Jump to content

Talk:Republic: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Stevewk (talk | contribs)
988 edits
No edit summary
Content discussion
Line 107: Line 107:


Thats where things stand as of this date/time stamp: [[User:Stevewk|Stevewk]] 18:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats where things stand as of this date/time stamp: [[User:Stevewk|Stevewk]] 18:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Content discussion ==

Re. changes to intro section and related footnotes:

===1===
::In a broad definition, a '''republic''' is a [[state]] or [[country]] that is led by people whose [[political power]] is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country.
Changed to:
::In a broad definition, a '''republic''' is a [[state]] or [[nation]], the sovereignty of which is based on popular consent, and the governance of which is based on popular representation and control.
*Second version is a definition of a ''[[representative democracy]]'' not of a ''republic''. In some contexts both concepts are synonymous, but not in the context of a '''broad''' definition;
*Note that the boilerplate of the article says that it is about "'''real''' states and countries that have been termed republic" - the definition is so narrow that several *real* countries that are known as "republics" at (for instance) the United Nations, would be "wrongly named" according to Wikipedia's definition. It is a "wishful thinking" kind of definition, or stated otherwise: with such definition Wikipedia gives the impression that only by ''naming'' your country a ''republic'', it automatically becomes a ''democracy''.
*The definition is not compatible with [[Samuel Johnson]]'s 1755 definition of republic ("A government of more than one person"): according to that definition an ''oligarchy'', not based on "popular consent & representation", would also be a republic. That lack of consistency between definitions should at least be mentioned (see [[#4|below]]).
*I think the expression "sovereignty [...] based on popular consent" inappropriate: badly formulated, and apart from that, I think it would make Adolf Hitler, whose "sovereignty [was] based on popular consent", look like a ''republican''.
*Change of [[country]] to [[nation]] - too much [[nation-state]] ideology imho. "Country" works fine when you're giving a definition regarding states in real life. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

===2===
::Several definitions, including that of the ''[[1911 Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', stress the importance of [[autonomy]] and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.
Changed to
::Several definitions, including that of the ''[[1911 Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', stress the importance of the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic. (i.e. "autonomy" removed).
*If these definitions ''also'' usually stress the importance of ''autonomy'' that word should be kept in, imho. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

===3===
Added
::Many general dictionaries indicate in their primary definitions, that a republic features "a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usu. a president."<ref>"Republic," ''Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition'', (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster Inc., 2004), 1058. A republic contrasts with a dictatorship or other autocracy, but not necessarily with a monarchy, if the latter be of the ''constitutional'' variety, i.e., based on a body of fundamental law. In such a government, as England/Great Britain following its Revolution of 1688-89, we find a "monarchy" in name only (a '''''nominal''''' '''monarchy'''), since the government then came under popular consent and control, and with executive authority strictly circumscribed. Such a monarchy may be considered a '''''de facto''''' '''republic'''.</ref>
to first paragraph of intro, including this footnote:
::<references/>
*Unnecessarily extends the length of the intro, since it is a redundant repeat of what is extensively treated in following paragraphs of the intro.
*The footnote is a hideout for unreferenced contentions (it even unfittingly gives the impression that these samples of [[WP:OR|Original Research]] are ''covered'' by what can be found in ''Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition''):
*#"A republic contrasts with a dictatorship or other autocracy" which is not always correct for *real countries* in general. I've already given the examples of the Roman Republic (note that Julius Caesar was both *nominally* a dictator for life, and perceived as an *autocrat* - at least by his murderers); Mobutu's Zaire; Belarus (this example of a *real country* termed a *republic* and nonetheless a *dictatorship* is even covered by the CIA World Factbook, see above). Again a description rather to be filed as "wishful thinking", than on what happens to states who name themselves republic in real life. I'd only accept this alleged contrast between "republics" and "dictatorship/autocracy" as part of the article if a reference to a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] can be found for it.
*#"A republic contrasts [...] not necessarily with a monarchy, if the latter be of the ''constitutional'' variety, i.e., based on a body of fundamental law. In such a government, as England/Great Britain following its Revolution of 1688-89, we find a "monarchy" in name only (a '''''nominal''''' '''monarchy'''), since the government then came under popular consent and control, and with executive authority strictly circumscribed. Such a monarchy may be considered a '''''de facto''''' '''republic'''." Sorry, this synonymizing of "de facto republic" with "consitutional monarchy", based on the post-[[Glorious Revolution]] era in England/GB example is far from a general understanding. My Webster's (1981 printed edition) quotes [[E. E. Reynolds]] terming [[Oliver Cromwell]]'s regime a ''republic'', not, of course [[William III of England]]'s regime. Again, I oppose to ''wishful thinking'' type of generalisations. If someone said it, and that someone is a ''reliable source'', OK, then go ahead, but always indicate where you got it. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

