Talk:Republic/Archive 12

Break

Wheeler, before you do anything, can you please make a very concise post where you propose specific changes you would like to make. If there are lots, perhaps pick 2 or 3 examples. I have tried reading through some of your rambling posts and I do not see what your practical proposals really are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(A) The Term Republic has TWO meanings

(B) Either we use "classical republic" or "Aristocratic republic" for the one term.

(C) That there was a SHIFT in the meaning of the term

(D) A Classical republic or Aristocratic Republic means Mixed government in a Mixed society: Kings, Aristocracy, Commons.

(E) Machiavelli did NOT create "modern republicanism", he was a propagandist.

(F) "Modern republicanism" for what is in that Wikipedia article now.

WHEELER (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being short. A few more questions though I am afraid...

• Could you write this in terms of quotes from the current article with suggestions on how they should be changed?
• Concerning the fact that meaning has shifted (A, B, C, D, F), the article does seem to indicate it to some extent, but I think it is orthodox on Wikipedia to start with the MODERN ENGLISH meaning in the lead, and then have a section (possibly the first section) where the history of the term is discussed. Can you comment on whether such an approach could work?
• Concerning Machiavelli, your wording is a bit simplistic, and the position you take is not the only position in published literature, but I did ask you to be concise so no problem. In any case, I have recently noticed this articles to Machiavelli are wrong and have removed some of them. I do think Machiavelli should be better discussed in this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Before we begin, can we first settle on what TERM to use for this. There is on Wikipedia this classical republic, mixed government which is floating out there. I asked that these two articles be merged. If you check the talk pages, I asked a long time ago for that to happen.

Second, you are stepping into a history here. Are you aware of the history with this article? I have not seen your name before. There were two articles on Wikipedia way back in 2003 I believe. We had one that had "republic" and another that had "classical republic" and the Republic article had links to the "classical republic". British republicans came onboard and deleted "classical republic". This battle has been going on now for close to 10 years.

So the first thing we need to settle is nomenclature. What term are we going to use for the old/traditional meaning of the term. It seems to me that the term Classical republic would mean the Classical antiquity of the term. But the British Republicans claim that Classical republic means the republic created by Machiavelli. This is the First thing we need to settle here. What adjective are we going to use to separate old from new? NOMENCLATURE comes first.WHEELER (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should discuss the Republic article on this talk page. If there are two meaning to Classical Republic, and if this is the name of another article, I guess that problem should be discussed at that article. I think the questions I asked might help us understand each other better whatever else is going on. Concerning the history of this article, I had a quick look and decided it would be better to try to help by giving a fresh perspective! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A republic has two definitions, one is modern and one is classical. The modern definition of a republic is is a state under a form of government in which the people or some portion thereof retain supreme control over the government,[1][2] and in which the head of state is not a monarch.[3][4] The classical definition of a republic is mixed government. All Western ancient republics were started and continued with kings. Both modern and ancient/medieval republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The modern meaning is the complete opposite of the classical meaning. The term republic shifted in the Renaissance beginning with Leonardo Bruni and was advanced by Machiavelli.

How about that for starters.WHEELER (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of the term did indeed shift over time, but I don't know if it is helpful to say that it shifted to the "complte opposite". Anyway:

• Is the above meant to be a proposed new version of the opening sentences?
• Could you tell me what the footnotes 3 and 4 would refer to? ("The classical definition of a republic is mixed government. All Western ancient republics were started and continued with kings. Both modern and ancient/medieval republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The modern meaning is the complete opposite of the classical meaning. The term republic shifted in the Renaissance beginning with Leonardo Bruni and was advanced by Machiavelli.")
• What would be the sourcing for the rest of the paragraph, after the footnotes 3 and 4?
• More importantly, if the above is meant to open the whole article it certainly begs my question above about why we would not just open the article with discussion of the modern meaning and later discuss older meanings. Can you respond to that question? The proposal above, if it is a proposal, makes the whole opening of this article all about the history of the term, which is not going to be what your average reader is likely to be looking for?
• I see you are interested in the history of the term, but I am not confident that the above (the bit after the footnotes 3 and 4) is a good summary. Just for example you might want to consider that in English the meaning of the word Republic, a Latin based term, is mixed up with the history of the English word Commonwealth. I do accept that Latin, French, Italian, and English words influenced each other sometimes as if they were all one language but you must still remember that this article is about an English word whose history can be slightly differently flavored than its cousins in those other languages. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that there are more than two definitions of republic, and it is a complex problem how we present them. I count five meanings:

• The most common modern definition, not a monarchy, covered by this article
• The ideology of republicanism that descends from Machiavelli to people like Philip Pettit, covered in poor fashion at republicanism and classical republic
• An amorphous term in US political discourse, covered at Republicanism in the United States
• The Latin term res publica, that is covered in that article
• The Greek term politea, covered in that article

Mixed government is not a term synonymous with any of those definitions. It is a key element in the ideology of republicanism, but not the only one. It also was sometimes applied to the Roman res publica. - SimonP (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What I am interested in Mr. Lancaster is that many many people do not know that there are two definitions of the subject. First, I want to convey that there are two meanings. And that should be said in the first paragraph. That is what is important. Many people encounter the term "republic" in classical literature and the modern meaning has NO, absolutely NO, correspondence to what is going on in classical antiquity or in Elizabeathen writings or in the writing of say, St. Thomas Aquinas or in St. Bellarmine. The first paragraph quickly and succintly touches on the main contours of the term republic. It shouldn't be that hard. It is very simple. You tell people that there are two definitions right out the gate! I am interested in presenting the facts. The facts are there are two definitions and the meaning shifted in the Renaissance. That is clear and simple.WHEELER (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be clear and simple, but it has the unfortunate down side of being wrong. There isn't any unifrom definition of republic stretching from the classical period to the the Renaissance. There wasn't even a consistent definition in the classical period. Both politea and res publica have an array of meanings, and those meanings only somewhat overlap. The way Plato and Aritotle used politea differred, the way Cicero used res publica differed from the way Augustine used it, and all of them differ from how early modern writers like Harrington and Ayler used republik. - SimonP (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I do in any case disagree with Wheeler saying that there are exactly TWO meanings of republic, and that these have opposite meanings and no connection with each other. None of your sources appear to me to be saying that there are exactly two distinct meanings historically, and that these two meanings are opposites? I also don't know of any evidence that the word republic is ever used to mean "mixed regime" in English, even in translations. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is going to take forever. From Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal by Terrence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd edition, 1995. On page 267, "[A] Republic [is] 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." (emphasis in original). Mixed constitution is mixed government. The word "mixed" is always proceeded by the word "ideal". It was NOT an ideal of the Greek philosophers; it was a real government of the Doric Greeks (Cretans and Spartans) and of the Romans. And Mr. Lancaster, I don't get your "none of your sources appear to be saying that there are exactly two meanings", well what do mean when I provided Eric Nelson's book The Hebrew Republic which states that republic took on a exclusivist meaning of non-monarchicalism from a teaching from the midrash and that Milton and English pamphleteers "who took up this position were very much aware of its provenance and enthusiastically endorsed what one of them called the tradition of the 'Talmucidal commonwealthsmen'. In doing so, they transformed the politics of the modern world. (emphasis added). This book is about the transformation of the word republic. Paul A. Rahe, in his Against Throne and Altar, writes, that "Machiavelli was a critic of classical republicanism, and he owed far more to Epicurus than to Aristotle, Herodotus, and Thucydides and far more to Lucretius than to Cicero, Sallust, and Livy. (pg 2) On the same page he states that Machiavelli was NOT a genuine classical republican. On page 28, Paul A. Rahe specifically says that the res publica predated the election of the first consuls in 509 B.C. by centuries, for the monarchy, seconded by a senate from the start, had been the crucible within which the res publica had taken shape." The res publica started under kings. The Wikipedia article starts with a "Republic is a government without kings". Exact opposite. Sparta is a Republic, it had kings. The Cretan republics had kings till about the 6th century. It was Leonardo Bruni who translated the Greek work politiea as respublica and said due to philological standards it was a perfect Roman word for a translation from the Greek. This is Leonardo Bruni. The Greek term politiea does NOT mean "any government without a king". I don't know how you can square the circle but it seems that you are trying very hard. The Wikipedia article does NOT match the reality of classical antiquity. Furthermore, Israel Jonathan points out that Democratic republicanism rejects social hierarchy but Ancient Rome, Sparta and Crete had republics and Social hierarchy. Is that Opposite or what? WHEELER (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

