Talk:Republic/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Protection

I would like to have a go at fixing this rather poor article (who on earth said that Switzerland has seven heads of state?). Why is it protected and when is it going to be unprotected? Adam 19:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If your planning to make any changes I suggest making them at the republicanism article. When this article gets unprotected I plan to merge the two. - SimonP 21:04, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

A Republic and republicanism are two different things. The former is a type of state, the latter is an ideology. I don't think they ought to be merged. john k 21:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The two ideas are so closely integrated that while working on these articles I have not found any content that should not be in both articles. - SimonP 21:37, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. For instance, republican ideology in the early American republic, or in France under the Third Republic, ought to go in republicanism, but are not really necessary in republic. The article republic should deal with republics throughout history, like the Venetian Republic of the United Provinces. But there's no real need to talk about these early modern republics in republicanism, since the ideology of republicanism has generally not been very interested in these states. I could continue. john k 23:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How do we separate "republics through history" from the ever changing ideology that underpinned these republics? Venice was named a republic because the Renaissance classicists felt that it met what they felt was the classical ideal of a republic. The United States was named as a republic, in part, because of the Founding Father's interest in classical and enlightenment republicanism. - SimonP 23:58, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone answer my questions? Adam 02:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is protected because WHEELER is a lunatic. No idea when it is going to be unprotected. john k 06:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adam will fit in well here, in that case. He is a useful mediator and a calming influence. Skyring 20:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All I am asking for is an "External link" to the Classical definition of republic that Mr. SimonP won't allow. Many people have told me it is an excellent article. I don't see why it is not allowed as an external link. And when SimonP tells me that if I wanted it to be an external link that I should ask for the community for an undelete. I did so and User:Snowspinner immediately reverts my request. I don't know what is so wrong with an external link? SimonP erases it from every article I try to put it in.

And to SimonP did the Venetians call their government a "republic" when it wasn't "a state in which sovereignty derives ultimately from the people (however defined), rather than from an hereditary principle". Sparta nor Crete were those things either yet they were republics. So what defines Venice, Sparta and Crete as republics, Mr. SimonP.WHEELER 15:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is pretty funny:::: "Why Aristotle uses the same term to refer two distinct ideas has confused readers for millennia. For instance later Aristotle refers to the ideal politeia as one using a mixed government. But it is uncertain whether he is referring to governments in general or to the specific form mentioned earlier." from SimonP's article on "politeia". Here, he disputes with Aristotle, "Why did Aristotle" define it like that?? Here, SimonP is going to argue with Aristotle and say that an Ancient Greek who has written on many subjects is confused over his own language and words of his mother tongue and SimonP is going to set him straight. This is laughable.WHEELER 15:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, User:John Kenny, I had an article that talked on all of the republics but SimonP deleted the Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic. Take it up with him. I don't know what is going on.WHEELER 15:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I assume the reasons for protection are much clearer now? john k 15:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then, John K, and SimonP, if you people are so smart, What makes Sparta a republic?WHEELER 15:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sparta can be considered a republic under some definitions of that term, because it was not a monarchy as it had more than one ruler. - SimonP 16:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

"What is some definitions" How does one know which "republic" or what form of "republic" he is refering to?WHEELER 17:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? If it is Machiavelli it is both the "republicanism as anti-monarchism" and "republicanism as rule by the citizens" definitions of the term. - SimonP 18:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

So which two of these terms apply to Sparta?WHEELER 18:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both, it had two rulers so it was not a true monarchy and power partially rested with the community due to its mixed government. - SimonP 18:45, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you SimonP. The definition of the article on republic states that a Republic gets its sovereignty or power directly from the people, so please explain to me where the "people" developed the Spartan government and granted it power because it looks to me that it was a natural outgrowth of the character of the Dorians and of ONE particular guy. King Minos for Crete and the aristocratic Lycurgus for Sparta. So where does the "people" come in. I notice you changed "people" to "community". So what definitions of republic doesn't it fit under? You specifically said "some definitions". How many different definitions of republic are there and can you please state all of them and the references for each please.WHEELER 18:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read republicanism, which outlines the various definitions in detail, but here is a quick summary:

• A republic can be any government system that is not a monarchy, as used in the phrase Canadian republicanism. Machiavelli in The Prince, for instance, 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."
• 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"
• Among political scientists republicanism is a ideology based upon the writings of the classical republicans of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, e.g. see Philip Pettit's Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government
• Especially among the American right a republic is a state that is not ruled directly by the majority but rather who elect representatives and where majority power is circumscribed by a constitution.
• Republican can refer to something related to any party that calls it self Republican Party e.g. "Republican Senator John McCain"
• It can be a translation of the Greek term politeia, as in the title of The Republic.

