Talk:Republic/Archive 10

message: *for the full story on Schonken's menacing behavior, see :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Francis_Schonken.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0contribs.29:_knowingly_filing_a_false_3RR.2Fsock_puppet_report
and note well...administrator's note that Schonken's report is "bogus."  then see this article's History for his latest refusal to civilize up, by filing yet another amateurish reversion. Stevewk 16:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schonken guilty of knowingly filing false 3RR/sock puppet report

message: *from now on, i'm just going to leave these harrassments here without comment.  there is no link to "SPAM", so we can now add 'delusional' to the list of his transgressions. also note that Schonken is =not= an administrator:  Stevewk 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schonken's Warpath

message: *NPA on Republic talk page
With regards to your comments on Talk:Republic: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. --Francis Schonken 16:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schonken's Warpath II 

message: Would Stevewk and Francis Schonken please stop edit warring over this article. As I see it, the current intro is far too long; I suggest most of it after the first paragraph should be moved to a section like "Definitions of 'Republic'". It strikes me that you are both behaving as poorly as each other - until you can both approach this in a polite, calm fashion without resorting to personal attacks, escalations to RfC etc., I suggest that you go and do something else, either some constructive editing elsewhere or a short, relaxing Wikibreak. When you return, please concentrate your efforts on making this article clear, concise and accessible to a lay-audience; perhaps you could work together on a mutually-acceptable draft article in your userspaces. Happy (calm) editing, --YFB ¿ 17:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: ::In a broad definition, a republic is a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country.
Changed to:
::In a broad definition, a republic is a state or nation, the sovereignty of which is based on popular consent, and the governance of which is based on popular representation and control.
*Second version is a definition of a representative democracy not of a republic. In some contexts both concepts are synonymous, but not in the context of a broad definition; --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: ::Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.
Changed to
::Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic. (i.e. "autonomy" removed).
*If these definitions also usually stress the importance of autonomy that word should be kept in, imho. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2

message: Added
::Many general dictionaries indicate in their primary definitions, that a republic features "a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usu. a president.""Republic," Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster Inc., 2004), 1058. A republic contrasts with a dictatorship or other autocracy, but not necessarily with a monarchy, if the latter be of the constitutional variety, i.e., based on a body of fundamental law. In such a government, as England/Great Britain following its Revolution of 1688-89, we find a "monarchy" in name only (a nominal monarchy), since the government then came under popular consent and control, and with executive authority strictly circumscribed. Such a monarchy may be considered a de facto republic.
to first paragraph of intro, including this footnote:
::
*Unnecessarily extends the length of the intro, since it is a redundant repeat of what is extensively treated in following paragraphs of the intro. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3

message: In the second paragraph:
::Defining a republic as a non-monarchy, the most common short definition,[2] is based on this idea. Although largely covering what is usually understood by a republic such definition has some borderline issues, for example while the distinction between monarchy and republic was not always made as it is in modern times, while oligarchies are traditionally considered neither monarchy nor republic, and while such definition depends very much on the monarch concept, which has various definitions, not making clear which of these is used for defining republic.
With footnote 2:
:::^ For instance in Webster's republic is defined as "a state where the head of state is not a monarch, and in modern times is usually a president".
Is changed to:
::but such a characterization is blurred by some borderline issues. For example while the distinction between monarchy and republic was not always made as it is in modern times, such a distinction depends very much on the concept of a monarch, which itself has various definitions, thereby frustrating attempts to clarify the meaning of its apparent opposite, the republic.
* "Defining a republic as a non-monarchy, the most common short definition, is based on this idea." (+ footnote) – I wouldn't leave that out: it connects with the other content of the second paragraph.
* "blurred by some borderline issues" - I think the "blurred" (combined with "borderline issues") here overemphasises, just as a style issue.
* Object to the removal of "while oligarchies are traditionally considered neither monarchy nor republic" (see above, removing this obfuscates that Samuel Johnson's definition is in fact a "non-standard" definition, that is incompatible with currently more generally adopted definitions of "republic").
* "[...] thereby frustrating attempts to clarify the meaning of its apparent opposite, the republic" – Original Research, unclear formulation, appendended without apparent relation to a sentence that is perfectly well without it. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4

message: ::In his 1787 book, "Defence of the Constitutions," John Adams [...]
Changed to:
::In his 1787 book, "Defence of the Constitutions," the American founder and second President of the United States, John Adams [...]
* I see the part of the text that I bolded above as en unneeded addition to an already overlong intro. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus (quote: "This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries.") - if you don't know who John Adams is, click the link. --Francis Schonken 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 5

