There is no reference to aristotle in the republic article. THis to me is incredibly strange. I was wondering if anyone has an opinion as to why this is the case. | Encarta mentions aristotle's notion of the polity as being the origin of the modern sense of the republic (certainly there is platos republic fo the notion). Mrdthree 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC) To my mind republic has always been associated with constitutional government rather than the complicated defintions currently offered. I want to rewrite the definition in line with Encarta on this topic so I am going to collwct some quotes below.
Mrdthree 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Aristotle is mentioned in (to name only a few articles linked from the republic article):
Further there's some explanation in the politeia article comparing "politeia" (the word Aristotle *actually* used) with the res publica and republic concepts.
Encarta isn't really a reference: its "Republic (governement)" article draws together the content on governement systems of states that actually existed (the intended content of wikipedia's "republic" article) with the extended discussion of the philosophies forming the base of such *actual* states (only very overview-like in wikipedia's "republic" article, but more extended in wikipedia's republicanism article). Note that "republicanism" is only a "disambiguation" page in Encarta [1]
Note that there's also a wikipedia page awaiting creation, Republics in political theory, which of course would also need to make reference to Aristotle.
Anyway "Much of the confusion surrounding the concept of republicanism may be traced to the writings of Plato and Aristotle" is mentioned in wikipedia's republic article also, except that in the section on antiquity (a subsection of the "influence of republicanism" section), only that "authors of antiquity" are named in general, and only Plato and Cicero are mentioned as examples (naming Polybius, or Tacitus, etc would be as justifiable in such list of authors of Antiquity). -- Francis Schonken 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop bossing around (commandeering who has to do what), not giving references for what you put in the article. You give a reference to an Encarta article (which is only a reference out of many - wikipedia's republic article gives quite a few more)...
If you think you've a better definition than the one currently in the article, the idea is to discuss it here, on talk, and not start revert-warring over it. As you might have already read, my comment on the definition you want to force upon wikipedia is:
[...] sorry, I've never seen a definition of republic that juxtaposes it to "despotism", and even less do I see a reference for this definition, FYI, Hitler's Germany was "formally" a republic...
-- Francis Schonken 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well it seems it was a republic, just not in the modern sense. But in either case, it still meets the critera of being guided by lawful authority rather than arbirary authority at least so far as the constitution gave him absolute power. Mrdthree 17:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Your last edit summary:
revert #2-- hitler abolished parliament and established the reichstag--empire
is extremely contentious...
So please stop the POV(-pushing). -- Francis Schonken 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The article, at least in the lead section, doesn't sufficiently acknowledge the common usage according to which a "republic" is any state without a hereditary monarch or hereditary aristocracy. Deep in the article there are allusions this usage, contrasting republics with monarchies and noting that many democratic consitutional monarchies have political movements aimed at ending the monarchy, and that these style themselves "republican"; these references seem at odds with the lead section as currently written, which says nothing about republics being defined in contradistinction to monarchies. The lead section should be amended to include this usage explicitly and up-front. -- Trovatore 20:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, the term republic is often used in contradistinction with monarchy, or other forms of government in which the real or titular control of the state is in the hands of a hereditary ruler or hereditary nobility. Thus, in democratic countries that are constitutional monarchies, movements aimed at eliminating the monarchy style themselves republican.
I have to take issue with your relegating the law to a minor position in the notion of republic (existant or otherwise). If you wish to discount the generalization that a republican government appeals to the law to justify its authority you have to provide a counter-example (and not one that was recognized to be a crime by the governemt). In other words the idea of a code of law is essential to the republic--it is not an absolute despotism. Mrdthree
the OED says: republic
1. The state, the common weal 2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation. b. Applied to particular states having this form of constitution a. Any community of persons, animals, etc., in which there is a certain equality among the members.
A despot: An absolute ruler of a country; hence, by extension, any ruler who governs absolutely or tyrannically; any person who exercises tyrannical authority; a tyrant, an oppressor. Mrdthree 17:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The article states: "a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people of that state or country. 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." At best this simply rephrases the definition of a government. Why isnt this definition negated if I provide one counter-example?
Counter example: The US government wants to control Iraq. Therefore the US government has a principle beyond controlling the people of the US, Therefore it is not a real world republic. (obviously I could do this over and again).
As a start for an opening sentence:
A republic is a state or country whose executive is not a monarch, and whose government stresses political autonomy and the rule of law. Mrdthree 19:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I find your discussions ridiculous! Sparta had kings and Cicero called it a Republic!!! And if you moderns think you know the definition of a Latin word that Cicero didn't know, you are off your rockers!!! Cicero also said the Roman Republic started under the Roman Kings!!! The first republics of Crete had kings. To say republic has nothing to do with monarchs makes a mockery of history. WHEELER 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
vs.
Mrdthree 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
New Information
The above quote comes from an Article by Leonhard Schmitz, Ph.D., F.R.S.E., Rector of the High School of Edinburgh on pp1016‑1022 of William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875. The article is here at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Senatus.html
This is the definition of a republic: It is Mixed government that had kings or didn't have kings. Both Harpers Classical Dictionary and the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities mentions that Sparta IS a Republic. Always was and always will be. The problem lies in that Your Wikipedia article, doesn't address history. Not a single person using your article can read history or classical texts and make sense of it. All REPUBLICS HAD SENATES!!! and true aristocracies. WHEELER 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts on Government Apr. 1776 Papers 4:86-93
http://www.constitution.org/jadams/thoughts.htm
Quote by: John Adams,(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President Source: Novanglus, in Boston Gazette, 6Mar1775, Adams Papers, V II, p. 314
There is no reference to aristotle in the republic article. THis to me is incredibly strange. I was wondering if anyone has an opinion as to why this is the case. | Encarta mentions aristotle's notion of the polity as being the origin of the modern sense of the republic (certainly there is platos republic fo the notion). Mrdthree 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC) To my mind republic has always been associated with constitutional government rather than the complicated defintions currently offered. I want to rewrite the definition in line with Encarta on this topic so I am going to collwct some quotes below.