===4===
In the second paragraph:
::Defining a republic as a ''non-monarchy'', the most common short definition,<sup>[2]</sup> is based on this idea. Although largely covering what is usually understood by a republic such definition has some borderline issues, for example while the distinction between ''monarchy'' and ''republic'' was not always made as it is in modern times, while ''[[oligarchy|oligarchies]]'' are traditionally considered neither ''monarchy'' nor ''republic'', and while such definition depends very much on the ''monarch'' concept, which has various definitions, not making clear which of these is used for defining ''republic''.
With footnote 2:
:::^ For instance in [[Webster's Third New International Dictionary|Webster's]] ''republic'' is defined as "a state where the head of state is not a monarch, and in modern times is usually a president".
Is changed to:
::but such a characterization is blurred by some borderline issues. For example while the distinction between ''monarchy'' and ''republic'' was not always made as it is in modern times, such a distinction depends very much on the concept of a ''monarch'', which itself has various definitions, thereby frustrating attempts to clarify the meaning of its apparent opposite, the ''republic''.
* "Defining a republic as a ''non-monarchy'', the most common short definition, is based on this idea." (+ footnote) &ndash; I wouldn't leave that out: it connects with the other content of the second paragraph.
* "blurred by some borderline issues" - I think the "blurred" (combined with "borderline issues") here overemphasises, just as a ''style'' issue.
* Object to the removal of "while ''[[oligarchy|oligarchies]]'' are traditionally considered neither ''monarchy'' nor ''republic''" (see above, removing this obfuscates that Samuel Johnson's definition is in fact a "non-standard" definition, that is incompatible with currently more generally adopted definitions of "republic").
* "[...] thereby frustrating attempts to clarify the meaning of its apparent opposite, the ''republic''" &ndash; Original Research, unclear formulation, appendended without apparent relation to a sentence that is perfectly well without it. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

===5===
::In his 1787 book, "[[A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States|Defence of the Constitutions]]," [[John Adams]] [...]
Changed to:
::In his 1787 book, "[[A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States|Defence of the Constitutions]]," '''the American founder and second President of the United States''', [[John Adams]] [...]
* I see the part of the text that I bolded above as en unneeded addition to an already overlong intro. See also [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus]] (quote: "This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries.") - if you don't know who John Adams is, click the link.
* I object to starting a ''new paragraph'' in the intro for the Adams/Johnson approach. These things clearly relate to the monarchy/republic similarities/differences that used to be the topic of the second paragraph (and of the second paragraph only) - devoting a whole paragraph of the intro to that issue is more than enough imho. If you want more about that, write it in the body of the article, per Yummifruitbat's suggestion (see [[#Edit warring|above]]). I'd also suggest to take the long Adams quote out of the intro (see [[#6|below]]), in order to make a more compact ''single'' paragraph in the intro about this issue. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

===6===
Extension of John Adams quote with:
::If Aristotle, [ancient Roman historian Titus] Livy, and [17th-century English political theorist James] Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition is just, [...]
*Too long for intro. I'm thinking about moving that quote to the footnotes. It can always be placed somewhere appropriately in the *body* of the article if someone thinks it belongs there. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

