEELER 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both kingdoms and republics can be commonwealths. The ancient republics are listed above; therefore unless you wish to claim that the Cretan cities were monarchies, which is news to me, leave them out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First off you put the Roman Empire there. It is supposed to be the Roman republic. This is absolutely asinine! The Roman empire is NOT a republic! Everyone will acknowledge that Sparta got its government from Crete!!!!! If you put Sparta, you MUST put in Crete.WHEELER 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WHEELER insists on including uses of res publica in this article. The Roman Empire continued to be Res publica Romana through the time of Justinian; and ceased to call itself so only because it stopped using Latin. The court of Friderick II (and others, for all I know) used respublica for the Holy Roman Empire also; but our new section does not pretend to be exhaustive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 18 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 23:35, 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 23:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a second to WHEELER's opinion?
• The man does not recognize concessions when he receives them; the OED actually wrote obselete; it is an acknowledgment to Rahe (the most I think he should receive) that the present text is softened to "archaizing". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Does WHEELER deny
  • That the Roman Empire, although we consider it a monarchy, continued to be called a res publica?
  • That Jean Bodin wrote Les Six livres de la République about the state in which he lived?

Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No the Roman Empire was Tyranny. No the Senate had NO power. The Tyrant could overrule the Senate and so it was NOT mixed. Classical Republics are Mixed governments Pmanderson. The Senate was not involved and the Leader never obeyed the senate during the Roman Empire. Next, Pmanderson, you have not posted a single reference to calling the Roman Empire a Classical Republic. On the other hand I have multiple quotes on the things I have said.

Secondly, you disount what is said in Classical republic. If that holds no water with you---then, no matter what I say or do has any weight whatsoever. It is pointless to talk to you.WHEELER 02:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert to this

====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.

Work Permit and Pmanderson BOTH agree that this is the case. Let me see, Sparta is now a Monarchy? The Roman Empire is a republic? Up against the Clique again. Work Permit says that "archaizing". Both discount the Wikipedia article Classical republics. Let's see how long this lasts, will any other Wikipedian step forward to correct this? Let's see.WHEELER 02:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Of course it was a monarchy; it had two kings. An absolute monarchy? No, but we've never said that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• for the record, I never used the word "archaizing". My only edit to that section was placing on every entry in that section.--Work permit 03:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By reverting to Pmanderson's edits, you authorized that section as good and proper. By reverting to Pmanderson's edits, You are supporting that contention and all that work. By reverting to Pmanderson's edits, You are voting in favor of his edits.WHEELER 00:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it never ceases at Wikipedia

I have been arguing incessentaly at this talk page about including Sparta on this page. He has constantly reverted me and for nine days, would NEVER consider Sparta a Republic.

Lo and behold, on Wikipedia's own Classical republic article is this:

A classical republic, according to certain modern political theorists, is a state of Classical Antiquity that is considered to have a republican form of government, a state where sovereignty rested with the people rather than a ruler or monarch. These include states like Sparta, Athens, and the Roman Republic.

Why is somebody arguing when right there in wikipedia that Sparta is labelled a Classical republic! I will now edit this list of republics and add a section called Classical republics and add Sparta and Crete. Wikipedia is now my reference material. Let's see how User:Pmanderson responds when an article AT Wikipedia says Sparta and Rome are Classical Republics!WHEELER 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The fun never ends does it?WHEELER 00:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, especially when WHEELER quotes himself; this is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source..... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have all the references in the world. And if you disount Wikipedia as a source what does that say about what goes on around here.WHEELER 02:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION JIMMY WALES ATTENTION JIMMY WALES ATTENTION JIMMY WALES ATTENTION JIMMY WALES Look at what User:Pmanderson says of your project---It is NOT a reliable source. WHEELER 02:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Some sources on the modern usage

The usage that WHEELER has spent so much energy decrying as modern and Socialist is that of Bacon:

• "It may be, in civil states, a republic is a better policy than a kingdom
• And of course that well-known Marxist Thomas Jefferson</sarcasm>
  • "The republican party, who wish to preserve the government in it's present form, are fewer in number. They are fewer even when joined by the two, three, or half dozen anti-federalists, who, tho they dare not avow it, are still opposed to any general government: but being less so to a republican than a monarchical one, they naturally join those whom they think pursuing the lesser evil. Of all the mischiefs objected to the system of measures before mentioned, none is so afflicting, and fatal to every honest hope, as the corruption of the legislature. As it was the earliest of these measures, it became the instrument for producing the rest, & will be the instrument for producing in future a king, lords & commons, or whatever else those who direct it may chuse. Withdrawn such a distance from the eye of their constituents, and these so dispersed as to be inaccessible to public information, & particularly to that of the conduct of their own representatives, they will form the most corrupt government on earth, if the means of their corruption be not prevented. The only hope of safety hangs now on the numerous representation which is to come forward the ensuing year. Some of the new members will probably be either in principle or interest, with the present majority, but it is expected that the great mass will form an accession to the republican party." --Thomas Jefferson, May 23, 1792 Letter to George Washington

regards Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 19 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)

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)

Sparta is a Monarchy? Citation is asked for Sparta as a Monarchy. As now for FIVE days, there has been none. The Roman Empire is the Old meaning defined by Original sources. I have tons of evidence and references that call Sparta a republic INCLUDING Niccolas Machiaveli who called all states without a monarch as a Republic. Now, is anybody going to change that? Anybody going to delete that? We are NOW going on FIVE days with this outrageous claim that Sparta is a Monarchy and the Old definition is what, Not very clear. and if it is it is "Archaizing".WHEELER 23:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that we're just playing around with original research, can I point out that you've got a problem with your interpretation of the translation (Loeb?) of Cicero R. II. 2: "Is dicere solebat ob hanc causam praestare nostrae civitatis statum ceteris civitatibus" means not "Cato used to say that our constitution was superior to those of other States", but "Cato used to say that our society's constitution was superior to those of other societies" (the translation is good enough for reading, but not quite for these purposes, as it missed out words). Based on the syntax, statum can only refer to the Roman Constitution, and it is being compared to the constitutions of other societies. In the rest of the passage, there's no evidence to suggest respublica is being used in a defenitive sense, merely as a word for 'the state'.--Nema Fakei 13:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought "respublica Lacedaemoniorum" meant the Lacedaemonian Republic. I thought "-iorum" meant it was an adjective. That is what it looks like. So why does the translator of the Loeb use the word "commonwealth" in this translation of the sentence?

So my question persists---Who called Rome a republic if it is not used as a title anywhere? Or is it?

Furthermore I don't need original research, Paul A. Rahe said, "Sparta was a republic". Next, I pulled up a list of all sorts of people calling Sparta a republic both in the Early Modern Era and in Modern Times. I have my references. Why doesn't Sparta appear on the page of this article?WHEELER 23:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"respublica Lacedaemoniorum" could mean "the Republic of the Lacedaemons". Or it could mean state. Or it could mean the current affairs. I'm not putting any stock by Loeb translations, and nor should you. They're loose translations, not a detailed essay on semantics. Why does the translator use that word? Presumably because it is a nice calque, or maybe it makes for smooth reading.

"Who called Rome a republic if it is not used as a title anywhere?" Pretty much everyone. Specifically, Rome was known as a republic in contrast with its prior state as res privata. That's where the word originated. I don't really get your point here.

Why should Sparta not appear on the page? It's not included in the commonly accepted understanding of the word. Whatever way you might want or like the word to be used, the fact is that your/Rahe's particular interpretation of the word republic is not the way it's normally used, and in any case, the page refers only to obviously self-defined republics, and tries to make no political judgment. But you're welcome to discuss check that the articles linked include the appropriate references. Just bear in mind that WP isn't going to endorse your viewpoint; WP doesn't endorse anything as truth: WP simply tries to report the current academic climate (whether it's correct or not), and I'm sure you'll agree, modern academia on the subject isn't exactly in line with Rahe, Jaeger, Mueller, etc. (or at least the ideas you seem to read into them). --Nema Fakei 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that for Xenophon's Constitution of the Lacedemonians (as the Loeb translates it) constitution represents, quite reasonably, respublica in Latin, politeia in Greek. This is a quite common meaning of the two words; the force of "constitution", of course, is the British and Aristotelian one, which does not require a document. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

response to Pmanderson. I understand the many connotations of "politiea". It first means society, then constitution. But it also means a form of government when Aristotle defines a Politiea as a "mixture of oligarchy and democracy", or the inbetween of Oligarchy and democracy.