These sources do not show exactly two meanings, and it does not show meanings which have nothing to do with each other or which are opposites. What I think all or nearly all meanings include is (like in your first quote) government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public spirited citizenry. I do accept that the word is not always used in such a way as to strictly exclude a monarch or "prince". (It is certainly not used that way by Machiavelli. Maybe I can adjust the article and see what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Then is Sparta a republic?WHEELER (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends which definition you use. Please see my recent edits and comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you being a little hypocritical? First you say that there are no two definitions of the term republic but then you answer "Depends on which definition you use". I'm confused. Are there two definitions of the term republic? And then your answer is a non-answer, you said "Depends". You refuse to commit. Is Sparta a republic requires an affirmative or a negative. If the question does not require definitiveness then it requires two distinct definitions. I'm confused. You have me confused.WHEELER (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. I never said there was only one correct definition. I also disagreed that there were only TWO correct definitions. There are different definitions which are accepted and used, and for Wikipedia we do NOT have to decide on one "favorite", and nor do we have to decide on two. I've re-written some of the lead to try to cover your concerns. Please comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The intro still does not answer my concerns. The article remains very specific that a republic is a government without kings. Before we go any further, have you read any of the Scholarly books and academic papers that I have annotated on this talk page? You demand answers from me. But no one seems to be responding to my answers. If there are multiple definitions of republic, why aren't they mentioned in this article? I asked for nomenclature of what mixed government is called. You gave me no answer. So, before we continue, I'd like to know what books you have read on this topic and have you read the material I have pointed out?WHEELER (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, the lead no longer insists that republics can never have kings in the most general sense, and no you never seem to answer anything directly. For the rest, please make your points in a way which clearly stick to discussion about this Wikipedia article and what sources actually say concerning things relevant to this article. Stop changing the subject constantly or all discussion will indeed continue going in circles. I do have some familiarity with this subject, but I am not going to get into a silly competition about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain about the phrase "dictatorship [is] generally considered to be incompatible with being a republic" in the lead. It doesn't conform to either of the sources used to reference the definition. I'm also not sure if it is true. States like those of South America and the Republic of China not only called themselves republics, but also borrowed much of their government structure from American republican models, but were at the same time dictatorships for much of their history. The Islamic republics and socialist republics are almost universally dictatorships. - SimonP (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear comment SimonP. I've removed that word.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and to respond the Wheeler, a mixed government is an attribute that can be applied to different government models, but is not synonymous with any of them. You can have a republic with a mixed government, but a constitutional monarchy can also be considered a mixed government. You can also have republics without a mixed government. For instance Switzerland with its very weak executive, or North Korea which is just the opposite. - SimonP (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have asked from the beginning that has anybody read the new information out there. I am being very clear. How can one have a discussion when the other side has not read any of the material. Two big pieces of information came out in the year 2010; The Hebrew Republic by Eric Nelson and James Hankins' "Exclusivist Republicanism and the Non-Monarchical Republic". That is new information. Now, one can't have a discussion about this term if SimonP and Mr. Lancaster have not read the material. I will postpone this discussion and come back in a Week, two weeks, a month or two months and let these people and others get acquanted with the new research. Does this sound commendable?WHEELER (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not have to take every publication into account. Is there some special reason you want to treat this one publication as authoritative? And how does it disagree with other sources? Please answer in a way which explains exactly what you think you should be in this Wikipedia article and why. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to take every publication into account but you have to take into account those that have switched the paradigm, that have undermined current opinion. New Historical research has undermined Pollack's Atlantic Republicanism. Furthermore, Pollack does not take into consideration Dutch republicanism with its anti-hierarchialism. Paul A. Rahe's work has been commented as "ground-breaking". He calls Sparta a republic when everyone around calls it an oligarchy.

What is essential in Paul A. Rahe's works, Eric Nelson, James Hankins and Guido Bartolucci in his "Carlo Sigonio and the 'Respublica Hebraeorum': A re-evaluation", Hebraic Political Studies, Vol., 3, No. 1 (which is free and online) are marking out a revolution in the term. Guido Bartolucci points out that Carlo Sigonio, despite his academic and scholarly ethics and profession, used the term "republic" contrary to its classical meaning. Carlo Sigonio was taken to task for his innovation by Roman Catholic censors. His work had huge impact on Hugo Grotius and others who then praised the Hebrew commonwealth as the real republic and thus demoted and deconstructed European republicanism found in classical antiquity. Sigonio purposely changed the meaning of republic to suit his political ideology. In two previous works, Sigonio uses the term republic as mixed government, in his last and third work on the Hebrew republic, he changes the meaning of term republic. Here is a record, of an academic, changing a political term to suit his ideology. This needs to be taken into account. The basis of this Wikipedia article is the conscious adoption of revolution within the form to further revolution.

Simon P will not have the word "republic" put on the mixed government page on Wikipedia. Nor will SimonP allow the phrase "mixed government" on the classical republics page. So it is obvious to me that "republic" means one thing. Action speaks louder than words.WHEELER (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not have to cite everything which is ground breaking, because some ground breaking things are WP:FRINGE. I am not saying that is the case here, but can you please focus more? I have some of Rahe's work on my bookshelf, OK? (But we also can't only use Rahe. He disagrees with some other sources.) But we are talking about a Wikipedia article, nothing else, so please focus on practical ideas about what to put in this article. I have already changed the lead to allow for monarchies or oligarchies being republics according to some definitions. Why is that not good enough? We can not include every different idea in the first sentences, so it seems to me that discussion of your new source (which I do think sounds interesting) should be done in the discussion about the details and history of the subject, and the main thing we have to look out for in the lead is making sure we cover all the main options. If that is not good enough please explain, as a Wikipedia editor, why.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I will tell you exactly what the problem is. Here is the quote from the page, "Aristotle's Politics discusses various forms of government. One form Aristotle named politeia, which consisted of a mixture of the other forms. He argued that this was one of the ideal forms of government. Polybius expanded on many of these ideas, again focusing on the idea of mixed government." Please note how the word "ideal" is said of both Aristotle and Polybius's discourse on mixed goverment. It is an ideal. It is never a "real" state. It is not a good. Are Aristotle and Polybius writing about an "ideal" state or are they talking about real states? Now, I've read both. And both refer their mixed goverment to Sparta. Sparta is a true politiea. Polybius then uses this to describe the Roman Republic. Now, it is clear to me that there is a refusal to use the term "Spartan Republic". Aristotle and Polybius both refer to Sparta as a real manifestation of mixed government. It is not an ideal. The Roman republic was a republic because it was mixed---like Sparta. You have this sentence in the first paragraph Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government. Notice that the word aristocracies and oligarchies are used. Where's mixed government? That is the sense of both Aristotle and Polybius but that is NOT in the Introduction to the article. Why not?WHEELER (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

While we are at it over at the page politiea are these sentences:A constitution that does not fit into this sixfold classification, because it has features of more than one of them: the constitutions of Carthage, Sparta, and [at least one of the cities of] Crete. A constitution which mixes oligarchy and democracy (terms which, as used by Aristotle, refer to vicious kinds of constitutions). Both of these are wrong. Politiea is the part of the sixfold classification and it is not vicisous. Aristotle compares Politiea, mixed government against democracy that is viscious. I changed that five years ago and they revert and return to a lie. So I don't know how anybody gets away with this around here.WHEELER (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The above post is essentially an abuse of a Wikipedia talk page. Your intentions might be good but please do not do it again. I asked you to comment on the Wikipedia article we are editing, not to blog randomly about things you have read or thought about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What abuse? I don't see any. I am pointing out errors on Wikipedia articles that pertain to republic and why the old definition is not appearing. I see No abuse. Now, where is Mixed government mentioned in the intro to this article?WHEELER (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Should mixed government be mentioned in the introduction? Why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wheeler above states that "Simon P will not have the word "republic" put on the mixed government page on Wikipedia. Nor will SimonP allow the phrase "mixed government" on the classical republics page." I'd just like to note that the word republic occurs five times in the mixed government article and the classical republic page does note that mixed government is a central aspect of classical republicanism. - SimonP (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to Mr. Lancaster. And to SimonP, the two articles of mixed government and classical republic be merged because they are one and the same thing. The Intro to the article should state that the classical definition of republic is mixed government. The term "classical republic" is used to set off the classical meaning of the term from modern republicanism. Can we all agree on this?WHEELER (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the reason for mentioning mixed government is in order to say that it is the same thing as a republic in classical sources I don't see that you've given any source for that. It think you are putting different sources together. See WP:SYNTH.

• I do accept that in classical and non-classical sources the word republic is used in a way which comes close to the Aristotelian term which we generally translate as something like "mixed regime".
• I also accept the argument I've seen you use on this talk page that meanings of words used in old books can still be relevant today because people still read the classics.

But saying there is an exact equation is misleading. Republic is a word with Latin roots. Some of its usage does reflect how it was used to translate Greek, but not all. Rome had its own native history of usage of this word in politics (remember SPQR) and this tradition has its own influence on all Western use of this word. Republic is not a purely technical word where we can consider one Latin word to equate exactly to a Greek word. None of your sources allow you to treat the word republic as exactly the same in meaning as "mixed government".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Despite having created the page, I'm not even sure Classical republic should exist. It's an uncited stub, and has been so for years. The history of states of the classical period that are now called republics is better covered in this article, and the ideology derived from them is covered in Classical republicanism. - SimonP (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

