Jump to content

Talk:Republic

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ngaskill (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 10 May 2009 (fixed sig). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:RFCpol

See also

Immature statement

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

Republic means Representation of the General Public

Other meanings people ascribe to republicanism are opiniated.

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

Justice also means prosperity.

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

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

Definition

"A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have impact on its government." According to this definition, Sweden is a republic. Sweden is of course not a republic so this definition must be wrong. --212.247.27.45 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sweden is a hereditary monarchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.231.68 (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too feel the definition is wrong. India was an independent democracy from 1947 to 1950 but not a republic. However, it became a republic only in 1950. As I understand, the difference between a democracy and a republic is that the republic is governed by the law of the nation and not by the majority opinion as in the case of a democracy. --Jacob.jose (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article says "A republic is a form of government under which there is not a hereditary head of state." But this is wrong, as by this definition elective monarchies like Malaysia, Vatican City, the Holy Roman Empire and also Andorra would be republics. Maybe one could say a republic is a state whose head of state is not a monarch. Aleph Kaph (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point. I will change it. BillMasen (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now changed it to 1)Impersonal entity or 2)Country without a monarch. BillMasen (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this current definition either. I'm not certain there is a concrete positive definition for the word, only the negative non-monarchic one. I spent yesterday going through pretty much every specialist encyclopedia I could find and looking at the various definitions. Here are some of them:
  • "not a monarchy: its head of state is a president and not a hereditary monarch" - The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science
  • "any political regime in which no king or hereditary dynasty rules over subjects in a state of submission or servility" - New Dictionary of the History of Ideas
  • "an attitude toward political life and a constitutional form of political order. In both senses it has always been contrasted with tyrannical or monarchical rule" - Governments of the World
  • "a government of citizens, rather than subjects, who share in directing their own affairs" - Political Theories for Students
  • "republicanism means a preference for nonmonarchical government and a strong dislike of hereditary monarchy. Narrowly defined, and in its early modern context, it means self-government by a community of citizens in a city-state" - Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World
My favourite is the New Dictionary of the History of Ideas, though in keeping with Aleph Kaph I'd not use the word hereditary. I like how that one includes the non-monarchy but leaves room for the idea that limited monarchies are to a degree republican. - SimonP (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://books.google.com/books?id=iBSE68tz8RUC&pg=PA55&dq=%22impersonal+entity%22+%22republic%22&ei=J3L_ScOREoTyzQTC0bmqCw http://books.google.com/books?id=iBSE68tz8RUC&pg=PA55&dq=%22impersonal+entity%22+%22republic%22&ei=J3L_ScOREoTyzQTC0bmqCw http://books.google.com/books?id=iBSE68tz8RUC&pg=PA55&dq=%22impersonal+entity%22+%22republic%22&ei=J3L_ScOREoTyzQTC0bmqCw Here are three books that support "impersonal entity" as a defining characteristic of Republics (and bear in mind that this is only one way of phrasing that idea).
I agree that perhaps "non-monarchy" should be put first, as it is probably the most common definition (though a woefully inadequate one IMO). However, I still think the concept of power coming from an impersonal entity, rather than being part of someone's estate, should be prominently mentioned in the lead. BillMasen (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

err... Bill, you seem to have given trice the same link. Not convincing enough to me for topping the lede... --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing

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

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

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

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

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

"Res public" is NOT Latin for "Democracy"