message: Extension of John Adams quote with:
::If Aristotle, [ancient Roman historian Titus] Livy, and [17th-century English political theorist James] Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition is just, [...]
*Too long for intro. I'm thinking about moving that quote to the footnotes. It can always be placed somewhere appropriately in the *body* of the article if someone thinks it belongs there. --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 6

message: Added footnote to Adams text:
:::^ John Adams, "Novanglus," Boston Gazette, 6 March 1775; The Papers of John Adams, vol. 7, p. 314.
*Excellent! Should have noticed that before (I'm sorry I removed that one in some of my reverts - I hadn't really noticed it - shan't do it again). --Francis Schonken 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7

message: *the above is nothing more than a bunch of blather about issues that have already been discussed ad nauseum.  Further, Schonken is intentionally ignoring the fact that he knowingly filed a false 3R report against this contributor.  And without, at least an admission that he did that, in the context of a full declarative sentence, i consider this his start of yet another war.  Stevewk 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3RR report notwithstanding (although I strongly recommend that you let bygones be bygones; see WP:NOT... a battleground), I urge you not to consider this the start of anything except a polite discussion about the content of the article. Please see my comment at User talk:Stevewk. --YFB ¿ 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schonken smokescreen

message: *WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? I was going to submit a rewrite of the first paragraph and found I cannot do that.  Why is it now a different version? That one that was there before had a better first paragraph and the Adams quotation was perfect where it was underneath my rewriting of the previous paragraph.  Is there something wrong with Wikipedia?  Gwilmont 18:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of an ongoing edit war between Stevewk and Francis Schonken, Durova has temporarily protected the page, which means that it can't be edited for the time being - please see Wikipedia:Protection policy. Feel free to propose your suggested edits on this page, and when an admin feels the dispute has subsided sufficiently to unprotect the page, you can add them to the article. As a side note, it's best avoid capitals - they are usually read as shouting. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've protected the page in hopes of de-escalating the edit war. Durova 04:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: *Republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267. 
*Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265. 
*"A mixed government, a virtous citizenry, the rule of law,--these were the republican ideals of Machiavelli's Discourses. If much of this sounds familiar, it is because this vision inspired the Atlantic Republican tradition--a way of thinking about politics that spread from Italy to Great Britain in the seventeenth century, and from there to Britain's American colonies in the eighteenth." Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 33. 
*Classical republicanism emphasized civic duty and social cohesion. Founders and the Classics, Carl J. Richard, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994. pg 3. WHEELER 00:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just trying to muddy the waters even more!!!  Isn't the confusion great!  Other than democracy, the most common term in politics and no one can define it!  And then a republic is nothing more than democracy itself!! Why have seperate articles?  Just have republic a redirect page to democracy!!!  That will solve all this bickering.WHEELER 15:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of a True Republic

message: Massachusetts, unlike Connecticut, did not establish a religion. Article 3 of the 1780 Constitution of Massachusetts read, in full:
As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. 
And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend. 
Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. 
And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised. 
Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
Now it is quite true, and doubtless intentional, that this system, (like Patrick Henry's proposal that every man should be required to support some teacher) worked to the advantage of the majority denomination; it was bitterly complained of, and at length abolished. (Incidentally, there is no question that Connecticut was a republic while it had an established church; so the connection with disestablishment seems weak.) JCScaliger 17:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Massachusetts

message: Please use this talk page to discuss how to edit this article and for no other purpose.  Personal messages belong on user talk pages.  When referring to lengthy material on another talk page, post a page diff rather than copy and paste. Durova 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article talk pages and user talk pages 

message: This article has been protected long enough.  Let's hope the dust has settled.  Regards, DurovaCharge! 05:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: The present intro claims that oligarchies are not traditionally considered republics. This seems quite doubtful, except in the Aristotelian sense that oligarchies are bad aristocracies and therefore not constitutional at all. But this is a six or seven-fold classification, and not compatible with this wording.  Whatever is meant, I doubt it belongs in the lead; the history of the word is at least a section, if not an article. 
The Venetian Republic was an oligarchy; did it cease to be a republic? And if so, when? 
John Adams is a tradition of his own, with few followers, if any; he does not belond in the intro at all. The edit I performed is preliminary; much more work is needed. JCScaliger 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oligarchy not Republic? 

message: I hereby announce that I have translated this article directly into the Finnish Wikipedia. Teemu Ruskeepää 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translated into Finnish 

message: an undo is required
80.229.242.179 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  undo required 

message: There seems to be a common misconception that the Union of Myanmar is a republic. This is a difficult argument to sustain when one realizes that is is a military junta with no constitution, no representative institutions of any kind, no elections, no rule of law, and no separate legislature, even of a purely advisory role. I make these points from a political, not a human rights, standpoint. Therefore, I am removing mentions of Myanmar from this article. —Sesel 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myanmar