Talk:Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also

Contents

[edit] Definition of 'Republic'

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

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

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

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

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

If adding to the De facto republic to the introduction is such a big deal, why not just add it later on in the article? I think it should be noted that while the UK is a Monarchy, it actually functions like a republic.

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

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

[edit] Schonken's Warpath

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

- Your revert to a spamlinked version of Republic

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

[edit] Schonken's Warpath II

  • NPA on Republic talk page

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

Stevewk 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

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

  • Clarification of facts, if needed...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Content discussion

Re. changes to intro section and related footnotes:

    • i cant believe i'm gonna waste my time this way, but since the wiki guys want it, ... just a reminder. you can tell me what to do, but you have no right to tell me how to do it. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Not an argument, but an innuendo. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1

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

Changed to:

In a broad definition, a republic is a state or nation, the sovereignty of which is based on popular consent, and the governance of which is based on popular representation and control.
  • Second version is a definition of a representative democracy not of a republic. In some contexts both concepts are synonymous, but not in the context of a broad definition; --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • a quibble. there isnt a dimes worth of difference between the two, i believe he knows that, and the fact that its a "broad definition" doesnt matter either. i would leave out "broad definition" and go straight to it. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the boilerplate of the article says that it is about "real states and countries that have been termed republic" - the second version of the definition is so narrow that several *real* countries that are known as "republics" at (for instance) the United Nations, would be "wrongly named" according to Wikipedia's definition. It is a "wishful thinking" kind of definition, or stated otherwise: with such definition Wikipedia gives the impression that only by naming your country a republic, it automatically becomes a democracy. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • that appears incoherent to me. my definition goes straight to the heart of the matter. what makes a republic different from other forms of government is 'precisely that its sovereignty derives from popular consent, and that its governance is exercised via popular representation, which is control. that's whats "real." my definition doesnt go near anything else he is trying to state or imply. the only "wishful thinking" going on here is with him. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Please provide a reference that your look is "the heart of the matter". As far as I can tell, it's an opinion, not the "heart of the matter". I don't think that the way countries are named at, for instance, the United Nations is "wishful thinking". If the article doesn't explain why, for instance, North Korea is named a republic (and it is named a republic), but limits itself to moralising lessons why such countries "shouldn't" be named a republic, then we're not writing an encyclopedia, but a political pamphlet. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The definition is not compatible with Samuel Johnson's 1755 definition of republic ("A government of more than one person"): according to that definition an oligarchy, not based on "popular consent & representation", would also be a republic. That lack of consistency between definitions should at least be mentioned (see below). --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • hey, leave Johnson out of it, for all i care. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the expression "sovereignty [...] based on popular consent" inappropriate: badly formulated, and apart from that, I think it would make Adolf Hitler, whose "sovereignty [was] based on popular consent", look like a republican.
  • Change of country to nation - too much nation-state ideology imho. "Country" works fine when you're giving a definition regarding states in real life. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • the WORST and most laughable error of all. sure, Hitler was elected in 1933, but shortly thereafter he brazenly violated all connection with popular sovereignty, as everyone but mr. opponent knows very well. does anyone actually believe that Germany in 1938 was a republic because Hitler was originally popularly elected in 1933. c'mon, granted, i have a low opinion of him, but i thought he was better than this degree of...oh, whatever. on the other thing, yeah sure, use 'country' especially since it seems like that would make him feel better. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hitler had "popular consent" till the later stages of the Second World War (that's for more than 10 years after 1933). He certainly didn't loose "popular consent" shortly after his ascension to power in 1933 (how could he have started WWII without "popular consent"?); but he abandoned the Weimar republic shortly after coming to power. That's not explained by the "popular consent equals republic" theory. By contrast, the same development is easily explained by observing that Hitler, when abandoning the Weimar republic by proclaiming a set of laws contrary to it, had deprived the people of controlling the principles on which the state organisation was built (that most Germans, at the time, supported that change doesn't interfere with the fact that the republic was abandoned early in Hitler's reign). --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2

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

Changed to

Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic. (i.e. "autonomy" removed).
  • If these definitions also usually stress the importance of autonomy that word should be kept in, imho. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • the quibble with 'autonomy' is just that. all governments are autonomous. even puppet states have a degree of autonomy. mentioning autonomy is not necessary to the definition of a republic, but it sounds like it is. is has that feeling of important euphony. but ok, put it in or take it out. another insignificant point. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, let's check Britannica and some other sources. If the autonomy part is often "stressed" w.r.t. republics then we keep it in, otherwise not. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3