You guys like to make things up don't you. "WP simply tries to report the current academic climate (whether it's correct or not), and I'm sure you'll agree, modern academia on the subject isn't exactly in line with Rahe, Jaeger, Mueller, etc. (or at least the ideas you seem to read into them). --Nema Fakei 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)" This is NOT WP policy. This is the policy:

Wikipedia is a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts.

This can be expanded as follows:

• Neutral: Wikipedia does not judge or advocate specific views. Rather, it judges the value to users of neutrally representing different views.
• Unbiased: Views are allowed to speak for themselves rather than being cast into one "correct" viewpoint.
• Compilation: Wikipedia is not a simple collection or list of facts. There is a process of summarizing, grading, organizing and collating involved, to ensure that the resulting articles are as useful as possible for readers seeking both detail and overview.
• Verifiable: Information must be realistically verifiable, including being cited from a reliable source.
• Facts: Wikipedia contains facts, not opinions, and not original research. (Fr: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_brief)

I DO NOT read Wikipedia is about "Current academic climate". I find that NOWHERE in WP Policy pages! You are making up the rules. Let us go to another page: "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited." (Fr: Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria) Nowhere but Nowhere do I see that Wikipedia is about "Current Academic climate"!!!!

You people are OUT OF LINE. It says F-A-C-T-S. Fact, Sparta was a republic. That is a FACT and it is NPOV. Many people believed that in history! Many people called it that----That is a Fact! It may NOT be "current academic climate" and it ISN'T WP policy that it be so. It ONLY requires that it be a FACT. Rahe and Niccolo Macchiavelli doesn't need "Current Academic climate". That is NOWHERE in Wikipedia policy. And you are making up the rules and policies here at WikipediaWHEELER 02:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Niccolo Machiavelli called Sparta a Republic. That is a Fact! And he marks Sparta has having Mixed government! That is a Fact. It so happens that Paul A. Rahe backs up Niccolo Machiavelli! That is a Fact. Sparta will be on this list!WHEELER 02:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV, you are pushing POV by ONLY accepting states who are without kings. That is YOUR POV. NPOV would say that BOTH without Kings, and Mixed governments will be included on this list.

Bias, "archaizing" is BIAS.

Verifiyalibility. RAHE.

Facts: RAHE. Sparta was a Republic. Throughout history she was known as one! All the Founding Fathers of America--schooled in Latin and Greek all called Sparta a Republic!WHEELER 02:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what is happening on this talk page gaming the system. This is how it goes to the "politically incorrect" at Wikipedia. I edit the page. It gets reverted. I place references. References are attacked. I respond and beat argument. Then, the argument shifts to "current academic climate". I beat this argument. Then, the argument shifts back to References are NO good. I beat that argument. Next, the Argument shifts to "current academic climate". I go back to same old reasons. Then, we shift to other arguments on references,....on and on and on it goes where it stops no one knows! I am tired of the BS here. And guess what--other Administrators let this go on. They don't stop it. Why am I being persecuted?WHEELER 05:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is now going on since 8 June 2007. It is June 26th.WHEELER 05:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "making up the rules and policies", I'm obliquely referring to the very rules you have just quoted. Specifically, within WP:NPOV, the section on undue weight, and including the passage "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.". That section explains more fully what I mean by WP reporting current academic climate. I was hoping to put it in a way that you'd find easier to understand and accept in the context.

