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
Line 373: Line 373:
I got another piece of the puzzle for you:
I got another piece of the puzzle for you:
:'''[http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Machiavelli%27s_Error Machiavelli's Error]'''. [[User:WHEELER|WHEELER]] 02:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:'''[http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Machiavelli%27s_Error Machiavelli's Error]'''. [[User:WHEELER|WHEELER]] 02:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 01:06, 11 July 2007

See also

Been Published

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

Now, I am editing this article according to PUBLISHED articles in books. The authors of this Wikipedian article, do NOT quote from a single ACADEMIC scholarly book in the definition of a Republic. I have many many sources. Please check the sources. I got my stuff PUBLISHED!WHEELER 04:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to some kind of modus operandi. If you don't want your article disturbed, return Classical definition of republic. I am open to negotiation. If not, well, we are just going to have to argue and argue and argue. Funny I don't see Paul A. Rahe's masterful magnus opus Republics, Ancient and Modern, referenced, or quoted, or noted. Is that interesting or not?WHEELER 04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on getting your work published, but your source does not seem to be an academic, peer reviewed journal. Its editor is described as being "a fully qualified IT-Systemelectrician" and most of the other submissions seem to be by hobbyists. - SimonP 14:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you read the first guy and stopped reading further. There are two other gentlemen who are qualified! And there is an Academic Advisor. Why did you totally revert? Why revert the edit of Paul A. Rahe? I have references. I referenced everything I said. Do you have any suggestions where those references can be used? Where is How the Greeks define governments in your definition of republic? Sir Thomas Smyth said all commonwealths are mixed:
"Now although the governments of common wealth's be thus divided into three, and cutting each into two, so into sixe: yet you must not take that ye shall find any common wealth or government simple, pure and absolute in his sort and kind, but as wise men have divided for understanding sake and fantasied iiij. simple bodies which they call elements, as fire, ayre, water, earth, and in a man's body four complexions or temperatures, as cholericke, sanguine, phlegmatique, and melancolique: not that ye shall finde the one utterly perfect without mixtion of the other, for that nature almost will not suffer, but understanding doth discerne ech nature as in his sinceritie: so seldome or never shall you finde any common wealthe1 or government which is absolutely and sincerely made of the one2 above named, but always mixed with an other, and have the name of that which is more and overruleth always or for the most part the other.[3]

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

I, and many other users, have been over these issues many times before. Your additions have references, but original interpretations of sources is still original research. Your views run counter to everything else written about these topics. Moreover, as has also been demonstrated, your interpretations rely on mistranslations and coincidental connections between unrelated works. - SimonP 15:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from Paul A. Rahe who wrote a THREE volume work with massive footnotes. You discount his work. I quote from two scholars, Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, who collaborated together on one book, Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, which define what a republic is, and you delete it! These are NOT original interpretations! I quote directly from Scholars! In the first 6 references on this article, YOU QUOTE original source and then a dictionary. In my article, I quote a printed academic book written by TWO people. And you harp on me because of what?
You are not being honest. You are being partisan. You can't accept the obvious. And you are determined to just 'frustrate' 'frustrate' until I go away. You just give a flat denial, and stick to propaganda. Well, the evidence doesn't match your statements. WHEELER 15:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is called NPOV pal!

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

Paradigm of the error of NPOV

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

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

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

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

Factual accuracy of my edits

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

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

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

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

Childish edits of Wikipedia

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

""According to Karl Otfried Mueller's "thousand-page fantasia", written in 1824, before the modern sciences of epigraphy or archaeology existed""
""Modern classicists, however, no longer swoon over the beuatiful, strong-limbed, blond Dorians, who founded civilization.""

Do any of these statements come from an Academic source?

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

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

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

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

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

We are not here to recover Forgotten Truths; we are here to express the illusions which presently possess mankind. Hire a blog. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"We are not here to recover forgotten truths". So very right you are Pmanderson. M.I. Finley is a communist. He must promote democracy because socialism and democracy go hand in hand. He is also a member of the Frankfurt school. This school has been most dangerous to Western Culture and Civilization. The whole goal of the school is the transformation of society to their ideology. Well, I don't accept that. I know what is going on. The transformation of society by the transformation of words. You yourself said, "We are here to express illusions". Well, I am here to dispell illusion and face reality. Truth is a FAITHFUL representation of reality. The Frankfurt school is to be opposed at all costs. I am not here to promote illusion but to give a faithful representation of reality. WHEELER 16:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per consensus

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

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

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

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

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

I POSTED THIS A LONG TIME AGOOOOOOOO;

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


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

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

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

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

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

Discussion regarding additions by WHEELER, reversions by others

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

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

  • Republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267.
  • Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265.
  • "A mixed government, a virtous citizenry, the rule of law,--these were the republican ideals of Machiavelli's Discourses. If much of this sounds familiar, it is because this vision inspired the Atlantic Republican tradition--a way of thinking about politics that spread from Italy to Great Britain in the seventeenth century, and from there to Britain's American colonies in the eighteenth." Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 33.
"Another definition of republic, which is the oldest and traditional, is mixed government. This is the definition that existed in Classical Antiquity till about the French Revolution. It is the combination of the best parts from each of the good, simple forms of governments, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and blends them into a fourth type of governmental form. The archtype of this form is that of Ancient Sparta."

