Talk:Republic/Archive 6

Professionals speak on Wheeler's behalf

I would like to point out some other help in my case Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER. Comments are adde below:

While his articles on classical subjects have their fair share of flaws, they are almost entirely accurate, well-researched, and extremely well-cited; I speak from about seven years' worth of education in Latin and Greek. I don't see why the deletionist push against his articles has been so strong. Any problems with his articles are problems that can be fixed and edited. For the most part I would not call his articles on classical antiquity original research; what he says is generally stuff that is widely accepted in the field. While I've seen that things have gotten messy when he starts "turf wars" and tries to shoehorn classical definitions into modern articles without proper context, when he writes on classical subjects his work has been very good. I'd much rather see an edit war (although I'd hope for that not to happen) than an article with a lot of good information deleted. I'd rather see articles on encyclopedic topics fixed rather than deleted.Kevin M Marshall 19:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've not looked at Classical definition of republic before, but, from my scant knowledge of classics, the most recent version before deletion [1] looks pretty good (well, it seriously needs pruning and thinning down, but there is the core of a decent article on what the Ancient Greeks and Romans meant by the word "republic" - surely a proper topic for an encyclopaedia, I should have thought.)

The problem, it seems to me from the bits I have seen on the Village Pump, is WHEELER's rather forceful reaction to others trying to add their own input. But I don't know enough to comment properly. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both of you sum things up well. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have brought over comments from true professionals on my work.WHEELER 17:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Australia and Republic

It is incorrect to describe the monarchy/republic issue as major. It is about as low in importance as you can get and still be on the rankings chart. At its peak in the year of the referendum only 4% of Australians put it in the top three issues. Definitely minor.

Secondly, Australia has a republican form of government in that sovereignty resides in the people by virtue of s128 of the Constitution, all the important powers are given to the appointed Governor-General in his own right, and the only role played by the Queen is that of powerless figurehead. The only dependence on a hereditary principle is that the Queen gets to be the figurehead. Her powers are trivial and she cannot instruct the Governor-General, her supposed representative, on the exercise of his powers. Pete 02:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are multiple definitions of the word republic and using one definition in a section on another makes the article deeply confusing. - SimonP 02:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, but I'm not going to accept anything that says the monarchy/republic thing in Australia is a major political issue, because it isn't. Australia has a far more republican form of government than New Zealand and Canada and other realms, where the Governor-General merely exercises the powers of the Queen. In Australia, he is given them directly and the Queen can't tell him what to do. However, you are correct in that in Australia the word "republic" generally means "not a monarchy". But Australia isn't much of a kingdom, not when compared to places such as the UK or Sweden where they have their own monarchs and there is no pwerful head of state figure such as the Governor-General.

Perhaps you could alter the wording to something you think I might accept? Pete 04:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Google seems to disagree. "Australia AND republic" gets far more hits than similar searches on health care, education, immigration, or taxes. - SimonP 04:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

<Snicker> How droll. Thanks for your input. Pete 06:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected an error in the new text which stated that states of the British commonwealth had their Goverons-General appointed externally. This is rubbish. Most nations within the British Commonwealth are unmistakably republics - India, Pakistan, South Africa and so on. Realms like Australia select their Governors-General internally. The nomination is advised by the relevant Prime Minister to the Queen of Australia (or Canada or New Zealand etc.) who formally appoints that person. The anomaly is the presence of a monarch within an otherwise republican form of government, not the supposed external appointment of Governors-General. Pete 19:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Split of "republic" and "republicanism"

As discussed above (not only by myself) "republic" and "republicanism" are no synonyms. They could be on the same page, if it would take less than +/- 32 kB to write such article. Instead, the present, already fairly long, "republic" article is taken for near to 90 % by "republicanism", only about 20% "republic" (which also means that in my view both concepts, or at least the text devoted to them, only overlap for about 10%): the present text of the article works as an impediment for those who want to give a balanced and non-ideological elaboration of the "republic" concept(s), of which, still in my view, the treatment is much too limited on the "republic" page now.