First off I want to respond that I am using "fringe" research. Mr. James Hankins mentions that the topics he covers was surveyed by these people: Bernard Bailyn, Emma Dench, Constantine Fasolt, Christopher Jones, Michael McCormick, John Pocock, Paul Rahe', Echart Schutrumpf, with Mark Kishlansky and Eric Nelson reading this article before going to publication. Now Mr. James Hankins is widely published in political science and in his article he references Eric Nelson's book, The Hebrew Republic, at the beginning and several times in the end. He also quotes Paul Rahe 2008 book Against Throne and Altar. Eric Nelson's book is being quoted. Those names are the big guns in the political republican field. The sources I put out are not fringe. WHEELER (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote you'll see I have not complained about your sources. I have said they do not back you up for the changes you want to make. Please find a quote which says republic has ever meant EXACTLY "mixed government". Politeia in Ancient Greek by the way tends to be translated as regime or polity these days. The equation of Aristotle's term with the Roman term republic came under an historian who was in Roman times and writing about Rome, Polybius. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_regime#Roman_Era . But both words existed before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Some dictionary entries for classical meanings: politeia and res publica. The overlap in the classical words is only partial, even in classical times, between meaning III.2 of the one, and the core of meaning K of the other. (Note how K.2 equates approximately to the core of III also, but these just mean state, polity, regime etc.) So the words were never defined as the same as each other in any simple sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle "the form intermediate between a democracy and an oligarcy, which is termed a republic, (mesi de touton in kalousi politeian) for the government is constituted from the class that bears arms."Politics, Bk II iii 9; 1265b 25; pg 105 Again, Aristotle states that constitutional government is, to put it simply, a mixture of oligarchy and democracy." Politics, Bk IV vi 2; 1293b 30-35; pg 315 I am perfectly aware of the several meanings of the term politiea. H. Rackman the translator of the Loeb uses the word "republic" for politiea. And I have already quoted above Political Ideologies where Terrence Ball defines a republic in his glossary as "mixed constituion". Politiea means "constitution", "State", "society" and Mixed government. It has all those meanings. The Romans yes translated "politiea" as Republic and so did Leonardo Bruni (Hankins) who claimed philological reasons for doing so. That is why we need an adjective to describe the ancient states. I'm all for adjectives.WHEELER (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

But you are proposing to make this article say that republic ALWAYS means "mixed government", and this on the basis of what a Greek word meant, and that Greek word did not ALWAYS mean "mixed government". Aristotle himself in 1293b explains that the word politeia has different meanings. And in Nicomachean Ethics XIII I believe you'll see him say it means the same as a timocracy, i.e. (at least in this case) a base version of aristocracy where ranks is based on property. Please keep in mind people are trying to focus on what the Wikipedia article should say, and the concern with your proposal is not that republic could never mean mixed regime, but that you want the article to say that it classically always meant that, and nothing else. The sources show this is not true. The word was flexible. The various meanings did share a common thread though - they all imply (maybe not strictly) a strong rule of law way of governing, rather than discretionary power.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

NO I am not. You're coming late to this. There were two articles on Wikipedia. I am NOT saying to make this page the classical meaning. What I want is that there to be a Mention of the word in the introduction. A section with a link to another page to write about Classical republics, Sparta, Rome and Elizabeathen England. Sparta, the first politiea, which Polybius says. Polybius matches the makeup of Rome with that of Sparta. Both were mixed. Rome had a mixed constitution. Rome is a Roman republic because she had a Mixed constitution. I don't care what adjective we use. Sparta is a "Classical Republic" or a "Aristocratical Republic", or a "Monarchical Republic". Rome as well. Rome is either a "Classical Republic" or an "Aristocratical Republic" or an "Monarchical Republic". Patrick Collinson wrote an essay on Elizabethan period as the Monarchical Republic. The Wikipedia definition is "Modern Republicanism". I don't care what adjective we use so long as we differentiate between Modern Republicanism and classical republicanism.WHEELER (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it is hard to see what changes exactly you would like on this article or on others. For this talk page, I suggest we stick to "Republic". (I guess I'm going to have to look at the others but I have not yet.) So could you point to a sentence or paragraph in this current article and suggest a change?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW I do not think we can ever call Polybius' Rome a "monarchical" Republic. His Romans hated kings, and they really did think Kings were not consistent with republics. Rome's leaders did everything to avoid describing themselves as kings. It was a very long time before a King of Romans appeared in history again. Polybius may well have been right of course to compare something about Rome to something about Sparta, but that is not necessarily how the average Roman saw things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Break

This begins the second paragraph: "Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition." After that sentence: "Due to the shift in meaning of the term, ancient republics are now called Classical republics which have mixed constitutions."WHEELER (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making a specific proposal. Do you have a reference that we can cite this line to? None of the sources you've listed seem to state this directly. - SimonP (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I also thank Wheeler for taking this new approach. Another alternative to SimonP's question is that maybe the proposed wording can be made a little less "absolute", avoiding making simple equations between terms. That might be easier to source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think your changes are great. The one bit I'd nitpick is "in classical and medieval times the archetype of all republics was the Roman Republic." Was res publica ever really used for a set of governing principles that could serve as an archetype to compare to other systems during those periods? My understanding is even the Roman Republic only really became know as such in the Renaissance period. Roman and Medieval scholars called both the republican and imperial states res publica. - SimonP (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a good ref explaining how Aquinas used the term, for isntance. "In the Middle Ages the term res publica could be used with perfect propriety for both pre- and post-Augustan Rome, for the Church, for kingdoms, and for individual cities. In the late thirteenth century the Aristotelian term polity was sometimes used as a synonym for res publica; Aquinas, commenting on the Politics, said that any government directed towards the common good, could be called a politea [...] Any legitimate government, whether monarchy, aristocracy, or a popular regime, was a politia or res publica and their perversions were tyrannies." - From Charles Davis in the book Renaissance Thought. - SimonP (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, maybe this needs tweaking but to explain what I was trying to get across, I believe that Republican Rome is the original Res Publica, but that also the word could clearly be used in the same way as politeia. I am not sure that either of these two meanings is older, but certainly the more general meaning was influenced by Greek theory more. I do also think that there is an UNCLEAR contrast between republic and politeia on the one hand, and monarchy on the other, and that goes back quite some way, also in Greek. Demostheses used the term politeia this way for example. (See the dictionary entries I mentioned above.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the Roman Republic is the archetype, the problem I have is with the timing of when it became an archetype. I'm not sure it was used as such by classical or medieval writers. To them res publica seems to have almost always meant just a government. It was only with the Renaissance that writers began to consider republics to have a distinct form of government, and using the Roman Republic as an archetype they assigned certain other classical and present day states to the category. - SimonP (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Roman Republic the archetype? In the middle ages? For whom? Rome, certainly, but the medieval scholars distinguished even less than the Romans themselves between what we call the Republic and the Empire; both had imperium and both were res publica Romana. We think it odd that Justinian had SPQR on his coins, but he didn't; and I don't think John of Salisbury did either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

classical republic

I looked at the Classical Republic article and I do think that if we fix this article up well enough it will cover everything in that article but better. So I'd back any sensible new proposal to merge.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Intro to the Republic article is just a confusing mess. Definition requires clarity. Logic requires boundaries and definitions. I think the article is quite bad. Logic seems to go out the window. There is no logic to any of this. In my opinion it is all still smoke and mirrors. Sixth graders reading this only makes for confusion. Aristocracies and oligarchies are republics. Every thing is a republic. Logic, the Principle of Identity, the Principle of non-contradiction, the principle of the excluded middle, the Principle of consistency; all these are the hallmarks of definition and this article and 'classical republic' have none of those hallmarks. Not a single one. There is no Clarity. I'm sorry, I can't find anything good in an encyclopaedic entry that has no clarity. The lack of clarity shows the lack of logic. The twists and turns in this article are mind-boggling. Confussion reigns supreme. WHEELER (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sure we can and will make it better, but let's make sure about one thing though: sometimes reality itself is confusing, and as Wikipedia editors it is not our responsibility to clean up reality. Sometimes some of the never-ending arguments on Wikipedia are because someone does not like the fact that a subject is itself very messy and they want to exclude some topics to make the article more logical. I suggest we keep that in mind.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A republic has two different meanings. There is 'modern republicanism' and 'classical republicanism'. Modern republicanism means "any government without a king". Classical republicanism is mixed government that may or may not have kings. The shift in meaning started in the Renaissance in Northern Italy due to political fighting between the Papacy and Northern Italian city-states. ----This is simple, to the point. Easy to understand. Has tons of clarity and points to the shift in meaning. WHEELER (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

After much thought, SimonP is right. Quentinn Skinner, Pocock, Paul Rahe all use the term "classical republic" but none of them define it. It is nowhere actually. No paper or book discusses "classical republic" but they use it as if they know what it means. I guess, I will drop it. Seeing this a one way trip to nothingness. I guess we all have to wait until modern academia, if ever, sorts this out. I have already sorted it out a long time ago. I know what exactly is going on. Their ox is being gored, and they don't want to let on. They are NOT going to define terms and according to Wikipedia, no book, no case, I'm screwed. This effort ends because SimonP is right, he wins, he wins until somebody gets their act together which will be highly unlikely. Too many hands in the pot for the truth to come out. There is a conspiracy going on.WHEELER (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is common for words to have multiple or unclear meanings, and I am unsure why this would need to be the result of a conspiracy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Prof. Michael Mendle in his talk about Sir Thomas Smyth's De Republica Anglorum says the word "mixed" does not appear in the text. But it does. This might be a simple error on his part. James Hankins in the above mentioned article says that politiea used by Aristotle has a general meaning and a specific meaning, but in that long article NEVER spells out what this "specific meaning" is! That is weird. Paul A. Rahe, in all of his works, says that a "republic has no form". He is very pro-American. An American would say that to justify the "classless republic", democratic republic of America. A Republic does have form. You have Quentin Skinner saying Machiavelli created "classical republicanism". Was not the Roman government between 506 B.C to the rise of Julius Caesar, mixed? Did they not have two houses? Senate and Assemblies? Was it not mixed? Unless words have no meaning. A scholar is supposed to cut thru the mustard. Carlo Sigonio is the poster boy. He went against his own academic standards to push an agenda. Yet, we are all supposed to follow the agenda created by revolutionaries and accept, fait accompli, their innovations. You mean to tell me that is the new Academic standard? accepting revolutionary innovations. Or is it they don't want to let the cat out of the bag?WHEELER 16:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition

