Talk:Republic/Archive 8

message: I take responsibility for the foregoing draft policy. 
::I take responsibility for stopping it - drafts on separate pages are usually not needed, if everyone knows how to behave --Francis Schonken 22:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the policy simply for  the convenience of having a text and its discussion in separate files, as the present text and this discussion are. I agree that manners should make the existence of separate drafts unnecessary Septentrionalis 03:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the 7 archives of this page - no use in going through the nth cycle of "more of the same" --Francis Schonken 22:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate drafts (discussion) 

message: :[A]rev At least since the late 17th Century, the word republic  has meant, in common usage,  those states which are not, formally, subject to a prince or monarch. The word has been, and in some contexts, still is, otherwise used; most of these definitions require that political power be derived from the people or some portion of them.
to:
:[B] In a broad definition a republic is a state or country that is led by people that don't found their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people living in that state or country.
(please add pro's and con's as you think appropriate:)
;[A]
pro's
#connects very well to a usual understanding of "republic"
#covers both sovereign and subordinate states, such as the constituent American states and the German Länder. (A set of some interest in this article; the American Constitution guarantees the States "a republican form of government".)
##Question: in English language: is the US (as a whole) considered a "state" or would it need to be named a "country"?
###The US is a state; for example, it is a member of the Organization of American States. In contexts not purely international, the term is unusual,  to avoid confusion with the special meaning: 'State' = "member state of the American Union". 
#reflects the parallelism between the Kingdom of Sweden, the Duchy of Saxony, the Republic of Venice.
#excludes subordinate non-republics,like the German and Indian princely States, and excludes States, like the Vatican, ruled by Princes of the Church. 
con's
#uses "now" - encyclopedic writing tries to avoid such relative time indication (what is "now"? - has this "now" any significance when writing e.g. about the Roman Republic? When writing about Irak (Saddam Husseins Irak? G.W. Bush's Irak?)?)
##Conceded. [A] stands revised (now named [A]rev).
###"at least since late 17th century", appears to limit the applicability of this definition w.r.t. the Roman Republic - I suppose that in most modern writing the "Roman Republic" is considered a true "Republic" (e.g. in I, Claudius). The problem that remains with [A]rev is that it has more vague indicators than [B]: "At least since" (everything that happened before 17th century a "blank void"?); interpretation of "common usage" (where is the difference between common and non-common usage?), "formally" (and non-formally?), "some contexts" (which contexts?);... maybe good to consult Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms (which also reflects the basic wikipedia guideline of Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages).
####The definition [A] is a state not formally ruled by a prince or a monarch, which has been the only one in common use since the late XVIIth century; the rest of the sentence acknowledges that other obsolete and special definitions exist - which why I add a sentence explaining them. The word "republic" is not much older in English; the definition goes back at least to the High Renaissance in other languages.Septentrionalis 20:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still the same after updates. Tip: try to get rid of the "weasel" aspects of the A definition; & see to it that it is applicable to the whole range of forms of government that are called "republic". --Francis Schonken 08:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was perfectly happy with: Republic now means, in common usage, states not formally subject to a prince or monarch. Any weaseling has been added to meet your objections. Septentrionalis 20:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparing definitions

message: After working somewhat on the recent additions to the article yesterday, I had second thoughts about the "Nationalism" topic introduced into the article, so I decide to move it here for further discussion.
My basic objection is that Nationalism is probably not all that "typical" for republics, as the writer of these additions made it appear:
The experiences of the French and American revolution show the introduction of the next major strand to be woven in with Republicanism, that is Nationalism, the idea that people of a given culture and heritage share common characteristics which make them alike in their laws and customs. Nationalists argued, and aruge, that countries should be composed of people who share these common bonds and a national identity. The legacy of nationalism in the context of Republicanism is complex. On one hand it gave a principle of unity to replace loyalty to the crown, and an increased emphasis on democratic ideals as part of the standard to which a republic should adhere to, including universal male suffrage. On the other hand nationalism was, and still is, often associated with tendencies that are generally regarded as negative in the present: chauvinism and even racism. However, the most important aspect of nationalism at the time was the argument that a people needed a state which was their own.It is this era which saw a series of revolts against the Spanish Empire in the new world, explicitly protected by the United States under the Monroe doctrine, and the beginnings of both separationist movements from established monarchies, and unificationist movements in Germany and Italy, neither of which were possessed of a central government.
My comments:
#The antecedents of Nationalism include, for instance, Colbertism, which was used to fortify the power of the monarch, with a "National" "Self Interest" argument.
#Nationalism was peaking in 19th century, to which "maybe" the 18th century Enlightenment philosophers contributed, but all in all Nationalism was equally strong in Monarchies as in Republics, e.g. Nationalism played a role in the (future) Belgians throwing out the Dutch king in 1830 - to be replaced by another monarch.
#The argument that "adherence to the monarch" was somehow replaced by "feelings of Nationalism" in Republics is an   interesting way of looking at it - but I don't believe it's neccessarily true. Monarchs needed Nationalism to make their people adhere to their person, as much as republics needed Nationalism. The literature (and other arts) of the time do not show otherwise. "Nationalistic" literature in the 19th century (and beyond) implicitly or explicitly defended the own Nation, which was including the monarch when the author felt a monarchy was best, and excluding the monarch when the author felt otherwise. There is a lot of nostalgy for (idealised) monarchs of the past in the whole range of nationalistic art expression of the 19th century. Even George Washington appears to have fallen a victim of that nostalgic approach (which I didn't know, but only contributes to the point I try to make: "Nationalism" is in no way typical for republics)
Concluding: with a sound reference to some reliable author the "Nationalism" topic can be re-introduced in the article as something related to the topic of "republics as form of government", as far as I'm concerned, applying however proper "space and balance" (meaning: not taking too much space for such topic that only seems indirectly related) - thus far the evidence has not convinced me. --Francis Schonken 07:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Nationalism" topic

message: I'm sorry to be so critical, but this article is horrible and shows no sign of improving in the near future. It is boring, poorly written and far too long for the sparse information it contains. As with so many other controversial WikiPedia articles, in an attempt to satisfy everyone you've managed to put together something so vague, so broad and so nonspecific that it fails to capture anything.
WHEELER may indeed be a lunatic but his unilateral piece on WikiInfo is vastly superior to the combined efforts put forth here. It is well written, well researched and packed densely with information. It is a joy to read. I suggest you people swallow your pride and admit the inferiority of your work, apologize to WHEELER, and--with his permission--adopt his piece as your own.
: No comments? What, have I shamed you all into silence?
I agree w you. Sam Spade 00:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is still horrible 

message: A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles|Poll: Ireland article titles]] 

message: Is there any difference between democracy and republic and if yes what are they?
Sauron 11:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the Renaissance, at least, republic has meant any state that is not ruled by an  monarch - with disagreements about what both "ruled" and "monarch" mean. This need not be a democracy: see oligarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy. Conversely, it is normal to hold that Great Britain is a democracy, but not a republic. Septentrionalis 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Democracy and Republic

message: Anyone want to help develop Constitutional republic?   I'm amazed that this article didn't exist until I just created it, as it's the form of state for the U.S. RJII 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutional republic