In other words the present article is political POV, as it inadvertedly implies one needs to adhere to "republicanism" in order to understand what a "republic" is. So even if we were far from the advisory 32 kB limit, a split is necessary for conformance to wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Above someone asks: how would it be possible to perform such split? - and then says something like "one needs the republic concept to explain republicanism, as one needs republicanism to demonstrate what can be done with with the republic concept. With the same reasoning "hardware" and "software" would be synonyms too, and in the end synonym to all other human realisations... and there would be no need to write wikipedia articles at all. So, in order to answer the question about how the split can be performed: wait and see, I'll perform the split. I mention my intention here:

1. So that others might join in and help a hand (if, and only if, enough NPOV flows through their veins that they can see at least the difference between an ideological and a non-ideological treatment of the republic concept).
2. So that all who read this are warned that maybe the "republic" article won't be immediately about 30 kB long, as a lot of text will need to be built gradually, in the wikipedia way (beware of butchering!)

I'm no expert in all fields relevant to the clarification of the "republic" concept(s), I can only contribute in those fields where I feel relatively at ease, so, again, feel invited to contribute.

--Francis Schonken 07:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I oppose this split having two pages with identical content is pointless.

The content is not "identical", the idea is to link them properly. Anyway there is no "split having two pages with identical content".

I agree that reoublic and republicanism do have exactly the same conotations,

I don't agree that "republic and republicanism do have exactly the same connotations", and I never said I did (in fact I said the contrary, like many above did, SimonP seems a bit stubborn in reading what he wants to read and not reading the rest). Only in the age of Enlightenment, and still only to a certain degree, descriptions and ideologies regarding republics became mixed. Tacitus was not a "republican", Augustine was not a "republican", Macchiavelli was not a "republican", etc..., etc...

but for every definition of republicanism the word republic is used to describe the state being sought and vice versa.

Incorrect (in fact: ideologist POV)

- SimonP 09:15, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

The first outline of the split which I have performed up till now can probably still be further improved, I'm sure, so attacking the idea of the split on details is of no use IMHO. I'm rather happy with the result up till now. Please feel invited to contribute, and, where necessary help switch content between republic and republicanism. Thanks! --Francis Schonken 11:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I was writing quickly this morning (I had a plane to catch) and left out an important not. What I meant to say was "I agree that republic and republicanism do not have exactly the same conotations." I understand some of your confusion. Also when I saw these page the content was almost identical. Currently there is still a great deal of duplication (i.e. the republicanism in the United States section is identical as is most of the further Western development portion.) I still assert this division is not useful and is not used outside this encyclopedia. Has any scholar ever written a book on republics that did not also cover republicanism or vice versa? Does any encyclopedia of politics or philosophy have a seperate listing for republicanism and republic? Does any dictionary even have a definition of republicanism that sees it as an idea distinct from republic? - SimonP 18:14, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for having been harsh re. your error.

Yes, I announced the delicate operation in advance. Wouldn't you have? Yes, it took me a few hours for performing the first "disentanglement".

Roman Emperor is presently some 5 basic pages (not counting the lists) + several others with more detail (I even made a nice template for navigating these pages: template:epochs of Roman Emperors - and then "Roman Emperors" is only a subpage of "Roman Empire", which is only one of the "Empire" pages. Well, basicly:

1. Forcing everyone to see "republic" through the glasses of "republicanism" is a brake on developing the content of the "republic" page - you refer to many books, and then you would have it all summarized in less than 32 kb? The "republic" pages are in content still seriously lagging behind on "empire" and other monarchy-related pages.
2. The split republic/republicanism appears the more obvious for starting, because it was mixing "ideology" with "history", which is difficult to disentangle: all the more should wikipedia aim at that;
3. Categorisation of both pages needs to be different in wikipedia logic, and would be a travesty one way or another when both "republic" and "republicanism" content are kept on one page;

So please, let both pages lead their own life, you'll see that both'll have over 32 kb worth of encyclopedic value pretty soon. In fact I'd like to do you some suggestions, which I'm sure you have a better background for than I have:

1. Yes, the "US" part was not completely disentangled yet. But I made the republican page a "disambig" instead of a "redirect". Can you check whether this agrees with how native English speakers would experience this? Is this OK as well from US viewpoint as from British etc. viewpoint? And then the real job that could be done: I think the US section on the "republicanism" page needs to explain some more re. the roots of the republican party; and why its name was different from the democratic party - I have some vague notions about this, that, effectively, got a bit clearer through what I was working on yesterday. But I think for young people that knew no other time than the one where "republic" was as good as a synonym to "democracy", there could be some benefit from an explanation of the roots of this kind of "republicanism".
2. Disentangle the "references" lists: not all references need to be on both pages, I suppose, but since I have none of the books listed there, I can't very well discern which references are most appropriate on which page.
3. I had hoped I had found time to start the Politics (Aristotle) page already long ago. Wouldn't that be nice that you worked on that one, for example together with WHEELER, you can't continue to be mad at one another, and wouldn't that be a more-than-nice opportunity to forgive-and-forget the old differences?