- SimonP 19:23, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

You know you talk around in circles. In your politiea you dispute the definition given by aristotle and so being "mixed government" has no place in any of your definitions. Your first definition doesn't match Sparta or Krete or England All three had monarchies, whether Sparta has two makes no difference monarchy or diarchy it is still rule of the royalty. And all the modern scholary works I have quoted all the words "classical republicanism" refers to the Ancient Greeks and Romans not to Machiavelli, or any other early modern era writers or their ideas.WHEELER 19:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have yet to cite one unambiguous reference where a scholar clearly refers to "classical republicanism" being solely the thought of the ancient world, while I have given many that show it to be an ideology developed in the early modern period based upon classical ideas:

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls it "civic humanism or 'classical republicanism'" [1]
• A University of Sussex course entirely devoted to the study of classical republicanism states that "the course will focus on the 17th and 18th century" [2]
• The multi volume Cambridge University Press work Republicanism begins in 1500. [3]
• The Renaissance Quarterly review of Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections begins "This volume of the Cambridge series Ideas in Context examines the historical and intellectual context of classical republicanism from the late Middle Ages through Florentine Renaissance humanism." [4]
• The clearest discussion of this issue I have seen is in Bill Brugger's Republican Theory in Political Thought where he comments on how the term classical republicanism is confusing because it misleads people into thinking it was developed in the classical period and thus advocates using the term early modern republicanism instead.

- SimonP 20:04, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

This is a silly argument. Since the term res publica is Latin, it is quite ahistorical to try to apply it retrospectively to the states of ancient Greece. It is true that the Romans were influenced by some aspects of the Greek city states but it is a pointless exercise to argue about whether Athens or Sparta were or were nor "republics," particularly since there is no agreed definition of republic. This article should begin with the Roman Republic and work forwards. Adam 21:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"no agreed definition of republic"? That's odd. You were quite adamant that "A republic is a state whose head of state is a president and not a monarch." Have you changed your mind? Skyring 22:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is the standard definition of a republic in the modern world. Obviously it cannot be used for periods before the concept of "president" was invented. Adam 05:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

President. One who presides. Seems like a fairly basic concept. Those old Greeks weren't all athletics and lounging about peeling grapes, you know. But no, I don't think there's a standard definition for the modern world. Most good dictionaries have three or four, and yours is generally well down the list. Skyring 09:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cicero labeled Sparta a Republic, i.e. respublica Lacedaemoniorum because it was mixta.

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.

This is one of SimonP's definition, 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" Notice that this definition comes from Kant 2000 years after the Greeks and the Romans. This is also the definition of John Locke. What SimonP wants to do is to REDEFINE what a republic is by people who lived 2000 years after its first creation. Nowhere does SimonP discuss where this originated FIRST in Western Culture. It originated first on the Island of Crete; both Aristotle and the classicist Muller agree on this. SimonP refutes that. What simonP wants to do is TRANSPORT back into time a Lockean, modernist, humanist definition of republic which is patently false.WHEELER 15:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So when are you going to allow the external link?WHEELER 15:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not. Please try to understand that there is no "classical definition of republic." Can you find anyone else who has ever used the phrase "classical definition of republic," other than yourself, I certainly cannot. In the classical period there were two separate concepts politeia and res publica, both of which had some influence on each other and on republicanism. But republicanism itself was first developed in the Renaissance. - SimonP 16:30, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is so a Classical definition of republic. As I have pointed above from three different scholarly works, all use the term "classical republic" to talk about the republics of Greece and Rome. There is a need for a classical definition for republic and a modern definition of the term. When people speak of the republics of Rome and Greece they mean the mixed government of those republics. Here is the term in its modern meaning:

• "The constitution of 1793 was a radical instrument providing not only for a republic, but for an ultra-democratic governmental system, whose principle features were: (1) a unicameral legislature...(2) an executive council...(3) the reference of proposed laws to primary assemblies of citizens for definitive action." 98

There is a difference because in all the classical republics, there was always a "senate" house. When Athens destroyed the Council of the Aeropagus, then she became no longer a polity but a democracy. Bicameralism where the upperhouse is the seat of the aristocracy is a true classical republic. For you can see that in the above sentence from a book, you can clearly see that republic is synonomous with democracy. It was not so for the Ancient Greeks. For you will not title your mixed government as Republic (mixed goverment) besides how does one say that in language. For you want to obscound with the term republic and so "mixed government" has no proper single term like it used to. To mean Republic (mixed government) one says "a classical republic", then the other person knows immediately that one means a goverment that is "socially" mixed with the aristocracy in the upper house and one means the governments of Crete, Sparta, solonic Athens and Rome. But you will not acknowledge this at all.WHEELER 16:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I never denied that one can refer to certain ancient states as republics. What I am arguing is that you cannot say the classical writers had a definition of the word republic. It is similar to feudalism. It is perfectly appropriate to speak of "medieval feudalism" but trying to explain the "medieval definition of feudalism" is impossible as the term was created centuries later. - SimonP 07:05, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