Added

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

to first paragraph of intro, including this footnote:

  1. ^ "Republic," Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster Inc., 2004), 1058. A republic contrasts with a dictatorship or other autocracy, but not necessarily with a monarchy, if the latter be of the constitutional variety, i.e., based on a body of fundamental law. In such a government, as England/Great Britain following its Revolution of 1688-89, we find a "monarchy" in name only (a nominal monarchy), since the government then came under popular consent and control, and with executive authority strictly circumscribed. Such a monarchy may be considered a de facto republic.
  • Unnecessarily extends the length of the intro, since it is a redundant repeat of what is extensively treated in following paragraphs of the intro. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • first of all, "redundant repeat" is redundant, but not all redundancy is repetitive, and not all repetitiveness is redundant. i didnt expect to have to tutor him in English grammar too. you guys ask a lot. second, negative. its in a footnote. you read it later if you read it at all. if you feel like you're going to be detained, you read it later. groan. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The footnote is a hideout for unreferenced contentions (it even unfittingly gives the impression that these samples of Original Research are covered by what can be found in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition):
    • thats completely biased and unsupportable, his own "unreferenced contention." Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • These contentions of yours are thus far unreferenced. That's a correct description. If you didn't understand thus far, my main argument is Wikipedia:Verifiability's "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it" - so provide a viable reference for the contentions, or they can be removed. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    1. "A republic contrasts with a dictatorship or other autocracy" which is not always correct for *real countries* in general. I've already given the examples of the Roman Republic (note that Julius Caesar was both *nominally* a dictator for life, and perceived as an *autocrat* - at least by his murderers); Mobutu's Zaire; Belarus (this example of a *real country* termed a *republic* and nonetheless a *dictatorship* is even covered by the CIA World Factbook, see above). Again a description rather to be filed as "wishful thinking", than a description of what happens to states who name themselves republic in real life. I'd only accept this alleged contrast between "republics" and "dictatorship/autocracy" as part of the article if a reference to a reliable source can be found for it. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • if i hear "wishful thinking one more time", i'm gonna lose it. (stay tuned). i'm just finding this incoherent. its one long non-sequitir. this thing about "real life". what is he talking about? is this supposed to be an article about fictional republics? say what? i dont have, and dont want to have a clue about Zaire or Belarus. if they have legislatures which truly represent the people, and which cant be dictated to by the executive, they're at least de facto republics. you can take that "real" piece of knowledge to the bank. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I can't discern an argument in the above, innuendo's don't make arguments. As said above, these contentions of yours are unreferenced, they are also unlikely, so they can be removed on sight. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    2. "A republic contrasts [...] not necessarily with a monarchy, if the latter be of the constitutional variety, i.e., based on a body of fundamental law. In such a government, as England/Great Britain following its Revolution of 1688-89, we find a "monarchy" in name only (a nominal monarchy), since the government then came under popular consent and control, and with executive authority strictly circumscribed. Such a monarchy may be considered a de facto republic." Sorry, this synonymizing of "de facto republic" with "consitutional monarchy", based on the post-Glorious Revolution era in England/GB example is far from a general understanding. My Webster's (1981 printed edition) quotes E. E. Reynolds terming Oliver Cromwell's regime a republic, not, of course William III of England's regime. Again, I oppose to wishful thinking type of generalisations. If someone said it, and that someone is a reliable source, OK, then go ahead, but always indicate where you got it. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • it most certainly is a general understanding. he's just not in on the secret. its widely understood, though i will grant that it had to be exported from academia long ago precisely because some like mr. opponent thought that any govt with a "king" as executive is automatically a monarchy. thats why our children went to college, to learn things like this. the British constitutional monarchy since 1689 has been a de facto republic, a monarchy in name only because the only difference between it and a republic such as the US is that the chief exec. is a "king" instead of a "president." everything else is categorically identical. that means that a constitutional monarchy is, de facto, a republic. the sense in which the Brits go around believing they live in a monarchy is quaintly old fashioned and somewhat charming actually. i think they should keep thinking that. its nice. and i love Mr. Blair, but only as a platonic chum, you understand? oh man, there he goes again with "wishful thinking." i'm surprised i held it together. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
        • ibid. I still contend that that's a piece of original research, in the meaning given to that in Wikipedia guidance, which means it should be removed from the encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4