===7===
Added footnote to Adams text:
:::^ John Adams, "Novanglus," ''Boston Gazette'', 6 March 1775; ''The Papers of John Adams'', vol. 7, p. 314.
*Excellent! Should have noticed that before (I'm sorry I removed that one in some of my reverts - I hadn't really noticed it - shan't do it again). --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:28, 25 October 2006

See also

Definition of 'Republic'

  • i am contending that the following should be added, as a footnote to the definition, especially in light of the John Adams quote, and also the Machiavelli qualification.
In a republic, sovereignty is based on popular consent; and its governance is based on popular representation and control. A republic contrasts with a dictatorship or other autocracy, but not necessarily with a monarchy, if the latter be based on a body of fundamental law, usually embodied in a clearly delineated constitution. see the quote of John Adams in the second following paragraph. The presence of a king sitting on a throne need not automatically disqualify a constitutional monarchy from its inclusion as a de facto republic. In such a monarchy, as England/Great Britain following its Revolution of 1688-89, we find a "monarchy" in name only, since the government then came under popular consent and control, with executive authority strictly circumscribed, i.e., not absolute. Stevewk 22:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is one definition of republic, and yes, it ought to be mentioned. But it's not the usual one. If you ask any Brit whether the UK is a republic, he'll say, of course not, it's a constitutional monarchy. And if he advocates making the UK into a republic, he means abolishing the monarchy. This is the most common understanding of the term, and it ought to come first. The current lead paragraph does not make this clear enough, in fact. --Trovatore 22:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Trovatore. In modern usage "country without a monarch" is the principal meaning of "republic." john k 22:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nobody's saying that's not the principal meaning. that's why i'm proposing it go in a footnote. and to Trovatore, you're right, the current first paragraph is a disgrace. it could hardly be more inadequately and just badly written. by the way, the UK IS a de facto republic, and has been since 1689, whether the average UK citizen believes it or not. Stevewk 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A de facto republic, not a republic. --Trovatore 00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REREAD the proposed footnote. yes. Stevewk 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it actually does look more reasonable this time. But the first paragraph should say clearly that, in the common definition, a monarchy can't be a republic (even if it's a de facto republic). --Trovatore 01:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well then, you're still not understanding me. a monarchy cannot be any type of republic if it is an absolute monarchy. a monarchy can and is a de facto republic if it is a constitutional monarchy. check these Adams' quotes:
"there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is "an empire of laws, and not of men." That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of republics."

Thoughts on Government Apr. 1776 Papers 4:86-93
http://www.constitution.org/jadams/thoughts.htm

"If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition is just, the British constitution is nothing more or less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government's being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." (my emphasis -sk)

Quote by: John Adams,(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President Source: Novanglus, in Boston Gazette, 6Mar1775, Adams Papers, V II, p. 314