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

Opening paragraph

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

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

A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a hereditary monarch[1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.[4][5]The term republic can also refer to the state or country that uses this republican system. The word originates from the Latin term res publica.
  1. ^ Webster's Third New International Dictionary: "Republic: a state where the head of state is not a monarch (...)".
  2. ^ Niccolò Machiavelli, 1532, The Prince, Chapter 1.
  3. ^ Oligarchies or aristocracies are not always indicated as republics, but for instance Montesquieu in his 1748 The Spirit of the Laws (e.g. book II, 1: "a republican government is that in which the body, or only a part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power"), does
  4. ^ e.g. Republic article in Encyclopædia Britannica
  5. ^ Some states, although not being led by a monarch, and having a democratic constitution, choose not to term themselves "republic".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original research doesn't come into it. It's just a matter of writing clear and unambiguous prose. We are meant to do desk research - read up on the appropriate sources and condense down the result into an encyclopedia article. Anyway what you say is nonsense. Look up dictionary.com, the different dictionaries offered use the following definitions:
  • "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."
  • "A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president."
  • "A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them; a commonwealth."
  • "a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them"
  • "A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives."
  • "state in which supreme power rests in the people"
and last but not least:
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
  • "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government"
Three out of seven dictionaries choose to define a republic in terms of a state. The rest don't. Even the dictionary you told me to look up describes a republic as a government rather than as a state. As with most editorial decisions on Wikipedia, it just a choice between different possible alternatives. I'm not inventing anything. And I would point out again that state is a disambiguation page. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Webster's "Third new international dictionary" (as used in the article) of course precedes the more specialist "Dictionary of Law" by the same publishing house, for a general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, "form of government" is more precise and more accurate. If you look at our own List of republics you will see many that wouldn't really be considered "a state or country." - SimonP (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "If you look at our own List of republics you will see many that wouldn't really be considered "a state or country"" - Pardon? Which one is nor a state, nor a country? And of course NONE (absolutely NONE) of that list are a "form of governement". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem with "state or country" is that they are different terms which mean similar of slightly different things and none of your sources back up describing a republic as a "country". The only countries which are republics are also states. Even poor old Machiavelli isn't much good to you either since The Prince begins: "All the States and Governments by which men are or ever have been ruled, have been and are either Republics or Princedoms." — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The addition "or country" of course makes "state" less ambiguous. Making clear that we're not referring to "state (of matter)" here. So this does away with your "ambiguity" argument. Yes, they're slightly different: both can be republics. "Germany", a country, can be a republic -as it is for some time now; City-states of the Hanseatic league, none of them a country, can be republics, as many of them were. Nothing vague or ambiguous if you call them by the name they're usually called by. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguity of state is not between the state the political entity and state of matter. The ambiguity is what is meant exactly by the term state as a political entity. As our own article notes, the modern state system was "first consolidated beginning in earnest in the 15th century." One has to use great care in earlier times, and by preference it should be avoided in favour of more specific terms. - SimonP (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you could format you comments are clearly and indent them so I'd know when you quoting someone else and what you're saying yourself, this discussion would be easier to follow.
Avoiding ambiguity is never irrelevant. By invoking the word "state" you are liable, however unintentionally, to invoke the modern state system, as this is what the word means today. State is not a more inclusive term just because you'd like it to be.
You have/had no sources to prove that a republic could ever be defined as a "country".
Please cite the exact passage in the Prince where is says that a republic is a state and not a form of government as it appears to be entirely your own interpretation of the English translation of the original Tuscan written almost 500 years ago.
While you're at it please go to the principality article and change the lead to read "A principality is a country led of a hereditary monarch".
You have chosen to ignore that state is a disambiguation page.
You seem to entirely miss that dictionaries define republics as either forms of government or states as it is not of fundamental importance. We are thereby left with a choice of how to define it ourselves and a very short read of state and form of government should explain why the latter is preferable. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit warring really needs to stop. Would it be possible to come to some sort of compromise wording, e.g. by some definitions refers to government, but others might use country? - SimonP (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...said the edit-warrior --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've expanded the lead with a discussion of what a "state that is a republic" is, and also added something on what republicanism as a form of government implies. I've made clear that "most often a republic is a sovereign country," and noted some of the few exceptions to that rule. Does this work? - SimonP (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional point, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but pretty much everything else in this article also describes republics as a form of government. The side bar to the right is headlined "forms of government" the article is in the category "forms of government." The phrase "form of government" occurs fourteen times in the article, many times in sections written by yourself. - SimonP (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

on the contrary,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarified intro to section Influence of republicanism