"A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have impact on its government." According to this definition, Sweden is a republic. Sweden is of course not a republic so this definition must be wrong. --212.247.27.45 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

sweden is a hereditary monarchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.231.68 (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweden is a de facto republic, while North-Korea si a de facto hereditary monarchy. Personally, I don´t really think the way terms like republic and monarchy are used today tells us much about constitutions at all. So called "constitutional monarchies" are de facto republics, as the so called "monarchs" have no power whatsoever. But take a look at Kim Jong-il and his father, Kim Il-sung. The son inherited the country from his father. We have seen the same thing in Syria], where Bashar al-Assad inherited the power from his father, Hafez al-Assad. Both are formally republics, while in reality they are hereditary monarchies. --Oddeivind (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I too feel the definition is wrong. India was an independent democracy from 1947 to 1950 but not a republic. However, it became a republic only in 1950. As I understand, the difference between a democracy and a republic is that the republic is governed by the law of the nation and not by the majority opinion as in the case of a democracy. --Jacob.jose (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently the article says "A republic is a form of government under which there is not a hereditary head of state." But this is wrong, as by this definition elective monarchies like Malaysia, Vatican City, the Holy Roman Empire and also Andorra would be republics. Maybe one could say a republic is a state whose head of state is not a monarch. Aleph Kaph (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I will change it. BillMasen (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now changed it to 1)Impersonal entity or 2)Country without a monarch. BillMasen (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this current definition either. I'm not certain there is a concrete positive definition for the word, only the negative non-monarchic one. I spent yesterday going through pretty much every specialist encyclopedia I could find and looking at the various definitions. Here are some of them:

• "not a monarchy: its head of state is a president and not a hereditary monarch" - The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science
• "any political regime in which no king or hereditary dynasty rules over subjects in a state of submission or servility" - New Dictionary of the History of Ideas
• "an attitude toward political life and a constitutional form of political order. In both senses it has always been contrasted with tyrannical or monarchical rule" - Governments of the World
• "a government of citizens, rather than subjects, who share in directing their own affairs" - Political Theories for Students
• "republicanism means a preference for nonmonarchical government and a strong dislike of hereditary monarchy. Narrowly defined, and in its early modern context, it means self-government by a community of citizens in a city-state" - Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World

My favourite is the New Dictionary of the History of Ideas, though in keeping with Aleph Kaph I'd not use the word hereditary. I like how that one includes the non-monarchy but leaves room for the idea that limited monarchies are to a degree republican. - SimonP (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=iBSE68tz8RUC&pg=PA55&dq=%22impersonal+entity%22+%22republic%22&ei=J3L_ScOREoTyzQTC0bmqCw http://books.google.com/books?id=iBSE68tz8RUC&pg=PA55&dq=%22impersonal+entity%22+%22republic%22&ei=J3L_ScOREoTyzQTC0bmqCw http://books.google.com/books?id=iBSE68tz8RUC&pg=PA55&dq=%22impersonal+entity%22+%22republic%22&ei=J3L_ScOREoTyzQTC0bmqCw Here are three books that support "impersonal entity" as a defining characteristic of Republics (and bear in mind that this is only one way of phrasing that idea).

I agree that perhaps "non-monarchy" should be put first, as it is probably the most common definition (though a woefully inadequate one IMO). However, I still think the concept of power coming from an impersonal entity, rather than being part of someone's estate, should be prominently mentioned in the lead. BillMasen (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

err... Bill, you seem to have given trice the same link. Not convincing enough to me for topping the lede... --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the word hereditary in the introduction now. Maybe this is not a perfect definition but the one with the word hereditary is simply not correct.Aleph Kaph (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted the word hereditary in the introduction again. Although the cited source defines a republic as having not a monarch or other hereditary head of state, this definition is - as pointed out before - not quite correct. An elective monarchy is not considered being a republic. Aleph Kaph (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this "In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism." allowed? The whole point of the second half of the sentence is to imply that liberals have no civil virtue. The sentence should end just before the "and" if it's to be included at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.151.2.10 (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"In modern republics such as the United States and India, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, James Madison compared the republic to democracy,[6] and found democracy wanting" - I just read the actual federalist paper referred to (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1404/1404-h/1404-h.htm#2H_4_0010) - quite clearly madison compares representative democracy to direct democracy. A republic, in modern terms, has absolutely no distinction of it's own and should be removed from Wikipedia for lack of factual foundation.84.109.70.155 (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the second sentence in the introduction, as it by definition would make most monarchies in the world today republics.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a problem with the current definition: It describes the "United States" definition only (The distinction between the general concept of republicanism and the specifically 'American' one is listed later in the article, with the latter being a subset of the former). I would recommend an amendment to change the opening sentence to make it resemble the one for atheism: that is, to distinguish between the broad (Non-monarchic government) and narrow (Representative democracy) definitions. Calling it a 'modern simplified definition' is not satisfactory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.70.1 (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Republic has a long and various set of definitions. According to all sources I can find it originally had the context of commonwealth. In that the property of the state was held in common and not by an individual, i.e. an absolute monarch. It seems to me that it is certainly possible to have a aristocratic or non-absolute monarchy and still be a republic. The first sentences definition excludes many historical republics from the definition and undermine the word with respect to uses it found in Rome itself with regards to Plato's 'Republic.' Indeed monarchies can be republics as long as the state and property of state is held by, oligarchy, aristocracy, or the people in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoratao (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

-Put simply; as regards the modern definition, a monarchy is a state where the monarch (or crown-and by that I mean the legal concept, not the physical object!) is (at least formally) sovereign, and a republic is a state where the people of the state as a whole are (at least formally) sovereign. In other words, the people in a republic are sovereign, not the head of state, as opposed to the situation in a monarchy, where; if a democracy, power is delegated/derived from the monarch. So, Barack Obama is the US head of state, but he is not sovereign, the American people are; whereas Elizabeth II is both sovereign and head of state of Canada. This is why; for example, in a court in a monarchy, (eg. the UK) the case will be 'The Crown' versus Mr. A.N. Other, and in a republic (e.g. the USA) the case will be 'The People' versus Mr. A.N. Other. This is also why the coat of arms of a monarchy and the coat of arms of the monarch are identical, and yet the coat of arms of a republican head of state and the republic itself are not identical. Look at any constitution of a monarchy (e.g. Canada); it will say that the monarch is sovereign and that power derives or is delegated from them. Now look at the constitution of any Republic, it will say that sovereignty is vested in the people as a whole. As for Syria and North Korea; that's irrelevant. They are both de facto hereditary, not de jure; and neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un were/are formally the North Korean head of state. Also; neither state's constitution provides for any hereditary succession or office, and at any rate, a monarchy doesn't have to be hereditary.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

---

From memory in Political Theory course, a Republic has (but is not limited to) two specific qualifications: 1. The Head of State is under law, not above the Law (Positive Law applies to him - he is not exempt) and 2. Every strata of Society is represented. Ie, in Rome, the Plebeians had representation, the Nobles had representation, the Military had representation; even the Beggars and the Whores had representation. However, EQUAL representation was not part of the requirement - that's an American innovation. The Military's Representative would doubtless have commanded more political influence than the Beggars' Representative.

A Republic, arguably, also has a Constitution, although Rome's might not have been a written one. England's Magna Carta piloted written constitutions, and the US Constitution (devised by the Philadelphia Convention, not the Articles of Confederation) actually sets precedent in History as the "first WRITTEN Constitution."

The discussion has zoned in on Monarchies; Some Monarchs are above the law, and some are subject to the law of the land. A Monarch is distinguished from a Tyrant, by ruling to/for the benefit of the STATE. The Tyrant rules for HIS OWN benefit. The discussion of who is Sovereign was discussed, but I don't remember it all.

Soapbox concluded; Does etiquette require that I should source this out myself, in a library project, or is this the avocation of a "Republic" enthusiast? I have not directly edited the article, because I haven't looked up citations. -- 06:04, 29 August 2012‎ User:Hamiltek

Representative democracy

It is not clear to me what Madison's contribution to this concept was. Edmund Burke in a speech made in Bristol on 3rd Nov, 1774 had extremely clear ideas on the subject. Madison may have been influenced by them. Pamour (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why a citation needed?

The phrase "135 of the world's 206 sovereign states[citation needed] use the word "republic" as part of their official names" links to a wikipedia page that is a list of countries that uses Republic as part of the name. Its absurd to enumerate all of the options and then insist on an outside citation. --129.15.117.118 (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've let this one marinade for awhile I will go ahead and delete the citation needed. --Zoratao (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Considerable potential for bias

In recent years, the false distinction between Democracy and Republic has been a talking point of some American talk show hosts and political communities. This has lead to many politically enthusiastic editors reproducing this misinformation on wikipedia. A Google search of Democracy v Republic, or any variation thereof, will yield a body of highly questionable and clearly biased sources.

This discussion page indicates that there is even now, a strong push for this American-spun distinction. I both thank and encourage all editors whose understanding of this issue has established a firm bulwark against such misinformation, as the article itself is well balanced at the time of writing. I consider it highly probably that more misinformation will find its way here, and on this issue specifically, Wikipedia is an island of truth amongst a backdrop of political mudslinging.