give up the ghost, my friends. makes no difference if the chief executive is a king or a president... the most accurate way to put it is: the British constitutional monarchy is, de facto, a republic. Stevewk 02:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...but not a republic. It doesn't matter whether you think it matters or not. --Trovatore 02:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok then, i'll go ahead and use "de facto" republic in a footnote, and i'm also going to rewrite the first paragraph, and incorporate the Adams' quote. Stevewk 16:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I fail to see the improvement. Adams' use of the term (based on Johnson's use of the term), is two and a half centuries old, and it didn't take on. Today that use of the term is obsolete. That it is mentioned in the intro at all is maybe more than needed. If it takes more than half of the second paragraph of the intro, that is, imho, already slightly over the top. Expanding that to several paragraphs of the intro, enlarging the quote etc, is a further step backwards.
Please see also Wikipedia:Lead section why this should better not evolve this way. --Francis Schonken 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, what I see is how mine is nothing but an improvement. "Lead section" includes nothing that would preclude anything i've written. that use is not "obsolete." i defy you to produce the dictionary def. that employs "obs." anywhere therein. this is simply a smokescreen, because you're taking this personally. you dont want me to have the rewrite, despite the fact that it's a huge improvement. you're probably embarassed that it took an "outsider" to come up with something genuinely worth including. you're exclusion of the words of one of the most credible sources to be found, a US founding father, on the grounds that those words are "old" (say, what?), look like positive proof of that to me. i dont want a war, but you're being ignorant about this, and provoking one. you refuse to educate yourself. mine is a clear attempt to compromise, which i did by burying most of my stuff in a footnote. then, you just go ahead and blank everything out. sorry, if you think i'm gonna roll over in the face of what appears (to me) to be sheer ignorance, you got another thing coming. and by the way, if this [see also Wikipedia:Lead section why this should better not evolve this way] was supposed to be some kind of threat, it too failed. i read it, and my rewrite qualifies hands-down as a legitimate lead. sorry, you're just flat wrong about this. Stevewk 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re. ""Lead section" includes nothing that would preclude anything i've written" – Wikipedia:Lead section has:
  • (from Wikipedia:Lead section#Provide an accessible overview:) "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" (my bolding) - the version of the intro you propose is a step backwards both w.r.t. "briefly" as w.r.t. "most important points covered in an article".
  • (from Wikipedia:Lead section#Length:) "As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than three to four paragraphs" (my bolding) - you made it five, more than half of the content of the intro being more elaborated in the intro than in the body of the article.
Re. "that use is not "obsolete."" – Nowadays, generally, the UK is not indicated as a "republic", neither is Belgium, etc. You defied me to provide a dicdef, how about the CIA World Factbook? – the definitions of "republic" and "monarchy" used there for listing countries by "governenment type" are mutually exclusive, in other words: none of the listed "republics" has a king or monarch as head of state, nor is any of the listed monarchies also indicated as "republic". --Francis Schonken 16:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is just a refusal to consider my argument, esp. that my stuff is buried in a footnote, because you cant stand the idea of me having the rewrite. i dont need to qualify my argument any further. its all there, and you havent addressed it or refuted it. Stevewk 18:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What other argument? I refuted your main argument. Of course I didn't refute the "conspiration theory"-like innuendo's you produced, they're not even arguments.
Anyway, you didn't consider my argument regarding the "Lead section" guideline. That guideline makes it obvious that your changes aren't an improvement.
Further, your contention "A republic contrasts with a dictatorship" is not sourced, please provide a reference if you want to see that included in the article. Note that Mobutu's Zaire was a "republic" under a "dictatorship";
Re. "England/Great Britain following its Revolution of 1688-89, we find a "monarchy" in name only (etc)" – please provide reference for that description. The least that can be said is that this does not conform with Wikipedia's current verbiage of what happened after the Glorious Revolution, nor with what is usually understood by a constitutional monarchy. --Francis Schonken 18:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
more double-talk and escapist excrement. check this: "a republic contrasts with a "dictatorship" is not sourced." yeah, yeah. here's another one: "the sun rises in the east." you'd want that sourced too, right? go away. Stevewk 20:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From CIA World Factbook: "Belarus: republic in name, although in fact a dictatorship" (my bolding).
Above, neither John Kenney nor Trovatore agreed with you.
Your contentions are largely unsourced and bring the intro section out of balance.
Your arguments have been refuted, and you bring no new ones.
Is there still anything you think that needs to be added to this discussion? --Francis Schonken 07:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, see this since you didnt read it the first time: more double-talk and escapist excrement. check this: "a republic contrasts with a "dictatorship" is not sourced." yeah, yeah. here's another one: "the sun rises in the east." you'd want that sourced too, right? go away. Stevewk 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schonken guilty of knowingly filing false 3RR/sock puppet report

and note well...administrator's note that Schonken's report is "bogus." then see this article's History for his latest refusal to civilize up, by filing yet another amateurish reversion. Stevewk 16:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schonken's Warpath

  • from now on, i'm just going to leave these harrassments here without comment. there is no link to "SPAM", so we can now add 'delusional' to the list of his transgressions. also note that Schonken is =not= an administrator: Stevewk 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Your revert to a spamlinked version of Republic