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

Role of religion

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

"single Dutch source from 1946"? Seems a poor reading of the reference material.
Removing the section entirely seems unwarranted. Yes, additional sourcing would be welcome: entire removal seems like killing fat people in order to solve overweight issues. Maybe a slimming strategy would be less aggressive. But still, preferable to find some English-language sources that would reliably consolidate the content. If none exist, I'd gladly agree to some slimming (never knew why the section should contain so much US-centric detail), but as far as I see now, not an entire removal.
As far as I can remember, weren't there some more or less aggressive attempts at removal of this section in some distant part? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After giving some time to have that section properly referenced and some evidence presented that it belongs I have removed it. Looking through other encyclopedias and political science guides, none of them talk at all about republics affecting the role of religion in a state. The role of religion is not an important issue in the study of republics. Some studies have been done on the issue, but they are still tangential to the subject. This information would thus be best placed in a separate article. The current content is not worth basing an independent article around, as it is almost unreferenced and reads like original research. - SimonP (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which comments? That section still has not been referenced at all. There are some similar issue with the economics section- SimonP (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ones right above? That something is there does not mean we should keep. Our goal should be rigour and high quality. If there is text that does not meet Wikipedia's high standards it should be removed. This section has a lot of comments that simply aren't true. For instance: "by the time of the Enlightenment in Europe there was not a single absolute monarchy that tolerated another religion than the official one of the state." Prior to 1685 you had the Edict of Nantes in France giving religious freedom. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688 you had toleration at least for various sects of Protestantism in England. For most of history you thus had one of those two. Throughout the period the Ottoman Empire, while officially Muslim, certainly tolerated the other religions. Most of the other Muslim states also had policies to accommodate both Christians and Muslims. - SimonP (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding your high-handed rhetoric, the source is valid. If it WOULD be the only source for that material, then yes the section could be shortened, but imho not deleted. The material is germane, and I'm sure plenty of other sources to confirm. Trimming is something that might be considered at this point, deleting outright is rather to be categorised as an act of vandalism though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some see the Glorious Revolution (1688) as the start of the Enlightenment, so, "by the time of the Enlightenment" is in line with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and England after 1688 was both a monarchy and tolerant thus is an example of an Enlightenment monarchy that allowed multiple religions. Not to mention the Ottoman Empire was there long after 1688. If these "facts" are coming form the sole source from this section, then we really shouldn't consider it very reliable as those statements are quite incorrect. - SimonP (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem may be merely grammatical: by the time the Enlightenment was about to start (1687-ish) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does reading it that way solve the problem? It still doesn't account for the fact that tolerant monarchies existed post-1688. - SimonP (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Supra-national republics

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

??? Weren't you the one proclaiming that "republic" is primarily about government system, and not on whether the governed entity is to be considered either a state or a country? Then surely sources must abound discussing the EU in terms of republic, because that's the system used in its governance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm the one looking for this article to be well referenced, and this section matter doesn't seem to exist anywhere outside of Wikipedia. - SimonP (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, for your proposed changes to the intro: end of discussion: "republic" is a country or state (usually), not a form of government.
Re. supra-national republics: I've added a "fact" tag: let's see if references for the expression are available. That doesn't affect the content of most of that section though. Maybe we only need to find a different section title. Of course an update of the content of that section might be necessary too after the EU "constitution" failed (although it is announced it will return in another guise). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed it. Adding a fact tag to information that all research seems to show doesn't belong is not ideal. The section didn't really say anything interesting anyway? - SimonP (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the removal of the entire section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reason for that objection? - SimonP (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, see above. The EU is an important body, and its form of government is widely discussed, with a peak of that discussion around the time of the "European constitution" proposals. And then of course, the EU's form of government is republican (or "republic" if you prefer), so a reflection or summary of that discussion belongs in this article. Shouldn't be too difficult to find sources, should it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference for the EU being a republic? Or own article certainly doesn't call it such. Searching for the phrase "republic of the European Union" gets pretty much no hits on Google. According to Google it doesn't seem like anyone has even once stated the "European Union is a republic." If this is an important matter, it should be easy to find references related to it. If you find some references I would have no problem with it being readded. - SimonP (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Do you have a reference for the EU being a republic?" - Do you? As said, irrelevant unless you maintain that republic is usually a form of government.
There are sources describing the EU as republican as far as the form of government goes, as I said: around the high tide of the "EU constitution" polemic a few years ago there were published plenty. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great if there are many they should be easy to find then. I look forward to seeing them and having that content readded. I'm having trouble finding any myself. Both the phrases "EU is republican" and "European Union is republican" get zero Google hits. - SimonP (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, couldn't find many on short notice. Nonetheless, it remains true: the EU is an important body, and its form of government is widely discussed, with a peak of that discussion around the time of the "European constitution" proposals. And then of course, the EU's form of government is republican (...), so a reflection or summary of that discussion belongs in this article. Shouldn't be too difficult to find sources, should it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, when we find some sources, or even a source, that say the "EU's form of government is republican" then we can put that back in. Until source a source appears there is no way to verify the information. Saying it's true doesn't make it so. - SimonP (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that's a single phrase: that doesn't say anything pro or contra the other content you removed, some of it referenced. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what other supranational entities can be considered republics? If we are going to discuss the subject there must be at least one example. The other content about republics making up supra-national entities also needs to be referenced before it is put back in. - SimonP (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my main thrust is that we can't pass by Europe: whether the European Union is simply a republic (intended as "form of government") or something that can be compared to a republic, it should be mentioned in the "republic" article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And my main thrust is that there is no way we should be doing that unless there are some references to back it up, in keeping with Wikipedia policy. - SimonP (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oligarchies not always republics