In the second paragraph:

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

With footnote 2:

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

Is changed to:

but such a characterization is blurred by some borderline issues. For example while the distinction between monarchy and republic was not always made as it is in modern times, such a distinction depends very much on the concept of a monarch, which itself has various definitions, thereby frustrating attempts to clarify the meaning of its apparent opposite, the republic.
  • "Defining a republic as a non-monarchy, the most common short definition, is based on this idea." (+ footnote) – I wouldn't leave that out: it connects with the other content of the second paragraph.
  • "blurred by some borderline issues" - I think the "blurred" (combined with "borderline issues") here overemphasises, just as a style issue.
  • Object to the removal of "while oligarchies are traditionally considered neither monarchy nor republic" (see above, removing this obfuscates that Samuel Johnson's definition is in fact a "non-standard" definition, that is incompatible with currently more generally adopted definitions of "republic").
  • "[...] thereby frustrating attempts to clarify the meaning of its apparent opposite, the republic" – Original Research, unclear formulation, appendended without apparent relation to a sentence that is perfectly well without it. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • i never cared for that paragraph anyway. he will do what he will, or, i'm just lacking the energy right now to penetrate that densely populated thicket. not sure. probably the latter, but i wouldnt bet on it if i had to. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you try to say here. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5

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

Changed to:

In his 1787 book, "Defence of the Constitutions," the American founder and second President of the United States, John Adams [...]
  • I see the part of the text that I bolded above as en unneeded addition to an already overlong intro. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus (quote: "This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries.") - if you don't know who John Adams is, click the link. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • no, no. the idea is one will know who John Adams is and therefore wont have to click the link. i love this. now, he's really pulling them from everywhere. complaining of an anglo-american focus, which is purely appropriate in this context, since you're talking about John Adams, first a committed Anglophile, then a committed American. using "American founder" and "second President of the US" simply designates that you're not dealing with any fly-by-night idiot, unless he's saying that Adams is a fly-by-night idiot...which i wouldnt put past him. if one cant win on the merits, try sneaking political incorrectness into the argument, eh? Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Re. "one will know who John Adams is and therefore wont have to click the link" - sounds like moralising to me. Not the kind of stuff encyclopedias are built from. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I object to starting a new paragraph in the intro for the Adams/Johnson approach. These things clearly relate to the monarchy/republic similarities/differences that used to be the topic of the second paragraph (and of the second paragraph only) - devoting a whole paragraph of the intro to that issue is more than enough imho. If you want more about that, write it in the body of the article, per Yummifruitbat's suggestion (see above). I'd also suggest to take the long Adams quote out of the intro (see below), in order to make a more compact single paragraph in the intro about this issue. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC) --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • not at all. the stand-out Adams quote simply reinforces the point that a constitutional monarchy is, de facto, a republic. a point which we now see, obviously needs as much emphasis as one can possibly muster...which also means that the paragraph intro-ing the quote should stand as it is. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6

Extension of John Adams quote with:

If Aristotle, [ancient Roman historian Titus] Livy, and [17th-century English political theorist James] Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition is just, [...]
  • Too long for intro. I'm thinking about moving that quote to the footnotes. It can always be placed somewhere appropriately in the *body* of the article if someone thinks it belongs there. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • negative. that quote is a thing of beauty and should stand out just the way it currently does. he doesnt really care if "its too long for the intro." he simply cant stand that it correctly defies his thinking, if you can call it that, on this matter. Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, moving it to a footnote had another advantage, it was re-used for another section in the body of the article where compatibility of "monarchy" and "republic" was discussed. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7

Added footnote to Adams text:

^ John Adams, "Novanglus," Boston Gazette, 6 March 1775; The Papers of John Adams, vol. 7, p. 314.
  • Excellent! Should have noticed that before (I'm sorry I removed that one in some of my reverts - I hadn't really noticed it - shan't do it again). --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • i dont believe him for a minute, but whatever... he had to admit something. yawn... .
      • Well, if you can't take a compliment, that's one thing (nobody said you should accept it). Attempting to turn it into a reproach is contraproductive - and doesn't turn it into an argument on content. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • ok. time wasted, as requested. no need for the Ambien tonight... Stevewk 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schonken smokescreen