How can you have republicanism starting in the early modern era? How come Venice was a repubilic in the 13th century way before Machiavelli? Did not the FF of A make a distinction between a "republic" and a "democracy"?

"...he was persuaded that the humane, commercial, democratic brand of republicanism established in the US was decisively superior to the cruel, martial, aristocratic republicanism of ancient times. Rahe, Republics, Vol III, pg26.

So there is a case for a page entiteled [Classical republics] or [Classical definition of republics]. How can you have a Modern republic without a Classical republic? What is the logic of prefacing "republic" with "modern" anyway???????? SimonP what about this illogicity? If there is a "Modern republic" there must be a "Classical republic".

And to the Sysops and Admin watching this page. The score is now 3-1. Out of four battles with these British republicans, I have won three out of the four (Arete (excellence) not [Arete (virtue)], and the VFD on vanavsos and Family as a model for the state. User:Snowspinner and his group have failed three out of four times. Now, that we have a case history, WHY ARE YOU STILL PROTECTING AND SUPPORTING SIMONP AND HIS COHORTS because they really don't know what they are doing. The proof is in the pudding! And it is time to stop the charades and bring back, The Classical Definition of Republic or Classical Republics because it has been shown that these people really don't know what they are doing.WHEELER 14:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Venice is an excellent example. It had what has been termed a republican form of government since the ninth century, but it was only with the Renaissance in the fourteenth century that it began to be called a republic. - SimonP 16:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

And who pray tell said it was called a republic only in the 14th century?WHEELER 14:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If there were four different forms of government that Cicero talks about; the first three being monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, what is the fourth government called?WHEELER 14:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

De re publica 1, 45: itaque quartum quoddam genus rei publicae maxime probandum esse sentio, quod est ex his quae prima dixi moderatum et permixtum tribus. He does not say that a mixed government is called a republic, he states that the fourth form of republic is a mixed government. - SimonP 15:50, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

1. I worked on some republic-related articles these last days, and would like to invite, instead of listing endless texts here that only marginally contribute to eventual encyclopedia text, to come and help with these other articles, amongst others:
   1. De re publica: the article is only outlined with some "technical" characteristics of this text by Cicero, with links to the original Latin text and a full translation. Still missing: someone who could write down the summary of the content.
   2. Res publica: although I added already a few lines to this article, I suppose it is still not much more than a first schematic outline of the clarification of this Roman concept; similarly with the Greek concept politeia
   3. I was also writing a new intro to List of Roman emperors, detailing the transition of the Roman Republic to the era where it was led by Emperors. Similar updates would IMHO be welcome to Emperor (while this article lists all possible kinds of Empires it doesn't even give a link to lists of Emperors, apart from the one I added yesterday - note that for ancient Rome Empire does not go hand in hand with it being led by an Emperor, this needs some disambiguation still); the Roman Republic article might benefit from some more detail about how it ended and became a state led by Emperors, in the same vein.
2. Keeping the republic article blocked along the procedure described above is no good, anti-wikipedian, and all the rest: blocking can only take a day or two AT MOST. I never believe the trick with the "republicanism" article will work: "republic" and "republicanism" are two different concepts, and where they overlap, there will be only be more insolvable tension if trying to force to make them overlap 100%: instead of helping towards a solution that is creating an additional one. I don't know who the sysops are in the discussion above, but they should know better. Please unblock the article ASAP, and without impediment, or I'll try to attract more sysop attention to this. --Francis Schonken 16:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right, it is time this page was unprotected. I have been working on several related pages, including politeia, res publica, mixed government, and classical republicanism and I thank you for the valuable improvements you have been making in this area. I have also merged the republicanism and republic articles. If you see a clear way to separate the two concepts please outline it for I do not see one. From what I see republicanism can refer to the advocacy of any of the various notions of republic and similarly a republic can be the manifestation of any form of republicanism. - SimonP 17:33, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now an unmitigated disaster. SimonP has now screwed it all up. We have mixed government, politeia, classical republicanism and now republicanism meshed with republic. I can't believe what I am seeing. And the Admins and Sysops have let this happened but I am persecuted beyond all reason.WHEELER 16:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought you were the one arguing that mixed government, politeia, and classical republicanism were all the same thing? - SimonP 16:48, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am. "Mixed government", "politeia" and Classical republicanism all belong on one page which you all deleted! All three concepts belong on Classical definition of republic which you deleted. You have seperated the term "mixed government" from the word "republic". You don't seem to realize that the Romans translated "politiea" as republic and I have pointed out to you above from three different scholary works that the term "Classical republicanism" refers to the republics of Ancient Greece and Rome but you have somehow managed to make it start only in the 15th century! You are quite mistaken in your classical meanings and understandings. I have a lot more information I have that I know you don't have but for some reason, I am an idiot and I don't know what I am talking about and you are the expert par excellence. I know a whole lot more than you do, I can tell with your new articles and info. Your being some expert and I am sort of disqualified now is a blatant lie and an attempt to smear me. I pointed out where the internet has many hits on Classical republicanism meaning for ancient Greece and Rome to defend and support the ressurection of the Classical definition of republic and you went ahead created a new article anyway and redefined the term. That does not show honesty and it is not fair. You refuse to acknowledge an old meaning of the term. And I am not going to tell you my information so you can rush off and redefine it and then your compatriots revert any edits I do. So we are at an impasse and this impasse comes with your ignorance, not mine.WHEELER 17:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