Second, please take care to avoid making generalisations. If you're going accuse "you people" of what seems tantamount to conspiracy rather than simply responding to specific points with specific arguments, then I'm afraid you can't expect to gain consensus, nor can you expect anything you say to go any further than the talk page. Myself and Sept/PMA are not one person, hive-mind or cabal, nor are we to be lumped in with 68.236.166.125, SimonP or anyone else. I agree with you that "archaizing" skewed the sentence against your POV, and so I removed it, and I would be obliged if you did not hold the use of the word "archaizing" against me. I have also nowhere claimed that we should only include non-monarchical states in this list, nor have I tried to implement changes based on such a view.

Now, I understand this process of consensus may seem frustrating, but it's not a question of moving the goalposts. A reference does not guarantee inclusion; as I've pointed out, all the other rules still apply: the material must be noteworthy, it must not be given undue weight, it must not simply be an original interpretation of what someone else said, it must be presented in a manner consistent with WP's style guidelines, and so on and so forth. And we implement all these by consensus - if you want things to change, you've got to engage with others on a constructive, open-minded, friendly basis.

Finally, I'd like to get back to the topic at hand, and say this: lists present a specific challenge to us as editors because there's simply not room in a list for detailed discussion of which academic thinks which items should or shouldn't be included in the given class. e.g. at List of countries, Palaestine is included (some would argue that it is not a country), but micronations are excluded (even though many of their members would probably argue for inclusion). What makes it a good entry is that it makes clear from the beginnin precisely what is included. It's up to us on this page to come to a consensus over what List of republics is shorthand for - does it mean "list of non-monarchical countries", does it mean "list of countries who adopt the name republic", does it mean "list of mixed governments", does it mean "list of anything anyone has ever called republic or any cognate or calque thereof"? I'm still thinking on how we should proceed with this, but it is clear that we need to have an explicit definition (per Wikipedia:Lists), and that it needs to give us a sensible and useful entry that neither makes glaring omissions nor includes so much as to be redundant in the face of, e.g. List of countries. --Nema Fakei 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kim Bruning and I, many moons ago, negotiated a compromise on wikipedia; There is an old definition of Republic and the new definition of republic. This modus operandi was short-circuited by a majority of British republicans who couldn't stand the Old definition. FACT: User:Pmanderson has realised that there are TWO definitions of republic--There is an Old definition of republic. I have stated it above. This is NOT original research. Niccolo Machiavelli called Sparta a Republic and that she had Mixed government. That is the Old definition. Terrence Ball and Richard Dagger and Paul A. Rahe all use the Old definition of republic. That is a Fact. The Founding Fathers of America used the Old definition of Republic. This is what I have been saying all the time.

First off there is an error. "Historically". No It is NOT historic. There is another definition of republic which is older. This is bias. The Old definition of republic is called "Classical republics". It is here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia states that Sparta is a Classical republic. Why is it called "Classical" Maybe because it is the character of all the Classical mixed governments of Classical Antiquity. That is why it is called Classical republics!.

Proposal
A section included called "Classical republics"
==Classical republics==
(So called due to their mixed government.) REF: Terrence Ball and Richard Dagger,,

• Doric Greek city states of Crete REF: Paul A. Rahe.
• Sparta REF: Niccolo Macciavelli, Paul A. Rahe
• Carthage
• Athens under Solon and Cleisthenes, REF: Kagan
• Roman Republic obvious
• Commonwealth of England REF: Sir Thomas Smyth and Greenidge
• Republic of Venice

A.H.J. Greenidge, M.A., in A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History (1911, 2001), 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" (pg 76); "Besides acknowledged difficulty of the creation of such a system,...so amply illustrated by the history of Sparta, Rome, and England" (ibid).

A.H.J. Greenidge was a British scholar who wrote a book on constitutional History. What is the name of the Roman Government? Republic. If he states that the Doric Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians and the Englishmen have all developed this form of polity, what do you think the name of all this is? Republics. What definition is A.H. J. Greenidge is using? The Old definition of Republic.