--Francis Schonken 08:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have remerged the pages, and have moved some of the additions to a new list of republics page.

Oh, we're back to "do first, think/discuss later" then, no problem, I can adapt to that.

Your separation made it far harder for readers to find what they are looking for.

Your merging makes it nearly completely impossible to find a NPOV treatment of the concept republic, which by all means means that your treatment of the topic is worse.

Someone trying to find what is meant by the word republic by Citizens for a Canadian Republic will find no link to Canadian republicanism in your article.

The article wasn't "mine", high time you stop treating this article as if it were "yours". There are many ways to tackle the issue you mention apart from the merging you defend.

A reader researching the Ancient Roman antecedents of classical republicanism will have no way of knowing most of that content was in the republic article.

Then the fault was in the republicanism article, ever heard about wikipedia's internal linking system? You place double square brackets around the word republic in the "history" section of the republicanism article. Problem solved.

Someone researching what the title of Cass Sunstein's Republic.com means will find no discussion of the modern republicanism that book discusses in the republic article.

Add this reference to the republic (disambiguation) page (it has a section with "writings" already), and/or create a new article republic.com - my god with your 50.000 edits you still make yourself sound as a newbie.

Our republic article needs to cover defintions of republic as diverse as those used in the phrases Roman Republic, Republic Advisory Committee, Republic.com, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and Free Republic. We cannot just cover those definitions that are more "correct".

"Our republic article": I'm not collaborating to your republic article, but to the wikipedia republic article. Please mind the difference. Of course the things you mention need to be covered, but not necessarily in the SimonP way.

You also have not addressed the originality concerns.

Oops, I did address them (the hardware/software reductio ad absurdum), you simply, again, preferred not to see that reply.

In my reading I have never seen a reference source cover republics and republicanism in different articles.

Don't make me comment on the single-mindedness of your reading. Further, there simply is no wikipedia rule/guideline/policy that advises to make a single article of any topics that are "usually treated in the same (reference) book". Dada and Tristan Tzara are two separate articles, I hear nobody complaining about that.

Please recall that "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis" of information is not permitted in Wikipedia under the No original research policy.

Really, did you thus desperately run out of arguments to first fabricate a new policy that has no chance of ever getting generally aproved by the wikipedia community, and then draw in a policy that has nothing to do with the issue at stake? I'll mention once again the wikipedia policies that are at stake and which you seem not to worry about:

• Wikipedia:NPOV - not distinguishing between the history of the concept republic and the history of republicanism (an ideology!) is inherent POV.
• Wikipedia:article size - the present "republic" article is above 32kb, and should be split. Please make another reasonable proposition if the republic/republicanism article split proposition does not agree with you.

Finally I want to remark you adressed as good as none of the concerns I mentioned. Your concerns seem exclusively bent on pushing POV, and I replied to them to the best of my knowledge. You, on the other hand, appear extremely bent on ignoring other people's concerns. --Francis Schonken 13:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- SimonP 18:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research is not "a new policy that has no chance of ever getting generally approved" but rather one of our core and foundational doctrines. Also it is perfectly appropriate to use the word our to refer to the Wikipedia community of which we are both members. You have not addressed the originality concerns as you have yet to cite sources that supports your division. You simply ignored my statement that our (us being the Wikipedia community) republic article needs to cover definitions of republic as diverse as those used in the phrases Roman Republic, Republic Advisory Committee, Republic.com, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and Free Republic. - SimonP 14:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, you continue to read what is not written: Your newly invented principle that an article should not be split if "generally the two different topics on that page are is similar reference books" is the "new policy that has no chance of ever getting generally approved". I have to reference nothing regarding this particular topic. You have to reference to a wikipedia guideline that would state what you take as a principle. As said, Wikipedia:No original research, which I have in high esteem, is a principle that is not at stake in this issue and drawn in by you, because you're seemingly desparate for sound arguments. --Francis Schonken 16:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is original research because you have created a new definition of is republic and republicanism. I perhaps wouldn't object if you could outline a division that actually worked. Currently the division is massively POV it accepts non-monarchy as the primary definition of republic and exiles the others to another article. You, and everyone else, have to accept that the word republic has multiple interpretations. Within the last two months on this very page Silverback has insisted the American defintion is primary and is what should be covered by this page, Wheeler argued that the article had to say that the word republic primarily meant mixed government, and now you have come to argue it primarily means anti-monarchism.