None of you sources even use the term "classical republicanism", much less define it. You have yet to cite one unambiguous reference where a scholar clearly refers to "classical republicanism" being solely the thought of the ancient world, while I have given many that show it to be an ideology developed in the early modern period based upon classical ideas:

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls it "civic humanism or 'classical republicanism'" [5]
• A University of Sussex course entirely devoted to the study of classical republicanism states that "the course will focus on the 17th and 18th century" [6]
• The multi volume Cambridge University Press work Republicanism begins in 1500. [7]
• The Renaissance Quarterly review of Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections begins "This volume of the Cambridge series Ideas in Context examines the historical and intellectual context of classical republicanism from the late Middle Ages through Florentine Renaissance humanism." [8]
• The clearest discussion of this issue I have seen is in Bill Brugger's Republican Theory in Political Thought where he comments on how the term classical republicanism is confusing because it misleads people into thinking it was developed in the classical period and thus advocates using the term early modern republicanism instead.

- SimonP 17:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

And i say again there are three Modern Scholarly works that say:

• the complete three volume set Republics, Ancient and Modern by Paul Rahe. If you go to the index of HIS book and look under the term "Classical republicanism" you will see that he marks "pp 14-202" and adds the word "passim". Classical republicanism is all about all the ancient Greek cities that were "brotherhoods of peasant warriors" pg 45.
• "While Gordon Wood continues to emphasize the emergence of liberalism in post-Revolutionary American society in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, he also demonstrates the persistence of classical republican values, particularly among the founders' generation and aristocratic class." ⁸⁶
• "In a piece of high presbyterian cant that long was remembered, Cartwright wrote that the civil constitution ought to match the ecclesiastical, "even as the hangings to the house"...the architect had cribbed his plans from the decorator: he had built according to the classical-republican theory of mixed government." ⁶⁸
• "The recognition that the unleashing of the commercial instinct would undermine the moral foundations of classical republicanism by destroying every vestige of martial spirit did not provoke consternation in all circles". ⁸⁸

Here I have the word in context being used. The word "Classical republicanism" refers, not to an ideology but the Classical period of Greece and Rome.