In essence, right-wingers have been trying to demonize the word "Democracy" in an attempt to garner "Republican" votes. The idea that these ideals cannot be inclusive of one another, and therefore a strong distinction must exist, is erroneous and ground in ignorance. This idea is capitalized by many pundits for their own agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.169.54 (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow your rationale for encouraging this distinction, however I agree that this is something that has only recently gained some traction. There seems to be an attempt to restrict "democracy" to mean direct democracy, rather than the traditional inclusive term which included both direct and representative democracy. There are some political philosophers, however, who predate this recent phenomenon and draw fine distinctions between terms. But the definitions are varied and not really in common use. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also there is counter evidence to the claim that the contemporaries of Madison, Jefferson, et. al. believed the word meant an indirect democracy. Indeed the quotation of Benjamin Franklin, from James McHenry's notes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McHenry, goes like this: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html Indicating that as opposed to as is claimed here, the fathers of the american republic were aware of the usage which is common worldwide though contested by a few in present day US. It seems to me that Madison in the Federalist Papers is using a working definition as one does in a piece of academic literature rather than defining the word as he thinks is common usage. If the way he defined it were common usage why bother with the effort?

Zoratao (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Map of the Commonwealth republics

Map of the Commonwealth republics: Rwanda is missing.

--Nnemo (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Commonwealth

If this word is meant to be a literal translation (the usual understanding of the silly term 'calque') of 'respublica', it is spectacularly inept. Pamour (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is a perfect example of a calque, but it was used as a translation. In the English of the time, it was apparently not considered spectaularly inept. Perhaps your impression is influenced by the fact that the words republic and commonwealth have both evolved in meaning (or at least the "feeling" they imply) since that time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional Republic?

There's no such thing. It's a term coined by American Republicans and not official. It shouldn't belong in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.86.190 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Republic vs Democracy

What's the difference? --Περίεργος (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Most commonly a republic is considered a form of representative democracy, which is a type of democracy. I have tried to clarify this in the article. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That distinction has no real scholarly basis. A democracy is a country where the rulers are chosen by peoples in elections. A Republic is a country which is not a monarchy. The Netherlands is a democracy but not a republic. China is a republic but not a democracy. The US is both. Morocco is neither. I hope that clarifies things. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Most sources recognize representative democracy in the definition (MW, dictionary.com); OED says this: "The term is often (esp. in the 18th and 19th centuries) taken to imply a state with a democratic or representative constitution and without a hereditary nobility, but more recently it has also been used of autocratic or dictatorial states not ruled by a monarch. It is now chiefly used to denote any non-monarchical state headed by an elected or appointed president." I tend to use the older definition and despite this, is what I hear most often. If there's universal agreement in academic circles, I am unaware of it. A democratic republic is certainly the sense used in the US Constitution. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

By older definition you are apparently referring to what your describes only as something implied. Personally I have no problem saying that democracy is implied or that the two concepts are associated, but it needs to be stated in a way which does not imply that there is a simple equation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a very big difference between them both! Here is schema that demonstrates that: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Classical_republics_and_democracy_contrasted WHEELER (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the word "republic" has had so many definitions that it is impossible to nail it down to a specific meaning. The modern tendency is for people to choose the definition or synthesize a new one just for the virtue of calling their government a republic. For example, the People's Republic of China doesn't have much in resemblance with the Republic of China, or the republic of the United States of America for that matter. Democracy has problems of its own. People aren't always willing to distinguish between direct democracy or representative democracy, or the innumerable forms of the concept.--68.39.25.109 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it true that Republic has at least these two pre-requisites?

1) Every strata of society has representation and 2) The Head of State is under law (or no one is above the law)?

Democracy is more than just a form of selecting a leader, however election is a defining characteristic of Democracy. BlueHairedLawyer said a Republic is a country that is not a Monarchy. Every historical discussion of Republic also rejects Tyranny, where the Head of State rules to his own benefit, rather than the benefit of the country. A Tyrant can only be challenged (without coup or violence,) if he is answerable to law. Democracy does not define the Head of State as being subject to law. Presumably, he is subject to the consensus, because that is how he is elected. Democracy has no rule to decide what to do, when the Commander in Chief turns to exploitation. Republic resists that event, (when the Head of State turns his attentions from befitting the citizenry to benefiting himself,) by challenging him on the basis of law. Whenever the exchange of power requires coup or violence, it is arguably not definable as a form of government. Infodater (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Post Script: Having a 3) Constitution might be another defining characteristic of Republic. By analogy, NFL football has regulations; goal posts shape and position, size of pitch, size and shape of ball, time of play. If you change these, it isn't football anymore. By contrast, there are also rules; no late hits, no taunting, no spearing, no moving before the ball is hiked. I suppose these observations might offer an entry point to a discussion of what a Constitution is, and how it differs from Criminal and Civil Code. Infodater (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A Republic in theory has a set of governing principles that cannot be voted on by the public. These principles are usually enshrined in a constitution. The U.S allows the constitution to be amended as long as it does not violate the original principles. So, a Republic is a form of Democracy with some rules. Democracy (in it's pure form) is mob rule, a vote is a vote a majority is a majority and majority rules. -- Most modern 'Democracies' are technically Republics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎216.246.232.41 (talk • contribs)

Feudalism vs Civic Humanism: Shouldn't the introduction be clearer?

The introduction contains the sentence (partially reproduced,)

 The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "Civic Humanism" is sometimes considered...

I feel like it would be better to describe Renaissance Government as Feudalism, than Civic Republicanism, as the linked article more particularly denotes. Feudal Lords did not seek the highest good of their fellow man, and they were appointed by a system of monarchic Nobility. "A Republic is a State which is not a Monarchy," would be a good rule to illustrate why Nobility and Aristocracy differ from Republic. I don't have a convenient high school textbook, for a citation, but Feudalism is a well accepted definition for the characteristic form of government during the middle ages.

This comment calls in question much of the second paragraph. May I advocate a change?

14:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infodater (talk • contribs)

I have to disagree. Feudalism isn't a term much used by modern historians, and when it is used it is linked to monarchies, not republics.- SimonP (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki

I don't yet know how to use Wikidata, so I think this is the next most appropriate place. You may notice that a Greek interwiki link is conspicuously missing from the language bar. This is because the Greek word δημοκρατία dimokratia means both "democracy" (as an abstract noun) and "republic" (as a common noun) – wikidata:Q7174. I think therefore that this article should link to el:Δημοκρατία, while the Greek article should have two interwiki links – to both English articles: en:Democracy and en:Republic. What think you? BigSteve (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Etymology Section

This section is highly problematic. Firstly I don't think "res publica" came from "politea" the terms are native to latin and it seems unlikely that are derivative. All of the authors discussed in this section from from the late republic or the renaissance. It seems some pretty significant anachronism is going on in this section. It needs to be cleaned up because as written it is either confusing or wrong. Zoratao (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Zoratao

Republic -- different definitions

Funny, http://thisnation.com/question/011.html (and some people I have talked to) claim

    The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a 
    form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings 
    or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in 
    which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf.

According to this definition, The UK (which is not a republic) is a republic since they elect a parliament who are basically their representatives. The UK (United Kingdom) obviously by its name IS a monarchy which means by another definition it is NOT a republic.

Confusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.231.3 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No. This (the definition you've proffered) is a popular conspiracy theory originating with the John Birch Society and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of several related terms in political science. Democracy and Republicanism are not mutually exclusive. BlueSalix (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually under UK law it is a Monarchy which by a series of laws and conventions is administered as a two chamber Parliment. The parliment has signed into the European Union and has ratified conventions on human rights from the UN and European union. In theory these could be challenged by the Monarch or one of the chambers and over turned, that is why many prefer more formal constitutions. In practice so far, we have a formal constitution from UN expanded by the EU's, the EU recognises states rights to devolution but not to exist the EU. Socialy the UK is like the child that always asks questions of the teacher if the teacher is the EU annoying most of the class mates (other EU states). If the UK attempts to exit the EU or scotland becomes independant of the rest of the UK it will require significant work to clarify the EU's constitional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.146.162 (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually the UK is both a "Constitutional Monarchy" and a "Representative Democracy". These two terms describe separate, but related, aspects of the UK, the former the method by which sovereignty is derived and the latter the way power is exercised. The USA is a "Constitutional Republic" and a "Representative Democracy" (and a whole load of other terms which are needed to properly describe it!). It is (or has become, I'm not 200 years old!) common for right-leaning people to claim the USA is *only* a Republic and *not* a democracy, but this seems to be to be purely for partisan reasons. It must help psychologically if the name of your political party matches that of your country's system of government. In reality, the Republican and Democrat names of the two US parties means pretty much zero. It's not like the Democrats are against Republicanism or the Republicans are against Democracy. It's silly. It really really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.223.109 (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Rzeczpospolita

Why here is nothing about Rzeczpospolita Korony Królestwa Polskiego i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego (the Republic of Polish Kingdom's Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania)? You know it as a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I don't know why anyone have translated "Rzeczpospolita" as "Commonwealth". "Rzecz" - "thing", "pospolita" - common(in the old times), - Rzeczpospolita - Common Thing - Res Publica - Republic. Rzeczpospolita is an old-polish word on republic. I Rzeczpospolita was a republic. There was a parlament, elective head of state, every citizen could vote (every noble). It was a Common Thing of nobles. I know what i am talking about, i am Pole. Also, before II World War we were saying Rzeczpospolita Rzymska (Roman Republic), Rzeczpospolita Francuska, Wenecka et cetera. So, please, write something about I Rzeczpospolita in this articule.

Sorry for my English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.9.149.248 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem Paragraph

In the example of the United States, the original 13 British colonies became independent states after the American Revolution, each having a republican form of government. These independent states initially formed a loose confederation called the United States and then later formed the current United States by ratifying the current U.S. Constitution, creating a union of sovereign states with the union or federal government also being a republic. Any state joining the union later was also required to be a republic.

