|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Federal republic article.|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 September 2002
- 2 kingdoms and dominions
- 3 Other federal republics
- 4 Why isn't the USA listed as having the style "federal republic"?
- 5 Federal monarchy
- 6 Mexico
- 7 What on Earth does this mean?
- 8 Republic of North Sudan?
- 9 December 2012
- 10 Cleanup needed
- 11 Nepal still called a Kingdom?
- 12 Including
- Isn't Russia a federation of republics?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 01:13, July 24, 2004
- Both India and Russia are federations in which the central government exercises direct control over the states/sub-divisions thereof. More so in Russia then India.--126.96.36.199 18:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Isn't a federal republic just a country that happens to be both a federation and a republic? If that's the case most of what can be said about this topic are covered by the federation and republic articles. Or is there more to it than that? Iota 13:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
kingdoms and dominions
From firstname.lastname@example.org 2005 January 26th:
- Australia and Canada are kingdoms? Are they not dominions?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 16:24, January 27, 2005
As I understand it Australia and Canada were part of the same kingdom as the UK until 1927. Under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 each dominion of the commonwealth became a separate kingdom. So it seems that from 1927 onwards Australia and Canada were both dominions and kingdoms. However I don't know whether or not its accurate to call them dominions any more because the term seems to have fallen completely out of use now that they are are 100% independent. Iota 16:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- FWIW, if you still care, Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the other countries which share the monarch are termed Commonwealth Realms. It's not NPOV to say they have the British Monarch as head-of-state; many Australian monarchists argue that our Governor-General is head of state. Felix the Cassowary 14:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By the way laurelbush1952, have you considered getting a login? Then people can put comments on your talkpage and don't have to email you. It also has other advantages. See: Wikipedia:Why create an account? Iota 16:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The anon 184.108.40.206 has chosen to include Australia and Canada on this list. I think that while it's possibly debateable that Australia is a Republic, the fact that most republicans agree that our de jure head of state is Elizabeth II, means that Australia should not be on the list. AFAIU, in Canada there isn't even a shadow of a debate; they're clearly a monarchy. I (with regret) am removing them. Felix the Cassowary 14:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Other federal republics
I don't fully understand what it is that constitutes a federal republic; why isn't Colombia included there, for example, if the departments (the administrative divisions) have their own elected governors (or Peru, or Chile, etc.)? Or, should it be the case that each self-governing region should have a constitution? (I don't know if that is the case in those countries) --J.Alonso 23:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- The determining factor in a federation is essentially whether the national government has the legal ability to unilaterally legislate out of existence the subnational ones. For instance, the Commonwealth Government of Australia can't legislate out of existence Victoria because our constitution requires (amongst others) that the State Parliaments would have to endorse this particular change as well. The UK is not a federation in spite of the Scottish Parliament because the Westminster Parliament can unilaterally legislate them out of existence with no difficulty whatsoever.
- So if in Peru or Chile the central government would require the consent of the subnational goverments (not because of they didn't have it they would be voted out at the next elections, but because they simply cannot do it in law), that would make it a federation.
- Obviously to be a federal republic you need to be a republic as well, so my earlier examples weren't meant to discuss federal republics but just federations.
- — Felix the Cassowary 01:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I've removed Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola and Amernia till someone can confirm that they are in fact federations (according to the helpful definition given by Felix above). Iota 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't the USA listed as having the style "federal republic"?
Could someone please explain to me why the United States is not a Federal Republic? Your own Inteligent Service(CIA), says its a Federal Republic. Thx! Just check the cia website.... https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
- Government type:
- Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
- I have changed the "style" of the United States in the list to "(None)". The fact that it is listed without a "style" does not mean that anyone thinks it is not a federal republic. Of course the US is a federal republic - the fact that it is on this list shows that we think it is a federal republic. The "style" column is not a place to list accurate descriptions of the government form of the countries, it is about what countries are officially styled. So Russia is listed as "Federation" because it is officially called the "Russion Federation", Austria is just listed as a "Republic" because it is officially called the "Republic of Austria", and Venezuela is listed as "Bolivarian Republic", even though "Bolivarian" doesn't necessarily mean much and isn't a useful description of the form of government, because Venezuela is officially called the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". Similarly, the United States of America is not officially called the "Federal Republic of the United States of America", or any other special style, so it's style is listed as "(None)". Every country on this list is a federal republic, so it wouldn't be useful to explicitly list them all as "Federal Republics". --thirty-seven 06:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- The "style" of the United States is archaic, but very commonly used - it is, of course, the United States of America - United States is the style of the country named America. But the general public simply calls it the United States (ex. as seen on the Great Seal of the United States) and the US has dropped the "of America" part in government use, so the "style" has become the official name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic w/a Strong Democratic Tradition; in other words, we don't need a democracy but we prefer it because it works to get the right people to run the Federal Republic. The Constitutional aspect means that we have written documentation of what this country is and how it functions and it is signed into law which cannot be changed, it cannot be changed in all of its entirely but we can add to it which is what we call "amendments".
Joshua the Independent 18:29, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
There is at present a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal monarchy. As that article is analogous to this one, perhaps editors would be interested in participating? --Gazzster (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What on Earth does this mean?
In the opening paragraph is this sentence:
The states in a federation also maintain the federation.
Republic of North Sudan?
Though South Sudan declared its independence last year, Sudan has not changed its official name to North Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC) North Sudan is Bir Tawil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4000:8CD0:5C3F:E829:F03B:B098 (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Switzerland is NOT a republic (according to Plato's definition). Switzerland is NOT a federation. Switzerland is a confederation. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 19:42, December 21, 2012
This page is very bad, it's just a copy of CIA World Factbook, it needs to have more sources and not just the view of one Intelligence Organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)