|Republic has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12|
|Threads older than 100 days may be archived by.|
The article revolutionary republic use to redirect to sister republic. A user has replaced that with a new article. Please review to see if the subject merits a new article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The French article is not very good, but gives a very good Republic illustration: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9publique#/media/File:Daumier_R%C3%A9publique.jpg
Can someone add it to make the article more user-friendly?
Does anyone else think that the early part of the lead has actually gotten worse since older versions like ? In particular, it seems to imply that under modern definitions it refers to a system of government where "power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law". It says "definition of a republic is commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch", but this seems to imply it still requires the earlier. Whereas as the earlier version says, the most common modern definition is simply that a republic is something which isn't a monarchy. Situations like North Korea can get complicated, but places without elections and where the rule of law are poorly respected are still generally considered republics if they aren't monarchies and have no sign of hereditary rule. Our article mentions the large number of countries which call themselves republics. This is actually quite an important point as most of those will be considered republics, whatever their system of government (again with the complication of cases like North Korea). This contrasts with "democracy" where it's generally still accepted you need credible and free voting by the population of some sort (so a country like the UK or Japan would be considered a democracy; a country like Laos or Congo, not so much not so much no matter what they may call themselves). Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well there are multiple definitions, and the opening is a mess right now, even mixing up the timeline of the classic definition and leading the modern US-specific definition. Carewolf (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
i'd argue that it's important to more clearly delineate the conception of republic as a representative system as something fairly modern. i realize that there's a paragraph discussing this somewhat, but it's worth remembering, for example, that republic, in the sense of regime, existed happily alongside the tradition identified with Machiavelli et al. Bodin, for example, in his six books of the republic, uses it in the sense of politeia, and this usage -- call medieval, if you like (cf. marsilius, for example), continues as well for quite a while. Thus, Rousseau in the Social Contract (Ch. 6, fn.) specifically allows that even a monarchy is a republic ("la monarchie elle-meme est republique.") in other words, the specific argument that a republic meant a representative system was not really settled (?) till a fairly late date. -- chris --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
Leaving aside the final sentence regarding what is or is not a democracy (a completely separate discussion), I agree with Nil Einne, and came to the talk page with the intent of saying virtually the same thing. Whatever we may decide to call a government characterized by popular elections and/or "rule of law," it is a type of republic, but "republic" is not defined by that feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenos agasga (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree. This is not Wiktionary. If the term has a second meaning in the US then there should be a different article for that other concept - what the rest of the world calls "representative democracy" as distinct from "direct democracy" "totalitarianism" and verious other systems. This article is about the first meaning of the word in the US dictionary linked to (and the only meaning of the word in British English). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
consider this portion from the intro:
"The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition, today referred to as "civic humanism", is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect."
Since when is Tacitus a "republican"? Or what does that even mean in his context? He was a historian writing under the emperors. What would it mean to say that civic humanism "derived directly from Roman republicans"? Surely, it was influenced, but that's it. Roman law was already working its influence centuries before humanists came round. What does it mean to call Polybius, a Greek writing in Greek, "Greek-influenced"? res publica was a translation of politeia, and politeia does mean regime. In Aristotle, it is also used for a specific type of regime (often rendered "polity" in the translations), but it's silly to say that Aristotle's very specific use "did not exactly correspond to that of the roman republic." If we're talking about the res publica, i.e., the Roman pre-augustan regime, then it's a tautology to say that it was not the same thing as the democracy at Athens. So in that final sentence, what thinkers or writers are we talking about? What time period? It's worth recalling, Cicero's Republic is not about the Roman republic as it historically existed. chris --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
- Current content:
The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition, today referred to as "civic humanism", is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.
- Best to make it somewhat more concrete probably, so it's easier to discuss what you want to update to the article: --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your proposal:
(please replace this parenthesis with your replacement proposal for the above text)
- Your proposal:
- -- (please replace this parenthesis with four tildes = ~ x 4)
The first paragraph is more than problematic
in fact I would put it in the category utter ignorance (and forgive me for being scathing). A Republic is the governed by a select group of people where it is quite irrelevant whether that is done by a suffrage process. The suffrage makes it government by the people, and if by all people a democracy. Not a Republic.
Examples repeatedly deleted for no reason
- not all of these are republics in the sense of having elected governments, nor do all nations with elected governments use the word "republic" in their names.
So I provided examples:
- For example, the Kingdom of Norway is the country with the highest Democracy Index, but is a constitutional monarchy, while the country with the lowest Democracy Index is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
and they were repeatedly reverted with reason
- "Deleted text was prone to lead readers to confuse the concepts of republic and liberal democracy, and to think that "kingdom" should normally stand for absolutism"
The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" was included because it has "Republic" in the name, but is not considered to have a truly elected government, as per the previous sentence.
The "Kingdom of Norway" was included because it does not have "Republic" in the name, but does have an elected government, as per the previous sentence.
They also happen to be the top and bottom of the Democracy Index, which is a pretty good quantification of "having elected governments" if you ask me. 🙄 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)