Is it accurate to describe the United States as simply a (personal) union of sovereign states? Are states considered sovereign in their own right, or subdivisions of the US with certain inalienable rights? And how often are the states themselves considered and referred to as "republics"? This whole paragraph seems POV, unsourced, and factually inaccurate.

I'll removed in a bit unless anyone has anything else to say. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Fun fact: "Republic" is essentially the same word as "Commonwealth". They're based on the same original Greek word, but translated at different times. This is why half of the states are called Commonwealths and the other half are called Republics. All of the states are Republics, just by virtue of being sovereign without a monarch. The same is true of the states which Mexico and most other federal systems. Yes, this does make the use of the term "Commonwealth" to describe the collection of nations which (originally) had the Queen as head of state, but there you go...! :)

The states aren't subdivisions, the states are entities which have united to form a greater entity and have transferred a number of powers to that entity, and have agreed to be bound by the constitition as a condition of union. Most (all?) states pretty much replicate the structure of the USA on a state level, having a Governor (president) and usually the same senate/house bicameral system. The federal government is only more powerful than the state government when it comes to powers which have been transferred to the federal government by the constitution and other documents, in other areas the states have sovereignty and can't be overriden by the federal government. Hence the whole state vs federal police power struggle you see portrayed in many TV shows and Movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.223.109 (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This post typifies the problem: People speaking confidentially about things they actually don't fully comprehend. Only FOUR out of fifty states are formally called commonwealths. I'm no expert, but I'm not pretending to be either. No disrespect, but self-proclaimed experts are muddying up this article. Sovereignty as in Sovereign state wouldn't apply to the individual states of the US, as none are national entities in their own right. States do have certain inalienable rights, but none are soverign on a national level, hence the existence of a federal government and common citizenship regardless of state residency. Also, one of the powers of the federal government is to assure that individual states maintain a republican form of government at the state level. The federal government cannot replace state governors at will. But, in theory, if a state governor declared himself "governor-for-life," the federal government would be within its bounds to remove said governor for infringing upon the democratic process, even if the governor-for-life wasn't seceding from the US, just infringing on state politics. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirrect from Constitutional republic

Constitutional republic redirects here and has had 7722 views (I assume in the last month), whilst redirecting to the non-existent section Constitutional republic in this article. 399 pages link to the redirect Constitutional republic, so I can't look at them each individually. Do you think this the best article to redirect to, and should it just redirect to the top of the article? Banak (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Revolutionary republic

The article revolutionary republic use to redirect to sister republic. A user has replaced that with a new article. Please review to see if the subject merits a new article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

needs work

consider this portion from the intro:

"The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition, today referred to as "civic humanism", is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius[5] and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect."

Since when is Tacitus a "republican"? Or what does that even mean in his context? He was a historian writing under the emperors. What would it mean to say that civic humanism "derived directly from Roman republicans"? Surely, it was influenced, but that's it. Roman law was already working its influence centuries before humanists came round. What does it mean to call Polybius, a Greek writing in Greek, "Greek-influenced"? res publica was a translation of politeia, and politeia does mean regime. In Aristotle, it is also used for a specific type of regime (often rendered "polity" in the translations), but it's silly to say that Aristotle's very specific use "did not exactly correspond to that of the roman republic." If we're talking about the res publica, i.e., the Roman pre-augustan regime, then it's a tautology to say that it was not the same thing as the democracy at Athens. So in that final sentence, what thinkers or writers are we talking about? What time period? It's worth recalling, Cicero's Republic is not about the Roman republic as it historically existed. chris --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.58.180 (talk • contribs)

Current content:

The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition, today referred to as "civic humanism", is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.

Best to make it somewhat more concrete probably, so it's easier to discuss what you want to update to the article: --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal:

(please replace this parenthesis with your replacement proposal for the above text)

References

-- (please replace this parenthesis with four tildes = ~ x 4)

Definition

Does anyone else think that the early part of the lead has actually gotten worse since older versions like [1]? In particular, it seems to imply that under modern definitions it refers to a system of government where "power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body[2][3] and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law". It says "definition of a republic is commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch", but this seems to imply it still requires the earlier. Whereas as the earlier version says, the most common modern definition is simply that a republic is something which isn't a monarchy. Situations like North Korea can get complicated, but places without elections and where the rule of law are poorly respected are still generally considered republics if they aren't monarchies and have no sign of hereditary rule. Our article mentions the large number of countries which call themselves republics. This is actually quite an important point as most of those will be considered republics, whatever their system of government (again with the complication of cases like North Korea). This contrasts with "democracy" where it's generally still accepted you need credible and free voting by the population of some sort (so a country like the UK or Japan would be considered a democracy; a country like Laos or Congo, not so much not so much no matter what they may call themselves). Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well there are multiple definitions, and the opening is a mess right now, even mixing up the timeline of the classic definition and leading the modern US-specific definition. Carewolf (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

i'd argue that it's important to more clearly delineate the conception of republic as a representative system as something fairly modern. i realize that there's a paragraph discussing this somewhat, but it's worth remembering, for example, that republic, in the sense of regime, existed happily alongside the tradition identified with Machiavelli et al. Bodin, for example, in his six books of the republic, uses it in the sense of politeia, and this usage -- call medieval, if you like (cf. marsilius, for example), continues as well for quite a while. Thus, Rousseau in the Social Contract (Ch. 6, fn.) specifically allows that even a monarchy is a republic ("la monarchie elle-meme est republique.") in other words, the specific argument that a republic meant a representative system was not really settled (?) till a fairly late date. -- chris --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.58.180 (talk • contribs)

Leaving aside the final sentence regarding what is or is not a democracy (a completely separate discussion), I agree with Nil Einne, and came to the talk page with the intent of saying virtually the same thing. Whatever we may decide to call a government characterized by popular elections and/or "rule of law," it is a type of republic, but "republic" is not defined by that feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenos agasga (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. This is not Wiktionary. If the term has a second meaning in the US then there should be a different article for that other concept - what the rest of the world calls "representative democracy" as distinct from "direct democracy" "totalitarianism" and verious other systems. This article is about the first meaning of the word in the US dictionary linked to (and the only meaning of the word in British English). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.234.136 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Examples repeatedly deleted for no reason

not all of these are republics in the sense of having elected governments, nor do all nations with elected governments use the word "republic" in their names.

So I provided examples:

For example, the Kingdom of Norway is the country with the highest Democracy Index, but is a constitutional monarchy, while the country with the lowest Democracy Index is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

and they were repeatedly reverted with reason

"Deleted text was prone to lead readers to confuse the concepts of republic and liberal democracy, and to think that "kingdom" should normally stand for absolutism"

The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" was included because it has "Republic" in the name, but is not considered to have a truly elected government, as per the previous sentence.

The "Kingdom of Norway" was included because it does not have "Republic" in the name, but does have an elected government, as per the previous sentence.

They also happen to be the top and bottom of the Democracy Index, which is a pretty good quantification of "having elected governments" if you ask me. 🙄 71.167.69.223 (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph is more than problematic

in fact I would put it in the category utter ignorance (and forgive me for being scathing). A Republic is the governed by a select group of people where it is quite irrelevant whether that is done by a suffrage process. The suffrage makes it government by the people, and if by all people a democracy. Not a Republic.

This article needs work urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs)

A republic can have democratic elements too it, but it necessarily is a system in which government is constrained by constitutional limits. 81.225.40.25 (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Too similar to "democracy"

The article is too similar to democracy as of right now. "a government where the head of state is not a monarch" is too ambiguous. It needs more focus on rights being given to the populace and restrictions set on the government. 81.225.40.25 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The two are non-overlapping magisteria, as democracy is a matter of government, and republicanism a matter of state. A country can be a democratic non-republic, e.g. the UK, Canada. It can be a democratic republic, e.g. France, the United States. It can be a non-democratic republic, e.g. Cuba, China. And it can be non-democratic and non-republican, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Vatican City. The opening of the article clearly states that, at its most basic level, a republic is simply a country (or other national entity) wherein political power and legitimacy is derived from the will of the people, a 'res publica', an undertaking of the public, as opposed to a monarchy wherein political power is derived from what is viewed as the natural or divinely ordained ownership of a (usually hereditary) sovereign. However this does NOT mean that the day-to-day governance in a republic will necessarily be democratic, nor that a monarchy can't be a functional democracy (usually defined as a constitutional monarchy, even in the UK where there's no one single constitutional document). It's simply a matter of what theoretical source from whence the government derives its authority to govern. In my opinion the article does an adequate job of getting this across. Is there any particular place where you feel it needs clarification? Trilobright (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Many governments, such as even North Korea, “claim” to be republics, but in the popular mind, few really believe all such claims by such rulers. It seems to me that this article should not be about trying to somehow justify the imaginations of such rulers as Kim Jung Un, but about clarifying for our readers why rulers such as Kim Jung Un might be mistaken in making such claims. Was not one of Wikipedia’s founding visions, that it might be a place where the “common mind” might better come to understand itself, and not merely be a place where academics and elitists meet to inform the “commoners” what they must believe (having forgotten that we all come from the same common stock)? One passer by (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The "bouncy history" of the word "republic"

The word “republic” has had a rather bouncy ride down through the thousands of years since it was first coined in the age of Greek democracy and of Roman partial-democracy.  Being so closely associated with the ancient Western world’s one greatest “super-power:” Rome, it has become a rather difficult quality or property to define or pin down.  Many political entities have since proclaimed themselves to be “republics,” but perhaps fewer have actually been able to agree upon the exact meaning of the term. 