I would like to add that above paragraph to the article.WHEELER 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Sir Thomas Smith (diplomat) did not have Wikipedia. All he had was Greek texts. He wrote a dissertation on England's government titled, De republica Anglorum where he states that all commonwealths are mixed. The word Commonwealth is synonymous with the word republic. Yet he gets it right. WHEELER 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WHEELER concedes (correctly for once) that this is not the current meaning of republic; it isn't. It is the obsolete meaning, last cited by the OED from 1684, of using "republic" as a translation of res publica or politeia; most often in their broad senses, as a synonym for commonwealth. We are not here to forcibly revive Elizabethan English, although an Elizabethan Wikipedia would be an amusing idea; we are here to communicate with twenty-first century readers.
  • WHEELER's quotations fall into three classes: the archaizing, the non-English, and the disingenuous. His recruitment of the unfortunate Terence Ball is in the last class; he quotes from Ball's glossary, not his actual text (pp. 26-8)
    • The result is incomplete: What Ball actually says is that the Roman Republic was a mixed government, and that "A republic, then, was a form of popular government, but it was not meant to be a democracy."
    • And it is out of context. Ball is summarizing the views of Polybius (and Aristotle). He is not stating his own.
  • WHEELER's ideas about the Cretan states are from the "scholarship" of Karl Otfried Mueller, who wrote in 1824, before the present sciences of archaeology or epigraphy existed. His book was also a thousand-page fantasy about how the beautiful, strong-limbed, blond Dorians invented civilization. No modern scholar believes it.
  • I see no profit to discussion with any editor who abuses his sources so badly, as WHEELER has always done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also don't see a lot of profit in these discussions. If you look through the archives of these pages, the exact same debate has been going on for two years now. WHEELER's theories are almost wholly original research. While littered with references, his additions are unique reinterpretations of often mistranslated source texts. The bits that aren't complete OR are taken from minor writers who have long been discredited. - SimonP 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

3rd charge of being disingenious FROM PAGE 27,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now from Terrence Ball page 29:

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

Talk about disingenious. Pmanderson writes this:

"A republic, then, was a form of popular government, but it was not meant to be a democracy."
BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SENTENCE SAYS:
"A republic, then, was a form of popular government, but its defenders insisted THAT IT NOT BE CONFUSED with a democracy." pg 29

So Pmanderson did not fully quote the text.

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

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

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

For anyone who has read so far through this rant, the quotations from Ball are a summary of Polybius' view of a politeia. They are quite correct, and would be relevant to that article. But the OED's last citation for that obsolete meaning of "republic" is from 1684, which is why there is a dab header to that article from this one. We are not here to write in Elizabethan, or even Jacobean, English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The view of Polybius who also calls Sparta with a mixed constitution IS ALSO Plato's, Aristotle, Cicero, Sir Thomas Smyth. Funny how Niccolo Machiavelli calls Sparta a Republic and that Sparta is Mixed. He is using the same definition as Polybius. Ball is NOT just repeating Polybius but the consensus of all Classical writers and beyond.
  • Edward Wortley Montagu places Sparta in the list of ancient republics. He, like John Aylmer, sees Sparta as nearly identical as that of England's constitution and hence mixed (Rawson, pg 238).
  • Alexander Hamilton "It adds no small weight to all these considerations, to recollect that history informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a senate. Sparta, Rome, and Carthage are, in fact, the only states to whom that character can be applied. In each of the two first there was a senate for life. The constitution of the senate in the last is less known."
  • Jean Jacques BurlamquiXXXV. This species of Monarchy, limited by a mixed government, unites the principal advantages of absolute Monarchy, and of the Aristocratic and popular governments; at the same time it avoids the dangers and inconveniences peculiar to each. This is the happy temperament, which we have been endeavoring to find. XXXVI. The truth of this remark has been proved by the experience of past ages. Such was the government of Sparta, Lycurgus, knowing that each of the three sorts of simple governments had very great inconveniences; that Monarchy easily fell into arbitrary power and tyranny; that Aristocracy degenerated into the oppressive government of a few individuals; and Democracy into a wild and lawless dominion; thought it expedient to combine these three governments in that of Sparta, and mix them as it were into one, so that they might serve as a remedy and counterpoise to each other. This wise legislator was not deceived, and ...XXXVII It may be said, that the government of the Romans, under the republic, united in some measure, as that of Sparta, the three species of authority. The consuls held the place of kings, the senate formed the public counsel, and the people had also some share in the administration. The Principles of Politic Law, Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, part II, chap. II.
    • Furthermore Jean-Jacques Burlamqui uses this same definition to define England as mixed government and a republic.
  • Paul A. Rahe "Sparta was neither a monarchy or democracy...The most subtle of the ancient authors described it as a mixed regime...In order to secure the consent of the governed, Sparta ensured the participation of every element of the citizen population in the administration of the city". Rahe, I, pg 152.
    • "Lacedæmonia was, in fact, a mixed regime—an uneasy compromise between competing principles...". Rahe, I, pg 170.
      • Rahe defines Sparta as a Republic because she is mixed. That is the common definition throughout Classical Antiquity.
In conclusion, that IS NOT just the definition of Polybius but the definition of all the Classical writers. That was Cicero's definition as well!!!!!! And he was a Roman Lawyer! WHEELER 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