Let's try this. Restore the Classical definition of republic, or rename it Classical republics and your article on classical republicanism be renamed to Classical republicanism (ideology). Mixed government and politeia all need to go to Classical definition of republic. Now, I have suggested compromise after compromise and you have presented me with fiat after fiat. mixed government and politeia are fiat decisions on your part and your misknowledge of the classical world is very evident in all this and is very destructive. The proper term for mixed government is Republic and the term for politeia is Republic. How you get to control what goes on around here is beyond me. There is obvious confusion in academic circles on both sides of the Atlantic. What you are imposing is the British, Canadian, Australian "modern Republican" POV and the American side? Nowhere. Where is the Classical definition for Classical students—NOwhere. Your mixed government page is not proper and you are attempting to re-write history with that page.WHEELER 18:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How does this page answer to what the "Roman republic" is? If Cicero called Sparta the spartan REpublic this page is nonsense. It is all nonsense for the classical world. And i can't believe that sysops and Admins and others are letting you do this. Not at all.WHEELER 18:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But none of those quotes refers to the classical period. "The persistence of classical republican values" can just as well refer to the classical republican values developed in the Renaissance. "The classical-republican theory of mixed government" is similarly referring the Renaissance theory. The that the "unleashing of the commercial instinct would undermine the moral foundations of classical republicanism" can also refer just as easily to the early modern ideology of classical republicanism. - SimonP 18:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at all of this back-and-forth at once, it's pretty clear to me that "classical republicanism" is an ambiguous term, and should be turned into a disambiguation that lets the reader choose between Republics in antiquity and modern republicanism or some such. When I hear "classical" I hear "Greek and Roman world", but SimonP seems to hear "early modern". The Renaissance etc folks did not really understand how the ancient republics worked - the necessary scholarship and archaeology wasn't done until the 19th century, nor the relevant anthropology until the 20th - so the description of their idea of ancient republics must necessarily be different and separate from what modern research understands about the ancients. When I'm wearing my "classics" hat, I want to see an article that reflects last year's books and journals, not what they thought in the Middle Ages. Stan 21:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Classical republicanism is admittedly a very confusing term, but it is not ambiguous. Most people when they hear the term "classical republicanism" jump to the obvious conclusion that it must mean the republicanism of the classical period. However, for those who work in this area "classical republicanism" has long referred to the republicanism of the Renaissance that was based on classical models and this is still the accepted definition. I have yet to encounter a work, and Wheeler has yet to show me one, that rejects this meaning. What is important is that the article clearly explains this, which I shall endeavour to do, and that it points to an article on the states of classical antiquity that are sometimes called republics, such as the stub I have created at classical republic. - SimonP 22:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a fairly clear definition: "we might say the classical republicans were simply a loose family of writers, running from Machiavelli and his fifteenth century Italian predecessors to the English republicans Harrington, Sidney and others; passing from thence through the eighteenth-century commonwealthsmen and Montesquieu." [9] - SimonP 22:17, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

"Might say"? Not exactly a formal definition! That's why I suggest disambigger - if you have a vague term subject to misinterpretation, better not to misrepresent it as having a more formal definition than it does in reality. BTW, "states of classical antiquity that are sometimes called republics?" Both specialists and nonspecialists universally call post-Tarquinian pre-Augustan Rome the "Roman Republic". Stan 22:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you read the article you will see the imprecision is over exactly which of the early moderns is a classical republican, not whether it also includes ancient thinkers. If someone could cite a single example of a scholar who uses a contrary definition to the standard one it would convince me that a disambig page is in order. If an expert like Wheeler cannot find one after several weeks of discussion, however, I doubt one exists. As to your second point I used "sometimes called republics" because states like Athens and Sparta are only occasionally called republics, and are not usually so dubbed by scholars. - SimonP 23:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

SimonP, I ask that you please have Mixed government, politeia and Classical republic, deleted. And that the information on these three pages be resurrected on Classical definition of republic and have this changed to [Classical republic]. I don't have a college degree. The sign of my expertise and knowledge in the field is being the originator of a particular page. I need this for my "respect" in wikipedia. I don't have a college degree---All I have is the "proof" of my originating pages on wikipedia. We can go to the Undeletion process, ask for the deletion of these articles and the undeletion of Classical definition of republic. I ask that this be considered. I would greatly appreciate it.WHEELER 14:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can tell that the people who have written and started res publica, Commonwealth, de re publica, No one has read the book , De re publica. Cicero says that a democracy is NOT a commonwealth. It is NOT about equality because democracy has NO "rank distinctions" and Cicero starts the beginning of the Commonwealth when Romulus established "the foundations of our commonweath" when he started a "senate". pg 125 of Loeb. I can tell than none of you ever read Cicero's Republic and yet we are defining the term such that it abrogates everything the ancients thought. You know it pays to read the SOURCE material.WHEELER 17:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is now the definition of republic: "In the United States republic came to mean a state that did not practice direct democracy but rather had the government only indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of the world this is known as representative democracy." This means that Republic=Democracy. This is so wrong. Why shouldn't republic be a redirect page to democracy. Democracy is also "Anti-monarchical" so a democracy is also a republic!. Come on people? Where is the demarcation lines between words and meanings UH?WHEELER 18:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since when has democracy also been "anti-monarchial", many of the world's most successful democracies are monarchies. - SimonP 22:40, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

And what about the other stuff above?WHEELER 23:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is essentially meaningless. Politeia clearly does not equal the English word republic and mixed government is but one part of republicanism. Moreover even if I believed classical definition of republic should be undeleted, which I do not, it cannot happen as the wider community has already decided its fate. - SimonP 01:17, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)