Mrdthree 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Aristotle is mentioned in (to name only a few articles linked from the republic article):
Further there's some explanation in the politeia article comparing "politeia" (the word Aristotle *actually* used) with the res publica and republic concepts.
Encarta isn't really a reference: its "Republic (governement)" article draws together the content on governement systems of states that actually existed (the intended content of wikipedia's "republic" article) with the extended discussion of the philosophies forming the base of such *actual* states (only very overview-like in wikipedia's "republic" article, but more extended in wikipedia's republicanism article). Note that "republicanism" is only a "disambiguation" page in Encarta [1]
Note that there's also a wikipedia page awaiting creation, Republics in political theory, which of course would also need to make reference to Aristotle.
Anyway "Much of the confusion surrounding the concept of republicanism may be traced to the writings of Plato and Aristotle" is mentioned in wikipedia's republic article also, except that in the section on antiquity (a subsection of the "influence of republicanism" section), only that "authors of antiquity" are named in general, and only Plato and Cicero are mentioned as examples (naming Polybius, or Tacitus, etc would be as justifiable in such list of authors of Antiquity). -- Francis Schonken 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please stop bossing around (commandeering who has to do what), not giving references for what you put in the article. You give a reference to an Encarta article (which is only a reference out of many - wikipedia's republic article gives quite a few more)...
If you think you've a better definition than the one currently in the article, the idea is to discuss it here, on talk, and not start revert-warring over it. As you might have already read, my comment on the definition you want to force upon wikipedia is:
[...] sorry, I've never seen a definition of republic that juxtaposes it to "despotism", and even less do I see a reference for this definition, FYI, Hitler's Germany was "formally" a republic...
-- Francis Schonken 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well it seems it was a republic, just not in the modern sense. But in either case, it still meets the critera of being guided by lawful authority rather than arbirary authority at least so far as the constitution gave him absolute power. Mrdthree 17:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Your last edit summary:
revert #2-- hitler abolished parliament and established the reichstag--empire
is extremely contentious...
So please stop the POV(-pushing). -- Francis Schonken 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The article, at least in the lead section, doesn't sufficiently acknowledge the common usage according to which a "republic" is any state without a hereditary monarch or hereditary aristocracy. Deep in the article there are allusions this usage, contrasting republics with monarchies and noting that many democratic consitutional monarchies have political movements aimed at ending the monarchy, and that these style themselves "republican"; these references seem at odds with the lead section as currently written, which says nothing about republics being defined in contradistinction to monarchies. The lead section should be amended to include this usage explicitly and up-front. -- Trovatore 20:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, the term republic is often used in contradistinction with monarchy, or other forms of government in which the real or titular control of the state is in the hands of a hereditary ruler or hereditary nobility. Thus, in democratic countries that are constitutional monarchies, movements aimed at eliminating the monarchy style themselves republican.
I have to take issue with your relegating the law to a minor position in the notion of republic (existant or otherwise). If you wish to discount the generalization that a republican government appeals to the law to justify its authority you have to provide a counter-example (and not one that was recognized to be a crime by the governemt). In other words the idea of a code of law is essential to the republic--it is not an absolute despotism. Mrdthree
the OED says: republic
1. The state, the common weal 2. a. A state in which the supreme power rests in the people and their elected representatives or officers, as opposed to one governed by a king or similar ruler; a commonwealth. Now also applied loosely to any state which claims this designation. b. Applied to particular states having this form of constitution a. Any community of persons, animals, etc., in which there is a certain equality among the members.
A despot: An absolute ruler of a country; hence, by extension, any ruler who governs absolutely or tyrannically; any person who exercises tyrannical authority; a tyrant, an oppressor. Mrdthree 17:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The article states: "a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people of that state or country. 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." At best this simply rephrases the definition of a government. Why isnt this definition negated if I provide one counter-example?
Counter example: The US government wants to control Iraq. Therefore the US government has a principle beyond controlling the people of the US, Therefore it is not a real world republic. (obviously I could do this over and again).
As a start for an opening sentence:
A republic is a state or country whose executive is not a monarch, and whose government stresses political autonomy and the rule of law. Mrdthree 19:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I find your discussions ridiculous! Sparta had kings and Cicero called it a Republic!!! And if you moderns think you know the definition of a Latin word that Cicero didn't know, you are off your rockers!!! Cicero also said the Roman Republic started under the Roman Kings!!! The first republics of Crete had kings. To say republic has nothing to do with monarchs makes a mockery of history. WHEELER 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
vs.
Mrdthree 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
New Information
The above quote comes from an Article by Leonhard Schmitz, Ph.D., F.R.S.E., Rector of the High School of Edinburgh on pp1016‑1022 of William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875. The article is here at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Senatus.html
This is the definition of a republic: It is Mixed government that had kings or didn't have kings. Both Harpers Classical Dictionary and the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities mentions that Sparta IS a Republic. Always was and always will be. The problem lies in that Your Wikipedia article, doesn't address history. Not a single person using your article can read history or classical texts and make sense of it. All REPUBLICS HAD SENATES!!! and true aristocracies. WHEELER 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts on Government Apr. 1776 Papers 4:86-93
http://www.constitution.org/jadams/thoughts.htm
Quote by: John Adams,(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President Source: Novanglus, in Boston Gazette, 6Mar1775, Adams Papers, V II, p. 314