Talk:Republican

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] From Talk:Republic

3/04/05 I wrote on Talk:Republic:

[...] I made the republican page a "disambig" instead of a "redirect" [...] Is this OK as well from US viewpoint as from British etc. viewpoint?

Not having received an answer to the question, but confronted with two consecutive vandalistic reverts of the Republican page I move this discussion over here.

The last time I worked on the republican page was after the Belgian-Flemish VRT television chain had broadcast an interview with the McCartney sisters, where these women used the term "republican" not in any way referring to a "form of government", which is the topic of the republic page. So an automatic redirect to the "republic" page is out of the question for the "republican" page, as the thing has to be disambiguated. As the term "republican" as they used it did not refer to any "republic" as such either, the republic (disambiguation) is not suitable either. They used it simply referring to the Irish Republican Army (the "Provisional" flavour of the IRA in particular) as a paramilitary group (including probably its unestablished/alleged links to Sinn Féin - but as these links are all but in the open they did not refer to the "political party" aspect at all, exclusively to the aspects outside the official state organisation).

I'll re-establish the republican article as I last left it, and add a clarifying reference to justify disambig instead of redirect, and I expect discussion here for avoidance of further vandalism.

--Francis Schonken 08:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Irish definition of republican is covered in the republic article. In Ireland republicanism refers to opposition to the British monarchy and to British rule in general. It is little different than how the word republican is used in Canada, Australia or any other Commonwealth realm. There is even a link to Irish republicanism in the republic article. Moreover this page is unneeded as republicanism is a redirect to republic. - SimonP 13:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious??? Setting up a redirect here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What next? Turn pope into a redirect for Pope John Paul II? Republican and Republic are not identical as every first year undergrad studying politics knows. FearÉIREANN 01:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm well past first year but I am not aware such a clear divide can be made. Could you show me this definition? The American Heritage Dictionary defines republican as "1 Of, relating to, or characteristic of a republic. 2 Favoring a republic as the best form of government." Both of which clearly indicate a redirect to republic is best. - SimonP 01:19, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

This has got to be the idiotic edit of the night. Republican can refer to a system of government, political movements, a concept, political parties, etc. So obviously you believe that the Republican Party in the US is fighting for a republic . . . which the US . . . um . . . happens to be. So what exactly links the modern US Republican Party to 'republic'? Or do you believe that the Republican versus Democratic clash in the US is actually a clash between anti-democratic Republicans and anti-republican Democrats? This is utterly crazy. Your edit here is blatant vandalism. FearÉIREANN 01:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the lead section of the republic page this should be a redirect to: "republicanism can also refer to the ideologies of any of the many political parties that are named the Republican Party. ... For most parties republican is just a name and these parties, and their corresponding platforms, have little besides their names in common." The republic page clearly explains this issue. Having this be a redirect serves exactly the same disambig function, but at the same time gives the reader far more information. - SimonP 01:42, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I see. So where exactly do you propose to cover the fact that

• Irish 'republicans' (their name for themselves) planned to offer the throne of the Irish 'Republic' to Prince Joachim, son of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany.
• The role of 'Irish Republicans' in recent years in committing criminal acts, including slicing a man's stomach open and slicing his throat open, and then leaving him to die on a Belfast street.
• The Bill introduced by Tony Benn to create a form of republic that still had the British Royal Family in office but without power in Britain. He proposed to use the word 'Commonwealth' not 'republic'.

How exactly do you propose to fit these three examples, a republican monarchy that would not actually be a republic, people called 'Republicans' who are common criminals, and a Bill to create a monarchical republic that would not use the word republic, within the page on Republic? They could be disambigulated on a republican page because they all three use that term. But not 'republic'.FearÉIREANN 02:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The republic page makes clear that, by some definitions, a republic can also be a monarchy. It also contains a link to Irish republicanism, which hopefully covers the crimes you referenced. However, the republic page could very well use a critiques section similar to the one at communism that outlines the crimes committed to advance the various republican causes. It would fit well in the "history of anti-monarchial republicanism" section. - SimonP 02:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

That is no solution and it would appear that you know even less about the topic than first appeared. The only solution, whether you like it or not, is going to have to be to reinstate the disambigulation page which you and you alone disapprove of.FearÉIREANN 02:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FearÉIREANN : be civil. SimonP : have you any opinion on the Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy proposal? Clearly Republican should not redirect to Republic, everyone but SimonP agrees on this point. A more severe problem is that Republicanism also redirects to Republic; this would define most senses of "Republican" easily. Joestynes 10:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In theory such a division is possible, but I don't see it as very practical. The main difficulty is that there are three main definitions of republic, and three parallel definitions of republicanism:

1. A republic can be any government system that is not a monarchy, as used in the name Citizens for a Canadian Republic. Machiavelli in The Prince states that "all states, all the dominions that have had or now have authority over men have been and now are either republics or princedoms."
2. A republic can also refer to any government system where authority is derived from the people, e.g. Kant in Perpetual Peace states that "the only constitution which derives from the idea of the original compact, and on which all juridical legislation of a people must be based, is the republican... in this respect government is either republican or despotic"
3. Especially in the United States a republic is a state that is not ruled directly by the majority but rather one where the people elect representatives and where majority power is circumscribed by a constitution.

Republicanism can refer to the advocacy and ideology of each of these three meanings of republic and republican can refer to the supporters of each of these three causes. We could thus have an article at republic that has three sections. One would discuss states that are not monarchies, one would discuss states ruled by the people, and the other would discuss republics as representative democracies.

The article on republicanism would also need three sesectionsOne would cover agitation against monarchies, the second the advocacy and ideology of those who see rule by the people as the best form of government, and the third would cover the form of republicanism unique to the United States.

The main difficulty with this system is that the three definitions are in fact closely ininterrelatednd evolved from each other. Explaining this process takes up a good deal of the republic article which means a great deal of content would be duplicated. My opinion is that the republic article is not overly long for such an important topic, liberalism for instance, is much longer, and that having everything on one page makes it easier for the reader to find what they are looking for. - SimonP 15:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added a link to "Irish Republicanism"

This explains the complexities. I'm not sure Fianna Fail should be there - it claims the heritage of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, but so do most Irish political parties.

--GwydionM 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguish republicanism and democracy

The two were not clearly linked until the early 19th century. Republics mostly limited their citizenship or voting rights. Or they were very unequal, as with the Roman Republic, in which the rich had far more votes than the poor.

I added a link to the Icelandic system. Someone should do more on it.

--GwydionM 11:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)