That section was authored by User:Pmanderson.

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

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

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

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


I will be of no help to this discussion as long as language like "Do you all suffer from reading comphrension here", "supersilliest", "he slants the content" (assuming bad faith), "It ought to provide with a huge amount of laughter", "This man can write the most ungodly stuff", "This is an example of why you are the laughing stock in my book", "any editor who abuses his sources so badly, as WHEELER has always done", as well as the frequent use of all-caps continues. I'm not an admin, I have nothing else eating up my time on here, and even I can't handle this tone. You will not attract an admin to your aid if this is the type of discussion that they see when they arrive... even the most hotly debated Article for Deletion discussions are frequently more pleasant to deal with than this discussion. You haven't made yourself easy to work with — this may be why you feel like you haven't been included in discussions. As a specific point for improvement, I suggest you take a couple days break, perhaps strike out any comment that you've made above that criticizes a person rather than content, and stop using ALL CAPS in your writing. Also, it might help that even if you know you are correct, to write with a style that leaves the impression that you're open to criticism and questioning about your beliefs. Once you believe you've started a nicer discussion, feel free to fetch me to help as a neutral third party... or maybe an admin even... they would probably be willing to help at that point. See you around. Sancho 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boy doesn't this take the cake. A User is constantly abusing the system. He lies when he says he has consensus. Nothing is done. Then, he writes the most outlandish and outrageous section---And I am the one on the recieving end. In Doric Greek society, cowards are put up on display and ridiculed. On a football team---If you can't hack it, you are riduculed. On the farm---If you can't pull your weight, you are riduculed. If you are in the Military----and you act like a coward, can't pull your weight, or you are an idiot as a leader, you are riduculed.
If you are a effeminate, you are riduculed.
All those fields, Farm, football field, military, so on and so forth are all places of MEN. In manly society, ridicule is a proper way of correcting bad behavior and wrong behavior. This is how Manly society corrects its members and stresses Manliness.
Shame is a powerful device. Under Roman Catholic society or any other good Christian society like Victorian England, shame was about promoting virtue, discipline in society and checking the others from evil doing.
But I digress, All those places are places of MEN. Academia has taken on the mentality and characteristics of feminity---"All play nice now". Our society is growing increasingly feminine and men are increasingly effeminate. I forget my place, I am not amongst men of virtue NOR am I among men who love truth. There is no such thing as right or wrong and of course there is no such thing as Rule of Law or decent human behavior.
As I see List of republics, User:Pmanderson continues. I am here attacked and given a talkin' to but User:Pmanderson, can reject all my references, He accepts none and goes off to do whatever--and he continues. Sorry, I am going back to Wikinfo. That List of republics is quite the kicker. This is the second day, and that thing persists. You all need to be ridiculed. Nine days of abuse by User:SimonP and by User:Pmanderson, and I am the one to get the ass chewing. That's great.WHEELER 00:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was not an "ass chewing"... I was just describing to you what has made this discussion not attractive to me and possibly other admins. I have given you suggestions that if you follow, might lead to somebody being willing to help you. As well, this page is to discuss content, not who you feel needs to be ridiculed, or what other wikis you edit on. Sancho 06:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am Old school. I am a traditionalist. I don't conform to modernity too well but I see your point.WHEELER 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

==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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Moreover, Sir Thomas Smyth called England a republic which had a monarch, royalty.WHEELER 18:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
And so where does the word "Republic" come from?WHEELER 22:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

How does one square the circle

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

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

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

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

The Three Elements of the Roman Republic

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

Two consuls instead of a king now stood each year at the head of the community; the assembly of adult males which elected them remained the same, as did the body of elders who advised them; this was the senate, composed in practice of former magistrates. Time and circustance produced various modifications in THE THREE ELEMENTS whose interplay WAS (italics in original) the Roman political system, including notably the creation of a large number of lesser magistrates; NOTHING ALTERED THE CENTRAL FACT OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, THAT IT WAS THE COLLECTIVE RULE OF AN ARISTOCRACY, IN PRINCIPLE and to a varying extent in practice dependent on the will of a popular assembly.
Michael Crawford, The Roman Republic 2ND Edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978, 1992. pg 22-23.

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


I got another piece of the puzzle for you:

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic&oldid=143864894"