This is FACT. This is all an Historical FACT. Sparta is a Classical Republic. Are there any disputations on this Proposal? This is VERIFIED. A.H.J. Greenidge backs up Rahe or Rahe backs up A.H.J. Greenidge. Sourced. This is fact. NOT original research, NO new viewpoints or new takes. All I am propounding is the OLD defintion of republic.23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the particular historical facts to which you refer, and you might be surprised to learn that I would not disagree with you that, say, "the Phoenicians of Carthage, the Dorians of Greece, Romans, and Englishmen have all developed this [same] type of polity" (though I don't myself know about Carthage). The next question, and one of the current barriers, is whether the term republic (howsoever qualified) is appropriate to this "type of polity" in all instances: it is here where references are needed. References which meet all the usual criteria, I hasten to add. If you can show that either a significant minority of present-day scholars believe that the term is appropriate, or that the question of calling Sparta a republic (not politeia, not respublica, but republic) has been a significant issue for Hellenists at some stage, then I reckon we could have a minority opinion worthy of a section along the lines of "Some argue that the following are republics", depending on how we choose to word the . If you want all of these mixed governments to be included as normal items, you'll also be wanting to find some explicit reference (maybe a reputable dictionary entry) verifying that the use of 'republic' for 'mixed government' is a widely accepted usage. Again, this is simply to stop the "non-monarchical" definition from dominating; it may be that we find the "self-definition" route more conducive to creating a useful entry. --Nema Fakei 01:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(a) I don't live on a college campus. (2) Very poor, no transportation. (3) don't have enough money to subscribe to JSTOR, Mawr, Project Muse or any other Academic internet source. So, I am at a loss. Financial hardship on my part is a barrier to do any more research that you asked about. I have purchased and copied books out the wahzoo to learn what I learn. Money doesn't grow on trees for me.

(1) I work 40 hours a day at hard manual labor. At what point am I going to do all this fantastic research?

Second, your point of "present day scholars". I have refernces from Older reference books that all concur on the nature of Sparta's mixed government. So here I have a Majority opinion. What I am saying is that because "democracy" is all the rage, the idea of mixed government, Sparta as a republic is purposely suppressed, overlooked, and given dynamic silence. Again, to say "present day scholars"---What am I supposed to do, contact every professor in America and take a poll? How am I supposed to get this information? E-mail every professor? In summertime? How am I to accomplish this task? Will they even acknowledge or send a response?

that "mixed government" is widely accepted usage? In my forty years before I read Aristotle, I NEVER heard the term "mixed". And then by accident a library was selling off books that I picked up Terrence Dagger.It wasn't in any textbook. I never heard it in college. When I read that in Aristotle, I was flabbergasted. How come I never heard this term. It wasn't until my influence here on Wikipedia that after Classical definition of republic got deleted that an article was created mixed government. I mean the idea, concept of "republic" as mixed is suppressed. How am I supposed to combat this?

I have two Classical reference books printed in 1875 and in 1890 that both say that Sparta had mixed government. In the 1875 Classical dictionary, Prof. Leonhard Schmits the author of the Sparta article said, "In all the republics of antiquity the government was divided between a senate and a popular assembly…". What is the definition of republics---Government was divided. It had a Senate.

I don't know what to say or what to do now. I have quoted numerous books. I did a Google search where I found current websites all later than 2000 A.D. that call Sparta a republic, so the idea is out there. It is not spurious. And so we are at impasse then. 28 days still at ground zero. Nothing accomplished. Waste of space. Waste of Computer hardware. For what?WHEELER 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And what do you mean that Sparta is NOT a politiea? That list of "Classical republics" comes from Aristotle's own "Politics" where he starts of with Crete, Sparta as Politieas, the mixture of oligarchy and democracy; Politiea as the form between Oligarchy and democracy. The Romans translated Politiea as Republic. Intellectual Romans were schooled in Greek. Horace studied in Athens. Cicero copied Plato and plagerized Dicharcheaus. That the Romans didn't know what they are talking about is balderdash. Politiea, as used as a form of government (it has two other meanings, 'constitution' and 'society') is a Republic. The translator of the Loeb, Paul Shorey, translates the word "politiea" where Aristotle as the middle form between oligarchy and democracy as "republic". So, it seems that the classical departments of England at the turn of the century all were singing the same tune. Now the tune has changed...WHEELER 03:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I sympathise with your problems, and I agree that it's a terrible shame that getting hold of good books and articles is so difficult in our society. I think I'm a little more fortunate, but the way I deal with not having library access all the time is generally not to add content that I can't demonstrate, and instead to concentrate on those I can and on edits I can. Again, I ask you to consider improving articles in other ways than just this rather narrow semantic issue.