With your division a reader trying to figure out what Republic.com is about would have thought it has something to do with anti-monarchism. Someone researching Irish republicanism would have gotten no information on what is meant in the republicanism article. A reader wondering what the word republic means in the American constitution will no longer find that information in the republic article. Nor will someone charting the development of the Dutch or Polish republics have found what they were looking for on this page. - SimonP 00:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

POV retrieved from "republic page"

There are a number of clearly interlinked definitions of what is a republic. Perhaps the most straightforward is that republics are any states that are not monarchies. This meaning can apply to all manner of states from democracies to totalitarian dictatorships. Republicanism can thus refer to any movement opposing monarchy.

"Perhaps the most straightforward" is bad wikipedia writing. see wikipedia:manual of style. "Perhaps the most straightforward is that republics are any states that are not monarchies." is unreferenced POV.

In the early modern period philosophers developed a view of what is the ideal republic. They saw the ideal republic as one based on popular sovereignty, civic virtue, and mixed government. This meaning is often contrasted with liberalism. A republic can thus also refer to a state that matches this ideal, even if it might be a monarchy. Thus some states belonging to the British Commonwealth, like Australia could be described as republics, but they are not conventionally so labeled.

deceptive writing as if classical authors had not also developed several views of what is the ideal republic. And as if early modern philosophers developed a single view. And as if mixed government is one single form of government.

In the United States a third definition developed that sees republic as a synonym for representative democracy.

See Wikipedia:POV - subtitle "Country POV". I don't think "representative democracy" was developed in the US alone. And deceptive as if "representative democracy" is a definition for republic.

Introductions by neccessity make generalizations, but I have improved the text somewhat. Also representative democracy is a defintion of republic that is widely used in the United States. Please read the "republicanism in the United States" section. - SimonP

Of course it's about the best way to "summarize" we are discussing. On first sight your improvements seem to work better, but see also my reply to the next section. --Francis Schonken 14:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republicanism in the United States

You deeply misunderstand what this section is about. It is not about representative democracy it is about the American definition of republic that has representative democracy as the central qualities of a republic. There is an important distinction. You have also made a number of major factual errors. That "the distinction between the ideas of "direct democracy" and "representative democracy" (then seen as a synonym to republic) can largely be traced back to the Founding Fathers." is utterly wrong. Direct and representative democracies have been distinguished at least since Aristotle. The sentence also implies that the word republic is not still used as a synonym for representative democracy which is absolutely not the case. I'm not sure what the Belgium vs. the United States section is about, but it does not seem particularly relevant and also smacks of original research. But perhaps you could add it to the representative democracy article, where I have moved some other sections you added. - SimonP 13:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding of the representative/direct democracy distinction not being invented by the Founding Fathers, you already corrected that.

It's about the "representative democracy" as (3rd) definition of republic, from a US P.O.V. (quote: "In the United States a third definition developed that sees republic as a synonym for representative democracy"): other P.O.V.'s exist not equalling representative democracy to republic, that's what made me add the new section. This, then, leads to the question what remains the difference between "representative democracy" types of monarchies and republics. That a "marginal" distinction remains was explained by examples. The examples are referenced by the internal links to the respective heads of state: I checked for G. Ford, Baudouin, Leopold III and Albert II whether the story I alluded to was contained in the respective wikipedia articles, and they did. For Nixon I didn't check, but I'm sure the 'impending impeachement' story will be included in the wikipedia article on that president. Likewise I have no doubt about the Clinton example.

Note that US officials and other generally have no problem seeing Belgium as a "representative democracy" (they don't go around inciting Belgium to become "more democratical"). Neither do they have problem in respecting the head of state in his quality of King (When Bush visited our country some time ago he didn't address our King as "president"). If you think I should reference that, I would, but it seems too obvious for me, nonetheless, if you ask I'll be happy to oblige. --Francis Schonken 14:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article makes clear that this definition is largely confined to the United States and that other parts of the world use a different definition of republic.