  • the above is nothing more than a bunch of blather about issues that have already been discussed ad nauseum. Further, Schonken is intentionally ignoring the fact that he knowingly filed a false 3R report against this contributor. And without, at least an admission that he did that, in the context of a full declarative sentence, i consider this his start of yet another war. Stevewk 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
3RR report notwithstanding (although I strongly recommend that you let bygones be bygones; see WP:NOT... a battleground), I urge you not to consider this the start of anything except a polite discussion about the content of the article. Please see my comment at User talk:Stevewk. --YFB ¿ 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

  • WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? I was going to submit a rewrite of the first paragraph and found I cannot do that. Why is it now a different version? That one that was there before had a better first paragraph and the Adams quotation was perfect where it was underneath my rewriting of the previous paragraph. Is there something wrong with Wikipedia? Gwilmont 18:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Because of an ongoing edit war between Stevewk and Francis Schonken, Durova has temporarily protected the page, which means that it can't be edited for the time being - please see Wikipedia:Protection policy. Feel free to propose your suggested edits on this page, and when an admin feels the dispute has subsided sufficiently to unprotect the page, you can add them to the article. As a side note, it's best avoid capitals - they are usually read as shouting. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've protected the page in hopes of de-escalating the edit war. Durova 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of a True Republic

  • Republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267.
  • Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265.
  • "A mixed government, a virtous citizenry, the rule of law,--these were the republican ideals of Machiavelli's Discourses. If much of this sounds familiar, it is because this vision inspired the Atlantic Republican tradition--a way of thinking about politics that spread from Italy to Great Britain in the seventeenth century, and from there to Britain's American colonies in the eighteenth." Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 33.
  • Classical republicanism emphasized civic duty and social cohesion. Founders and the Classics, Carl J. Richard, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994. pg 3. WHEELER 00:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • would you please stop making sense, and stop using history accurately to support your positions? i cant take much more of that. next thing you're gonna tell me is that you have an M.A. in History. (by the way, i'm pretty sure "the Atlantic Republican tradition" is a reference to Pocock's MM, thank you. his new Gibbon stuff is great, too.) Stevewk 02:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Just trying to muddy the waters even more!!! Isn't the confusion great! Other than democracy, the most common term in politics and no one can define it! And then a republic is nothing more than democracy itself!! Why have seperate articles? Just have republic a redirect page to democracy!!! That will solve all this bickering.WHEELER 15:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massachusetts

Massachusetts, unlike Connecticut, did not establish a religion. Article 3 of the 1780 Constitution of Massachusetts read, in full:

As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend. Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised. Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

Now it is quite true, and doubtless intentional, that this system, (like Patrick Henry's proposal that every man should be required to support some teacher) worked to the advantage of the majority denomination; it was bitterly complained of, and at length abolished. (Incidentally, there is no question that Connecticut was a republic while it had an established church; so the connection with disestablishment seems weak.) JCScaliger 17:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admins, other wiki-affiliated types

kindly tell this creature to stay away from me. i'm not interested in debating him. it's like shooting fish in a barrel, and i know for a fact that i'm not that tacky. it was suggested I respond, and i complied. that should be the end of it.

on another issue, why was he permitted to escape any penalty after he knowingly filed a false 3R report (and judged 'bogus' by a wiki admin)? that's the most egregious thing of all that's gone down here, and you let it slide? i'd really like to know the answer to this one...from you guys, that is. anybody else reading this, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Francis_Schonken.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0contribs.29:_knowingly_filing_a_false_3RR.2Fsock_puppet_report

then, why was his newly reverted page (new following the end of the first edit war [that he started]) the one that was frozen instead of the one that prevailed at the end of his first edit war? Stevewk 18:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I don't know what you mean by 'wiki-affiliated types', but I'm going to respond anyway. It seems that you have not made any effort to take on board the spirit of my comment here, which I notice you archived 15 minutes later despite it being the only thing on your talk page at the time.
You may have 'responded' but you have certainly not complied with either my request or Durova's (1). None of your responses above have provided verifiable sources for your contentions; several of them could be considered personal attacks. Either way, your tone is unhelpful and I would hope that this isn't your "best self", as Durova put it in his soft npa3.
With regard to your RfC on Francis' 3RR report, I suggest you request further input there - this talk page is for discussing the article, not your personal aggrievances.
As to why Francis' version was the one that ended up protected, perhaps you should re-read Durova's comment. He explicitly disclaimed any endorsement of the version he had protected, saying that the protection was intended to de-escalate the edit conflict. The reason I had just reinstated Francis' changes was that you had simply reverted them without making any effort to respond to his proposals/explanations here, which he has supported with verifiable sources.
If you're "not interested in debating him" whilst remaining civil and on-topic, then I suggest you find another article to edit. Continuing along the path you've started down will not win you any help or support and will probably result in you being blocked. Think about it. --YFB ¿ 19:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
YFB, and interested others: see Talk:Durova for my reply. kindly read all the way to the end. Stevewk 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I could actually answer some (not all) of your questions. Or at least show you the way to some pages where you might find (part of) an answer. But I realise I'm maybe not in the best position to approach you on these matters. I wouldn't do so unless I knew where you'd appreciate me trying to answer some of the stuff you ask about – here on this talk page on your user talk page, or maybe at Durova's, or wherever... Just let me know where if you'd like to take advantage of this offer. --Francis Schonken 21:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article talk pages and user talk pages