It appears to me that since the rather surprising but still notable success over the last few centuries of the American experiment in democracy, that perhaps the older definitions of the word “republic” may have finally shifted back in the “popular mind” towards a definition that again incorporates at least some part of “democracy.”

So then three questions:

1. Is it our job as editors here to clarify both the current popular definition of this word, and also the word’s history, or only the word’s history, and to leave the current definition muddled and unclear for our readers, why?
2. If it were our job to clarify both the “current definition” of the term, and the historical definitions, then should the current definition be used as a “starting point” for the article, by clearly introducing this definition first in the lede, and if not, then where would the best place be to clarify for our readers, the current definition of this word?
3. If this article is to clarify the current definition of this term, then what is the “current popular definition” of the word “republic?”

 One passer by (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Re. "word “republic” ... first coined in the age of Greek democracy" – incorrect, the first coining of the *word* is the Roman term "Res Publica".

There's the history of the concept (which indeed also involves Greek thoughts on democracy, politics, etc, older than the first coining of the word), and there's the history of the word (from Roman "Res Publica" to English "Republic" and many similar terms in many languages), and then there's the history of what that word (or its equivalents) may have meant depending on place and time (a lot of history there too). And then on 20 October 2017 the word "Republic" (or its equivalent in other languages) has different meanings in different contexts.

When replacing "word’s history" in the questions above by the combined historical aspects as sketched above, and "current popular definition of this word" by the multi-layered up-to-date meanings of the word, then I'd reply as follows:

1. both, and as to the why question: because this is an encyclopedia.
2. good question, but I suppose both approaches would be equally valid. This is, for me, a question that primarily applies to the lead section: I think
   • A Republic is <insert multi-layered up-to-date definition(s) here>, which evolved from <insert summarized historic overview here>

   equally valid as

   • Republic is historically <insert summarized historic overview here>, leading to a more modern understanding as <insert multi-layered up-to-date definition(s) here>
3. The different approaches should be represented in a WP:NPOV way: that implies from the simplified "not a Monarchy" to the distinctions made by political theorists; also the practical politics of countries or supra-national or sub-national entities that call themselves republics should be mentioned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I like your first approach in statement number 2 above.

What do you think about the role that the dictionary definitions of the most popular dictionaries, for the word "republic” should play in this? Generally, most dictionary definitions seem to stress moreso the importance of “the people” being represented through democratic processes than the non-monarchical aspect of it. One passer by (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Re. role of dictionary definitions: very limited while Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionary definitions should go to wiktionary:republic or wikidata:Q7270. The Wikipedia article should rather be built on reliable secondary sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem to find that the majority of the scholarly secondary sources support that the current definition of the word “republic” is the non-monarchical definition, which is obviously contrary to the definitions found in both current dictionaries, and also “by the way” in other competing encyclopedias. Did you find this by starting from a point of not-knowing (true neutrality) or from starting from a point of thinking you already know, and then trying to find the sources to support what you think you already know? (I must confess as an editor here, I often take the “shortcut” of doing the latter myself.)

I ask this about neutrality because I’d like to do a small “exercise” here. Imagine that we are both writing an article about Xanamu, a word about which neither one of us yet knows a thing. Imagine that either one of us is attempting to describe to the other, the best method to determine whatever the best definition of Xanamu might be for the article. Would we tell each other to avoid the dictionary and other encyclopedia definitions at all cost, or would we advise one another to perhaps start there first, or neither? Where would we advise one another to start concerning a word about which we were both entirely neutral (unknowing)? I find the maintenance of true neutrality in my own mind to be a constant struggle for myself. A constant struggle between what I “think I know” and what “is.” In my own sad case, what actually “is” often astounds me.

So then, in the case of an article about Xanamu, in trying to set out the current definition of Xanamu for the article, where should we start or begin to work out the “majority of the scholarly sources for this article?” Just a small rhetorical exercise, which perhaps might help us to arrive at seeing the same thing here by generally following the same path. One passer by (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Re. "You seem to find that the majority of the scholarly secondary sources support that the current definition of the word “republic” is the non-monarchical definition" – No, I made no such assumption. Then I stopped reading your comment. Look, the situation is tricky, so much is clear (I have this article on my watchlist from before it was put on permanent "pending changes"). Oversimplifications don't help. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, over-simplification can sometimes create problems. The word “republic” has a very complex history, no doubt, but are we not both trying to somehow summarize (and therefore simplify) its vast 2500 year history into something that is both helpful, and “digestible” to our readers? The lede generally attempts this, no? So then, we look for the majority of secondary (and sometimes primary) scholarly sources, no? Sounds simple enough at first light…. A simple question then. In order to determine the best current WP definition for the word “republic” specifically what kind of sources would you recommend I look towards? One passer by (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: And I truly appreciate your good patience here with my possibly poor phrasing. Will be tied up for awhile, but will respond to this thoughtful discussion later today. One passer by (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Some recommendations:

1. Take this step by step (I think you already understood that, but doesn't hurt to repeat)
2. Separate explanatory footnotes from actual references (that is: the references that make this article comply to WP:V). This article (see respectively the "Notes" and the "References" sections) shows a technique how to do that.
3. Take a look at the writings listed in Republic#Further reading: maybe some could be used as references to update article text, maybe some are too much of a monograph on a side-topic or otherwise too extraneous to be included here, etc.
4. Find more highly suitable reliable sources, use them, update content with a reference to these sources.
5. Eventually maybe replace some existing sources by more suitable ones, if that brings more balance or clarity to the article.

Etc --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Will try to help with this good plan. One passer by (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923201826/http://www.lgdj.fr/rech_rapide.php?_Sess=c22f5de9dee93f9554d169596caad970&_Mots=monera&_TypeCode= to http://www.lgdj.fr/rech_rapide.php?_Sess=c22f5de9dee93f9554d169596caad970&_Mots=monera&_TypeCode=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

First Paragraph

At beginning of talk page it says: Republic has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class. We all need to act now.

1. Sentence 1(S1)-okay
2. S2-first clause okay but second is not universal. Edit second with following "but are attained through elections or autocratic rules."
3. S3-If there's autocracy then this sentence can't apply. Remove it.
4. S4-Very good. Keep it.
5. S5-Make it begin next paragraph.
6. Insert 1.2 "The term republic originated from the writers of the Renaissance as a descriptive term for states that were not monarchies."
7. Insert 1.4 "Technically, political science defines republic as a state with no monarchy and no hereditary aristocracy."
8. Insert 1.5 "But figuratively speaking a republic might imply sovereignty of the people rather than sovereignty of a monarch."
9. Insert 1.6 "Metaphorically, a republic implies a community and a polity of citizens and is often conflated with concepts of democracy, Whiggism, and the ideology of republicanism."
10. Insert 1.7 "However, both figurative and metaphorical meanings are disputable when used in any state's official name in which the country is also known to be a dictatorship, an oligarchy, a communist government, autocracy, or any other form of authoritarian government."
11. Insert 1.8 "On the other hand, the technical definition is perfectly acceptable in all cases of common use."
12. Insert 1.9 "The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but can be attained through elections or by methods of autocracy/authoritarianism."

First paragraph reveals a common problem with the entire article. There is an intentional forcing the word "republic" to be a conflation of principles from democracy and the ideology of republicanism. The term republic originated from the writers of the Renaissance as a descriptive term for states that were not monarchies. For technical purposes in political science, a republic is defined in a narrow sense of no king, no nobility, no monarchy, and no aristocracy. The word republic by itself does not imply any more concepts about elections or consent of the people, or more. This is an excellent definition for respect of neutrality and universality because any country in the world can use the word republic without violation of the technical meaning whereas accepting the figurative and metaphorical definitions opens a can of worms and endless debate and even insulting where it is not needed. The figurative and metaphorical meanings are perfectly acceptable outside of serious politics or in a context where that is clearly stated and obvious to the reader and with a clear objective in mind. A separate paragraph could freely expand on all the conflated ideas rolled into the word. In fact, it would be a fair comment to expand on the figurative and metaphorical meanings under the next paragraph topic of "In American English".