What I say is that there is that there are some kind of unresolved contradictions resulting from the way you attempt to represent the issue (then, at least, also don't reproach me if I don't understand): Please use references to clarify which US sources define republics thus; and distinguish them from US sources using the other 2 definititions mentioned earlier in the article (seems you don't understand how wikipedia referencing and "no original research" works). Do Americans talk two kinds of English, a kind for "internal use" when they talk among each other, and another kind, with different connotations, when they talk with people from other parts of the world? That is the kind of thing you want me to believe...

The other meanings of republic are clearly explained earlier in the article.

It is not clear to me then (unless referenced) which American sources use these two other definitions then.

There is a reason this section is titled "republicanism in the United States," it is only intended to cover the internal American debate about what is a republic.

Yeah, yeah, I know, the usual American POV as if the rest of the world doesn't count. In which circles is the debate carried on in this kind of terminology? Please clarify & reference. Please also read again wikipedia:POV#Country POV: even with your explanations here on the talk page, if this section doesn't change I could remove it without further excuses while in contradiction with that wikipedia guideline.

The issue if monarchy is irrelevant to this issue.

No it isn't: Belgium claims to be a representative monarchy, and that contradicts "representative democracy" being possible as definition of a republic. So at least the thing needs to be explained, based on acceptable sources.

It should also be noted that while "representative democracy" is central to the American understanding of republic non-monarchy and rule by the people are also part of American republicanism.

The Belgian 1830 constitution was considered very progressive at the time while it had representative democracy as its very central core, and, e.g., a king left with no margin than to accept every law voted in parliament. Not something "accidentally added to it later on". I just reopened my secondary school history book on this, my assertions are all in there, and I can make nice references if you really insist.

Again you misunderstand our original research rule. Not only the facts must be based on secondary sources but so must the analysis. Your arguments must also be taken from the work of others not developed by yourself. From whose work did you derive your "monarchies and republics differ in dealing with scandal" thesis? You didn't cite any sources to explain who developed this idea. If it isn't original research it still does not belong in this article as a comparisson of the various forms of representative democracy rightly belongs in the representative democracy article. - SimonP 15:19, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

That's why I gave examples without developing an argument, so that anyone can decide for himself whether there is a real difference between republics and monarchies, in the case they are both "representative democracies". As far as I know wikipedia articles can be based on primary sources too, at least in part, so I think, again, its you who has to re-read the wikipedia:no original research guideline (in fact I re-read it myself, and true, it became a bit more strict than a few weeks ago, that's was why I added the EXTERNAL BBC link for the Delphine Boel story, because wikipedia did not have such external link yet), and please stop going around trying to intimidate others that they don't implement what's written in that guideline. The comment on whether or not "representative democracy" can be used to define republics (american or other) does not belong in the representative democracy article, but in the article where such definition is presented. And please, again, reference that definition. --Francis Schonken 17:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not an American, but I do not think it unreasonable that the section on "republicanism in the United States" covers the U.S. and does not go into detail on the situation in Belgium. I also feel that this section is sufficiently referenced. The "republicanism in the United States" section already references John Adams, the Federalist Papers, Bernard Bailyn, Isaac Kramnick, the Declaration of Independence, and three Supreme Court cases. What would perhaps be best is if you tried to read some of these sources (especially Adams, Bailyn, or Kramnick) so that you could gain some understanding of American republicanism before asserting that the article is in error. For instance you asserted that Belgium claims to be a representative monarchy, and that contradicts "representative democracy" being possible as definition of a republic. Which is simply untrue as under certain definitions, e.g. Kant's, a republic can also be a monarchy.

As to the original research debate it is long been at the heart of the no original research rule that an argument based on primary sources but developed by a Wikipedian is not acceptable. Your passage on dealing with scandal is clearly an original essay. It begins with a thesis statement (The difference between "republic" and "monarchy" types of representative democracies only appears marginally in the different approach to crises in which the head of state is involved.) Continues with a series of examples attempting to prove the thesis and ends with a conclusion. Not a single secondary source is cited in the text nor have you added any sources to the references section that could contain such an argument. - SimonP 20:38, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)