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

AFAIK they usually aren't: should not be too difficult to find a reference, should it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked and couldn't find anything. Certainly by the most basic, not a monarchy definition oligarchies would count. - SimonP (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see what? Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics, but that is not what is being discussed there. - SimonP (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see that it is easy to find a reference for "oligarchies or aristocracies are not always indicated as republics". --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that is a source for just the opposite. An oligarchy is not a monarchy, which means many would consider it a republic. - SimonP (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics" - well in political science they write books don't they, shouldn't be too difficult to find such a source confirming what you said, should it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But not excluded as oligarchies, but because they are not liberal democracies. If that is the only basis that oligarchies are to be excluded then that section needs to be rewritten. - SimonP (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
stop the handwringing, it confirms that oligarchies are not always indicated as republics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be "handwringing" to you, but finding references is important. We can't just go by our own judgement. We don't have any reference specifically saying "oligarchies are not republics" and I don't remember having come across one. Unless we can find such a reference the content must go. - SimonP (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics", reference please? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we need a reference for. I don't have a specific reference for that sentence, which is why I don't think it should be in the article. - SimonP (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You contended "Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics", then you find a reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No we find references to add content, unrefereneced content is what we remove. Wikipedia policy is that "each fact presented by an article must be concretely verifiable" if we can't verify it, it should be removed. - SimonP (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You contended "Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics", well is that true or not, or are just trying to play some weird political games? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you read the very first line and all the others I have been saying that phrase should be removed unless it is referenced. - SimonP (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You contended "Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics". --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and I agree with that, if we find a reference to that effect that would justify that section. But my making it so doesn't make it true. I haven't been able to find a good reference. One might exist, but until we find one to verify this supposition of ours the text should go. - SimonP (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... handwringing. Do you mean what you write, or are you just filibustering? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I very much mean what I write. In this case I am waiting. I'm still hoping to see you present a reference for that content you wrote before I remove it. - SimonP (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You contended "Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics", please provide a reference, I ask you politely. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't find any references, and am not sure any exist. Which is what a sentence saying that shouldn't belong in the article. - SimonP (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You contended "Oligarchies could be excluded based on the political science idea of republics", please make clear why you did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do think a logical case could be made for that, but we don't keep things in Wikipedia because a logical case can be made for them. We keep them because they are referenced and verifiable. - SimonP (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Separate monarchy section

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

Re "The primary and most basic definition of a republic is "not a monarchy."" - could you give a reference for that, I mean not putting that conclusion together from an array of references in an OR sense, or the faulty interpretation of Merriam-Webster's (meaning "1a" IS NOT BY DEFINITION the most common meaning of a word)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, how about the The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science. It says "Today to state that a country is a republic means that it is not a monarchy: its head of state is a president and not a hereditary monarch." That is the only definition found there. - SimonP (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not object if I reinstate this change then? - SimonP (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIA Factbook makes more distinctions if I remember well.

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

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

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

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

lol. Do you really read what you write?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro

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

You're still edit-warring the first para. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But do you agree we should follow policy and present a summary of the subject? And that the version with references is also superior? - SimonP (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're edit-warring the first para, without talk page consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Re. the proposed map [1]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"History" section

Introduced unilaterally by SimonP [2]:

  • doubles a lot of material already there;
  • this is a rehash of old material that used to be in the article isn't it, the antiquated expression "Levant" is back etc. I think the article has evolved away from that, an evolution I agree to.
  • uses Classical republic as a pivotal concept, that concept is maybe fictitious reconstruction, and all in all not that important that it would be used commonly in most sources describing early developments of "republic". At least the Classical republic article hasn't been able to collect a single source: is there any?
  • In Europe republicanism was (etc...) - this is VERY old stuff rejected before, while confusing "republic" and "republicanism". Please stop these steps back in the history of this article, for no sound reason. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you disagree that the article should have a history section? It's standard for almost any other article. There is some overlap with Republicanism, but that is to be expected as the are closely related concepts. I agree with the classical republic thing, and I've clarified that. As to the word Levant when speaking of the eastern Mediterranean in this period of history that is the standard term, and by no means archaic. I will alter it though to try and reach a compromise on this section. - SimonP (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

So,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From 3O

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

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

RfCs regarding multiple changes

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

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

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

RfC - History part

Template:RFChist

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

RfC - Society part

Template:RFCsoc

How societal aspects to be treated in the Republic article?