I think I've already answered most of your post, if you have another to look at my previous two entries (one you might have missed as it came at the same time as you added a section) - you seem to have misinterpreted me, I'm not saying Sparta can't be called a politeia for example. I'm going to be away for a few days, I'm afraid, so I've not much time to respond, but, I'd like to briefly point this out.

It seems to me that what you're wanting to prove is EITHER

• That Sparta had a mixed government (this has been subtantiated, I believe, so you don't need any more on this)
• AND That the (English) word republic means (i.e. in present usage) mixed government. (this is what's lacking at the moment, and doesn't need access to JSTOR as it's a question of semantics - just find a good thick reputable dictionary in your local town/village library).

OR

• That Sparta is consistently referred to as a republic (again, in modern English usage, as that's the language we're using here on en.wp). (This will probably require something a lot more significant and difficult to find, probably a statement about academic terminology that refers to sparta, not about Sparta per se, which is why I suggest you'd be better off looking for it in a dictionary).

Whichever you choose, it's also going to be dependant on the inclusion criteria we all agree on. I suggest that we leave off this debate for the moment until you can find some sources; in the mean time, all of us (including WHEELER) should probably focus on the crucial issue of developing inclusion criteria. (see Wikipedia:Lists for more info).

Hope this make some sense. --Nema Fakei 21:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria

We need some inclusion criteria for this list; as it stands, it's vague, arbitrary, and pleases no-one.

"Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit."

--from Wikipedia:Lists. See also the essay Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia for more thoughts.

Post suggestions here. The criteria should first and foremost make this an article that is going to be useful to readers, and their implementation should ideally be relatively easy to verify. Consider also whether subsections are useful when suggesting a definition. --Nema Fakei 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Today the term is loosely applied to any state which claims this designation." This, including loosely, is based on the OED. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This from WP:list:

""The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular. Wikipedia:No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.

"The verifiability policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references." The responsibility for providing a citation rests "with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In the case of edits lacking citations, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability:"

This says Lists must be NPOV, not endorsing a viewpoint, and second sources are reputalbe. That is the criteria of the list. Classical republics should be included on this list. It is to be NPOV. There are Many many sources that describe Sparta as a republic. Rahe, Greenidge, Terrence Ball, are all reputable sources. And they all agree with each other. There are two types of republics, one without monarchs and one that is mixed government. This list should include both viewpoints.WHEELER 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Classical republics and Modern republics should be included in this list.WHEELER 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, no single-purpose editor ever quotes the parts of WP:NPOV which deal with not giving undue weight to minority views, including the following: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."

Rahe's attempt to revive an obsolete sense of "republic" comes under this head. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Who said "Obsolete" sense? I want you to produce the exact copy of the Oxford English Dictionary then because I can't access it. And if it is obsolete, why did I use it and why in the List of sources identifying Sparta as a republic there are FOUR sites on the internet, outside of myself that identify Sparta as a republic? Rahe is not reviving anything. Rahe's "Magesterial" work outlines where the word republic undergone a shift in meaning. It is not obsolete. It doesn't fit into the modern academia's quest for the transformation of history and Historical revisionism (negationism). Pmanderson your own argument is undercut when there is an article on Wikipedia about Classical republics. Your are still barking up the wrong tree.WHEELER 16:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Totally apart from the quality of the references you have found, four web hits is actually a pretty tiny number. To have a person mentioned in Wikipedia there is a minimum of several hundred Google hits required. - SimonP 18:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have quoted the second edition of the OED above; they mark the sense obsolete. It is not my business to find a copy for you; assume good faith and consult your local library. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I was unclear, but I was not creating a new section just so we could continue the same argument, it was an invitation to provide "unambiguous statements of membership criteria". I've been away, but as there've been no moves in this direction by either party despite numerous other comments, I'll try to write my own solution.--Nema Fakei 23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)