Regarding your revert of 16:13, 25 October 2006 to the "Republic" article: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Republic. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Francis Schonken 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schonken's Warpath II

  • NPA on Republic talk page

With regards to your comments on Talk:Republic: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. --Francis Schonken 16:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stevewk 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Would Stevewk and Francis Schonken please stop edit warring over this article. As I see it, the current intro is far too long; I suggest most of it after the first paragraph should be moved to a section like "Definitions of 'Republic'". It strikes me that you are both behaving as poorly as each other - until you can both approach this in a polite, calm fashion without resorting to personal attacks, escalations to RfC etc., I suggest that you go and do something else, either some constructive editing elsewhere or a short, relaxing Wikibreak. When you return, please concentrate your efforts on making this article clear, concise and accessible to a lay-audience; perhaps you could work together on a mutually-acceptable draft article in your userspaces. Happy (calm) editing, --YFB ¿ 17:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification of facts, if needed...

1) Yesterday, Schonken knowingly filed a false 3R/sock puppet report;

2) That report was correctly rejected as "bogus" by a Wiki administrator;

3) This morning Schonken attempted to start a second edit war with another reversion and with a bogus message in the edit line;

4) I reverted, then informed YFB and George Herbert;

5) Schonken again reverted; YFB reverted with the above message.

6) I have every intention of complying with YFB's suggestion.

Thats where things stand as of this date/time stamp: Stevewk 18:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content discussion

Re. changes to intro section and related footnotes:

1

In a broad definition, a republic is a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country.

Changed to:

In a broad definition, a republic is a state or nation, the sovereignty of which is based on popular consent, and the governance of which is based on popular representation and control.
  • Second version is a definition of a representative democracy not of a republic. In some contexts both concepts are synonymous, but not in the context of a broad definition;
  • Note that the boilerplate of the article says that it is about "real states and countries that have been termed republic" - the definition is so narrow that several *real* countries that are known as "republics" at (for instance) the United Nations, would be "wrongly named" according to Wikipedia's definition. It is a "wishful thinking" kind of definition, or stated otherwise: with such definition Wikipedia gives the impression that only by naming your country a republic, it automatically becomes a democracy.
  • The definition is not compatible with Samuel Johnson's 1755 definition of republic ("A government of more than one person"): according to that definition an oligarchy, not based on "popular consent & representation", would also be a republic. That lack of consistency between definitions should at least be mentioned (see below).
  • I think the expression "sovereignty [...] based on popular consent" inappropriate: badly formulated, and apart from that, I think it would make Adolf Hitler, whose "sovereignty [was] based on popular consent", look like a republican.
  • Change of country to nation - too much nation-state ideology imho. "Country" works fine when you're giving a definition regarding states in real life. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2

Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.

Changed to

Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic. (i.e. "autonomy" removed).

3

Added

Many general dictionaries indicate in their primary definitions, that a republic features "a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usu. a president."[1]

to first paragraph of intro, including this footnote:

  1. ^ "Republic," Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster Inc., 2004), 1058. A republic contrasts with a dictatorship or other autocracy, but not necessarily with a monarchy, if the latter be of the constitutional variety, i.e., based on a body of fundamental law. In such a government, as England/Great Britain following its Revolution of 1688-89, we find a "monarchy" in name only (a nominal monarchy), since the government then came under popular consent and control, and with executive authority strictly circumscribed. Such a monarchy may be considered a de facto republic.
    • Unnecessarily extends the length of the intro, since it is a redundant repeat of what is extensively treated in following paragraphs of the intro.
    • The footnote is a hideout for unreferenced contentions (it even unfittingly gives the impression that these samples of Original Research are covered by what can be found in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition):
      1. "A republic contrasts with a dictatorship or other autocracy" which is not always correct for *real countries* in general. I've already given the examples of the Roman Republic (note that Julius Caesar was both *nominally* a dictator for life, and perceived as an *autocrat* - at least by his murderers); Mobutu's Zaire; Belarus (this example of a *real country* termed a *republic* and nonetheless a *dictatorship* is even covered by the CIA World Factbook, see above). Again a description rather to be filed as "wishful thinking", than on what happens to states who name themselves republic in real life. I'd only accept this alleged contrast between "republics" and "dictatorship/autocracy" as part of the article if a reference to a reliable source can be found for it.
      2. "A republic contrasts [...] not necessarily with a monarchy, if the latter be of the constitutional variety, i.e., based on a body of fundamental law. In such a government, as England/Great Britain following its Revolution of 1688-89, we find a "monarchy" in name only (a nominal monarchy), since the government then came under popular consent and control, and with executive authority strictly circumscribed. Such a monarchy may be considered a de facto republic." Sorry, this synonymizing of "de facto republic" with "consitutional monarchy", based on the post-Glorious Revolution era in England/GB example is far from a general understanding. My Webster's (1981 printed edition) quotes E. E. Reynolds terming Oliver Cromwell's regime a republic, not, of course William III of England's regime. Again, I oppose to wishful thinking type of generalisations. If someone said it, and that someone is a reliable source, OK, then go ahead, but always indicate where you got it. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    4

    In the second paragraph:

    Defining a republic as a non-monarchy, the most common short definition,[2] is based on this idea. Although largely covering what is usually understood by a republic such definition has some borderline issues, for example while the distinction between monarchy and republic was not always made as it is in modern times, while oligarchies are traditionally considered neither monarchy nor republic, and while such definition depends very much on the monarch concept, which has various definitions, not making clear which of these is used for defining republic.

    With footnote 2:

    ^ For instance in Webster's republic is defined as "a state where the head of state is not a monarch, and in modern times is usually a president".

    Is changed to:

    but such a characterization is blurred by some borderline issues. For example while the distinction between monarchy and republic was not always made as it is in modern times, such a distinction depends very much on the concept of a monarch, which itself has various definitions, thereby frustrating attempts to clarify the meaning of its apparent opposite, the republic.
    • "Defining a republic as a non-monarchy, the most common short definition, is based on this idea." (+ footnote) – I wouldn't leave that out: it connects with the other content of the second paragraph.
    • "blurred by some borderline issues" - I think the "blurred" (combined with "borderline issues") here overemphasises, just as a style issue.
    • Object to the removal of "while oligarchies are traditionally considered neither monarchy nor republic" (see above, removing this obfuscates that Samuel Johnson's definition is in fact a "non-standard" definition, that is incompatible with currently more generally adopted definitions of "republic").
    • "[...] thereby frustrating attempts to clarify the meaning of its apparent opposite, the republic" – Original Research, unclear formulation, appendended without apparent relation to a sentence that is perfectly well without it. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    5

    In his 1787 book, "Defence of the Constitutions," John Adams [...]

    Changed to:

    In his 1787 book, "Defence of the Constitutions," the American founder and second President of the United States, John Adams [...]
    • I see the part of the text that I bolded above as en unneeded addition to an already overlong intro. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus (quote: "This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries.") - if you don't know who John Adams is, click the link.
    • I object to starting a new paragraph in the intro for the Adams/Johnson approach. These things clearly relate to the monarchy/republic similarities/differences that used to be the topic of the second paragraph (and of the second paragraph only) - devoting a whole paragraph of the intro to that issue is more than enough imho. If you want more about that, write it in the body of the article, per Yummifruitbat's suggestion (see above). I'd also suggest to take the long Adams quote out of the intro (see below), in order to make a more compact single paragraph in the intro about this issue. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    6

    Extension of John Adams quote with:

    If Aristotle, [ancient Roman historian Titus] Livy, and [17th-century English political theorist James] Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition is just, [...]

    7

    Added footnote to Adams text:

    ^ John Adams, "Novanglus," Boston Gazette, 6 March 1775; The Papers of John Adams, vol. 7, p. 314.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic&oldid=83716444"