RfC - Religion part

Template:RFCreli

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

RfC - Economics part

Template:RFCecon

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

RfC - Politics part

Template:RFCpol

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

Working on the rewrite

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

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

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

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

Agreed. And after I suggested that he air his objections on the talk page (he hasn't) I am "taking it to talk" like he asked. So, Francis, what do you think is wrong with my version? BillMasen (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
explained above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must be being stupid here: where above have you commented on my edit, except to say that certain edits "need a wider community input" (where you did not single out my edit)? Why do they need that input? I have tried repeatedly to work with you to meet your objections. BillMasen (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of what version is on display now, Francis what do you feel is the way forward with this article? What do you think needs to be done to get it to Good Article status? - SimonP (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your confindence that I will agree to this, when you provide absolutely no rationale whatsoever, is completely unwarranted.
I ask again. Why do you think my edit is wrong? I am perfectly prepared to consider arguments against it. You have provided none. And please do not direct me to 'see above', when everything you wrote there was before my edit. BillMasen (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I get /rewrite to a level that I can nominate it for Good Article status will you let me replace the current page? I will work at /rewrite, but my work is pointless if I can't ever move it to the mainspace. - SimonP (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't even move it myself. If I get Bill or another user to agree that it is better, will you agree that it can be replaced? - SimonP (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than willing to do so. BillMasen (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

You must understand my frustration. I have put several weeks of work into this page, and so far not one change I've made has met your approval. I've made dozens of edits, and you have reverted every single one of them. That is why I am asking you to propose a method whereby we can overhaul this article that doesn't involve you having a personal veto. How about we use the Good Article mechanism? If a month after the rewrite goes live I have not managed to get it to Good Article status, I will agree to give up trying to make changes. You can then revert to whatever version you prefer. - SimonP (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get involved with this debate, but I've noticed that a dictionary definition is used for the lead. My experience is that with such subjects, dictionaries often have a definition that is different from that used by the subjects practitioners. For instance, I've seen Archaeology defined as the study of the ancient past (archaeology covers all human time periods). Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

"ideal republic" - foundation of ideology of republicanism

Moved here from mainspace:

He also described the governance and foundation of the ideal republic, which is the foundation of the ideology political scientists call republicanism.[1][2]

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

The is the thesis of Pocock's book, and his work largely defined the current nomenclature. Haakonssen reviews the history of the concept of republicanism and says the same thing, even though he disagrees with the idea of a distinct republican tradition. I don't have his with me for an exact quote, but here is a direct quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "In the first sense, republicanism refers to a loose tradition or family of writers in the history of western political thought, including especially: Machiavelli and his fifteenth-century Italian predecessors; the English republicans Milton, Harrington, Sidney, and others; Montesquieu and Blackstone; the eighteenth-century English commonwealthmen; and many Americans of the founding era such as Jefferson and Madison. " - SimonP (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...Machiavelli and his fifteenth-century Italian predecessors..." (bolding added), so Machiavelli being the first as you would have it in the Wikipedia article seems to be contradicted by Stanford.
Based on the current reference material: no, not suitable for Wikipedia.
For the rest, I'm sure we all have patience until you can produce sufficient reference material before any further attempts to put this in mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a reliable source, so that alone would justify it going back in. If anyone picks up a copy of Pocock they can also easily verify that this is what he writes about. - SimonP (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The current idea of a republic first appeared in the writings of Italian scholars of the Renaissance, most importantly Niccolo Machiavelli.[3][4]

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

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

  1. ^ Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (1975; new ed. 2003)
  2. ^ Haakonssen, Knud. "Republicanism." A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. eds. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1995.
  3. ^ Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (1975; new ed. 2003)
  4. ^ William R. Everdell. The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans. University of Chicago Press, 2000.
What wording would you suggest as an alternative to current? Here is a quote from Everdell: "Machiavelli's new diadical usage ('monarchies or republics'), which implies that all republics must be aristocracies or democracies - but never monarchies - grows stronger from one end of the Discourses to the other. This is a fact of immense importance to the influence of Machiavelli as a seminal political thinker - particularly his more recent historiographical incarnation as a republican thinker." pg. xxii - xxiii - SimonP (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just cited a page number for Everdell. None of these sources can't be found in any major research library. Others are from common encyclopedias, most of which can be accessed online though services like Gale. - SimonP (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found a good summary quote for Pocock, just had to look at the back of the book: "the ideal of the classical republic revived by Machiavelli and other thinkers of Renaissance Italy." - SimonP (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic&oldid=289073350"