Please use this talk page to discuss how to edit this article and for no other purpose. Personal messages belong on user talk pages. When referring to lengthy material on another talk page, post a page diff rather than copy and paste. Durova 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

This is a dispute about the content of Republic, particularly the introduction section and definition.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Statement by Yummifruitbat
An edit war is currently underway between Francis Schonken and Stevewk over Francis' changes to the article. I stepped in to call a halt 1 and requested that the matter be discussed rationally 2. Francis Schonken proposed some changes on the talk page 3 and then implemented them 4; Stevewk then reverted these changes without discussion 5. Stevewk's comments: 6, 7. Stevewk believes he is being bullied and harrassed and has taken issue with a dubious 3RR warning from Francis 7 (this and several previous comments at Francis' talk page made prior to my involvement). The page has been protected by Durova 8 in an attempt to de-escalate the conflict. Since then, Francis appears to have been attempting to debate the changes constructively on this page. Stevewk maintains that he is being treated unfairly 9. Although this RfC relates to the article content, it inherently involves user conduct issues. --YFB ¿ 00:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Statement by Stevewk
before anything else happens, i'm not comfortable with either YFB (witness-the above statement where Schonken is "the good guy") or Durova (witness-no change in the frozen page, although i did appreciate the explanation) being involved in this. i believe both are biased against my case, and do not believe i can get a fair/just shake from either one of them. i'd like both of them to recuse themselves, and without transmitting their prejudice, turn the matter over to another admin., who at this time, hasnt heard anything at all about this. Stevewk 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
*i've moved on. you people do what you will. i suggest you define a republic as a autocracy, then go over to autocracy and define it as an oligarchy, then, after inviting the Three Stooges and the Keystone Kops, throw a huge party in celebration of the Bizarro world. Stevewk 01:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Statement by Francis Schonken
Just trying to cool down the dispute.
Enlarge
Just trying to cool down the dispute.
Statement by Durova
Per The wrong version, there's no endorsement implied in the page protected version of this article. Durova 03:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Comments
I think the opening is quite poor at the moment. I would think that any categorical definition of a republic is bound to be controversial. The best way to solve it may be to give at first a history of the use and modifications of the term, ie, Rome, then USA, then France, etc. This would give a good basis to then come to some broad definition. There should at least be a few references to the originators of the idea: Athenian democracy and especially to the Roman Republic. --Lucas
There really need not be much of a debate here. I doubt you are going to find many scholarly, comtemporary references to "republic" meaning anything other than "country without a monarchy." The original meaning of the word might have meant something like "democracy," but that's not how the word is used now, at least not by political scientists or by anyone outside of the U.S. The introduction should make this clear, and the article should explain the change in the word's meaning since it was first used. -- Mwalcoff 02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

This article has been protected long enough. Let's hope the dust has settled. Regards, DurovaCharge! 05:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oligarchy not Republic?

The present intro claims that oligarchies are not traditionally considered republics. This seems quite doubtful, except in the Aristotelian sense that oligarchies are bad aristocracies and therefore not constitutional at all. But this is a six or seven-fold classification, and not compatible with this wording. Whatever is meant, I doubt it belongs in the lead; the history of the word is at least a section, if not an article.

The Venetian Republic was an oligarchy; did it cease to be a republic? And if so, when?

John Adams is a tradition of his own, with few followers, if any; he does not belond in the intro at all. The edit I performed is preliminary; much more work is needed. JCScaliger 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/p/Talk%7ERepublic_9ee2.html"