DHT863 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Fifth Paragraph

I don't think political sub-units of a nation are in any way sovereign because they are always subject to a higher power known as the central government which has all the sovereignty. This applies to the states of the US. Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution does say each state shall have a "republican form of government" but it does not say they are sovereign states independent of the central government. The words sovereignty or sovereign are not found in the US Constitution. I suspect the usage is motivated by a political agenda and not accurate in application. It should be removed and corrected.DHT863 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

See divided sovereignty. The notion that there can only be one sovereign power has never been accepted in the United States. --Trovatore (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The general consensus among scholars is that dual federalism ended during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency in 1937 when the New Deal policies were decided constitutional by the Supreme Court. Please don't make this a debating contest. If you honestly believe from your personal point of view in neutrality then you need to add an explanation about "divided sovereignty" to that part of the of the sentence. If I can notice the issue then there will be many others to also point it out. That would be an excellent improvement but then it is moot point if the policy is ended. DHT863 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The more I look at the fifth paragraph beginning with the words "Most often a republic is a single..." then the more I believe it should be entirely deleted. The topic of dual federalism is extremely obscure, it means nothing to most of the world, and there's a lot of jingoism intentional or not. The comments about Russia are subjective personal views and insulting to Russians - how would you feel if someone says the same thing about the US: for example "...[US] electoral system is structured so as to automatically guarantee the election of corporate sponsored candidates." You know there is a grain of truth to that but out of context. ---DHT863 (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Recommendations

1. There's a problem with wordiness. For example: "elections with consent of the governed" can simply be "elections".
2. There's no such thing as the best. If a word has multiple meanings then our job is to elucidate all of those meanings with pros and cons from a neutral point of view.
3. There's a problem of conflation. For example: "known elsewhere as a representative democracy (a democratic republic)[4] and exercise power according to the rule of law (a constitutional republic)." could be improved to "known elsewhere as a representative democracy".
4. More later. ---DHT863 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
5. There's un-necessary obstruction of progress. Oppositional editors refuse to exam simple edits and do not respond to talk page. I suggest a compromise where I have one paragraph and the opposition has the next one and so on alternatively. I am trying to achieve objectivity, universality, and neutral point of view which should be acceptable around the world. But the opposition seems to have very sacred ideas that I know are strongly held by some citizens of the US. --- DHT863 (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Be polite, and welcoming to new users
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks
• For disputes, seek dispute resolution
• Article policies:
• No original research
• Neutral point of view
• Verifiability
• --- DHT863 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

DHT863, you need to bring forward reliable sources that support the changes you want to make. There is no way under the sun that any experienced editor will agree with your "alternate paragraphs" proposal. This entire article will be the product of consensus among all interested editors, and you are just one of them. So, your job is to build consensus if you want to change the article. This is a collaborative project based on consensus. If you persist in referring to other interested editors as "the opposition", you cannot possibly achieve your goals. Wikipedia simply does not work that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposals for Consensus

1. Change "The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy, or autocracy not monarchy. It is a form of government under . . ." to "The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited. It is a form of government under . . ." Very good. An excellent compromise. Thanks. -- DHT863 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

San Marino

Shouldn't San Marino be recognized as a republic in this article? Genesyz (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Republic Kingdom hybrid?

Is there such thing as republic kingdom? Monarchial president? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.140.191 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

There are hereditary republics, as currently in Syria and North Korea... AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Republic - a pseudo-democracy or pseudo-monarchy

          A true democracy scared the hell out of our founding fathers - almost all wealthy landowners/businessmen. A republic allowed some people ( later almost all people to vote). However, only the rich can afford to run for office - very few poor or middleclass citizens  could ever finance a nationwide/statewide campaign. This leaves the elite/rich or their pschopants (very throughlly veted) to be the only plausible candidates. The welfare of the rich is maintained and the bulk of the citizens feel like they are participants. Sooner or later the citizens realize they are sucking the wrong end of the republic lollipop. Then we have a "crisis" - the reason most republic are military/elite structures. Then the military decides what to do with the rich (one good reason to have most West Pointers to be appointed by senators/rich/flunkies). 

75.68.248.198 (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Soviet Union

In the introductory section, would you consider the Gorbachev years to be authoritarian or would it be more like a hybrid regime as the Economist's Democracy index might rate a regime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:657F:F030:D422:D534:86D:F027 (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate Roman History

The summary of this article makes several erroneous claims about Roman government. It states: "In this early Roman partial-democracy, the power of the aristocratic or patrician class who held all of the seats in the Roman Senate, was checked by the institution of the consulship, whose two consul/vice-rulers were elected annually by the free citizens or plebes of Rome."

This is incorrect or misleading in the following respects:

1. For much of the Roman Republic, the aristocracy was made up of members of both the patrician and plebeian classes. Many famous, wealthy, and influential Romans were plebeians: the Gracchi, Gaius Marius, Pompey, Cicero, and Mark Antony as just a few examples.

2. Only immediately after the founding of the Republic did the patrician class hold all of the seats in the Roman Senate. For the vast majority of the Roman Republic, the Senate included plebeians.

3. The consulship was not the plebeians' check on the power of the patricians. Not until 367 BC were plebeians even allowed to hold this office. The office by which the plebeians originally sought to check the power of the patricians was that of tribunus plebis, for which only plebeians were eligible.

4. The "free citizens" of Rome and the "plebes" are not synonymous. Plebes were any free citizens who were not patricians, but patricians were also free citizens. Both patricians AND plebeians participated in the election of consuls.

The summary also states, "Initially the Latin term res publica signified the earlier 'partial form of democracy' as found in Rome from c. 500 BC until c. 27 BC." This is also inaccurate. Res publica is a term that referred merely to the state, rather than to the form of government that governed the state.

66.28.104.90 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You might provide us with some sources for these points. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 15:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"The Real Definition of a Republic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Real Definition of a Republic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu57 14:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Republic vs Representative Democracy

By the original Latin words (and with the clarifying term "constitutional"), "republic" means the rule of the state and its laws (rule of the law / constitution), and does not specifically mention rule by representatives or people (would be populus, or Greek demos). While it's listed as a part of the definition here, for this part specifically, representative democracy would be a better term for ruling by representatives. Also, representative democracy does not specifically include a constitution or rule by law, it just means representatives elected by the people. However, the article equates the terms "constitutional republic" and "representative democracy" in the 2nd paragraph. I think it's worth distinguishing these, or at least not wording them as equal terms, even if usually they both apply at the same time to governments. Aaronfranke (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"primary positions of power (...) attained through (...) oligarchy" - not supported by cited sources

The statement that the primary positions of power within a republic are attained through oligarchy is not supported by the cited sources [1] [2] [3] (2001:981:DB60:1:F9FB:46EF:DAB3:2068 (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC))

American terminology?

This article now says:

In American English, the definition of a republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state,

I wonder whether, instead of saying "In American English," it ought to say something like "In the terminology of American constitutional law," since it is language used when speaking of the U.S.A. and the term might not have that same meaning when used by Americans speaking of republics in distant countries. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a very good point, though I'm not sure of the exact fix. The issue is that there are two overlapping meanings, "constitutionally limited representative democracy" and "non-hereditary rule", which have commonalities and shared historical roots but are not the same thing. Both meanings are available in American English and have to be disambiguated by context.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and an article should generally be about a single thing, not about different things sharing the same name, but in this case there is enough overlap that I would not suggest splitting the article. But it needs a deeper discussion than a naive "in American English". --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, "elected head of state" seems way too specific — that would exclude Italy, for example. --Trovatore (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I have several times recently come across American individuals arguing, sometimes vehemently, that the United States is a republic but not a democracy, and objecting to the application of the latter term. To an outsider (in my case as a UK citizen) this is really odd. I see no conflict between the two terms, and their application overlaps but does not coincide. Some republics are not democracies (e.g. China), and some democracies are not republics (e.g. Sweden). In practice in the modern world the main distinguishing feature of a republic is that it has a head of state (however described) who is not a hereditary monarch. Clearly by that criterion the USA is a republic, but by most criteria it is also a democracy. (There is a separate distinction between unitary and federal systems of government, but that cuts across the republican-monarchical distinction.) I don't know of any specific meaning of the term 'republic' in American constitutional law (as referred to in the present text of the article), and if there is such a meaning a reference to some provision of the Constitution or Supreme Court decision would be useful. I'm aware of the reference in Article 4 of the Constitution to guaranteeing the states a 'republican' form of government, but this is not defined, and the jurisprudence on it seems inconclusive.2A00:23C8:7906:1301:8C68:64AD:B48:7DFC (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Republic Images

The images showing the progression of the concept of the Republic in the 'Liberal republics' section show Sweden, Norway, Britain, etc. as Monarchies, but the royalty there has almost no political power as opposed to places like Monaco and Saudi Arabia where the Ruler has clout. Jokem (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarity of first sentence

Oxford dictionary: republic - a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

I find this definition to be more succinct than our current lead sentence. Any interest in changing our first sentence to more closely match this? For comparison, our current lead sentence is:

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It is clearer, and I would be happy to bring our definition closer to it. There are two claims I wouldn't want brought over: you can have a republic without elections, and the leader of a republic can have many titles beyond president. - SimonP (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I had added the second part of the definition according to the citation provided, "and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch" (see here) and the edit was reverted by Locke Cole stating "not all republics have a President, see talk" (see here). As I can see it, either the definition in this statement is false and violates wiki's policy of WP:CHERRYPICKING as it presents only a portion of the definition provided in the citations or the statement by Locke Cole is false and and violates wiki's policies of WP:STONEWALL as he is preventing change that has been backed up by a citation and has reverted me to the talk page which after reading the comments above, invariably supports the addition of the second portion of the citation's definition and secondly WP:BURDEN as he has not provided any citation to his claim. There are some issues related to dictionaries, as referenced in WP:DICTIONARIES, however they are covered under WP:RELIABLE. If anyone can supply a better source on the term republic, then fine but if not, then I propose to reinstate the second portion of the definition provided by the citation ""and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch" 37.18.134.184 (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@SimonP: indicated above they wouldn't want two claims brought over: you can have a republic without elections, and the leader of a republic can have many titles beyond president. You can confirm the latter by looking at the List of republics#List_by_type and noting that there are countries listed which are republics which clearly do not have a President (in title, anyways; and I didn't dig very far, but perhaps SimonP can provide examples of republics which do not hold elections). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we don't rely on one source (such as a dictionary) for our articles, especially when those sources conflict. You may wish to contact the authors of the dictionary and let them know it's time to update their definition though. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary's definition appears more inline with what a republic is: republic A state where sovereignty rests with the people or their representatives, rather than with a monarch or emperor; a country with no monarchy.. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)