Talk:Republic/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Revisionism

There is no references no quotes on this article. What research and what scholar defined republic as an "without a monarch". A republic is the creation and invention of the Doric Greeks that had kings. How can the invention be so redefined as to leave out the originators? That article on the republic has no scholarship behind it. Where in God's name is "Akkad" mentioned anywhere as a Republic? I can't find it.

I have been pushed and castigated and forced to reference everything I write. Now, I ask these people here to reference the things written here.

This is the whole point of Socrates in the meaning of definitions. When definitions are bad people are deceived.

Where is the references that Akkad is a republic?WHEELER 18:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there is no difference between democracy and republic in the Greek sense of the term then the "Kyklos" definition makes no sense. Socrates saw this. WHEELER 18:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On Modern Scholarship

Many people many times told me, we need "modern scholarship" on this subject of republics. I was told I had to read Montesquieu.

John Adams on Montesquieu: "That therefore the democracies of Monesquieu....are all mere fragments of his brain, and delusive imaginations. (Menace of the Herd, von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, pg 6) It looks like John Adams did not have a favorable attitude towards Montesquieu.

Von Kuehnelt further writes: "The decline of classical education in favor of progressive "self-realization" has favored the increased use of wrong labels. (pg 7) "Confusion of words and meanings leads to the confusion of minds, and the confusion of minds breeds upheavals and revolution, as a well-known American once righty pointed out. (pg 10).

That's it in a nutshell. Just plain old confusion reigns.WHEELER 18:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why the "hokey-pokey"

"The view that democracy and Socialism are inwardly related spread far and wide in the decades which preceded the Bolshevist revolution. Many came to believe that democracy and Socialism meant the same thing, and that democracy without Socialism or Socialism without democracy would not be possible." Socialism, Ludwig von Mises, pg 67.

What is really going on is that "democracy" is Marxism/Socialism. George Bush who considers himself a "Christian" is busy spreading socialism everywhere---What a yahoo. What dumb is, dumber does.

I am not deceived, people. That is why the necessity of confusing the terms democracy with a republic. To deceive the people into socialism-the heresy of our day.WHEELER 15:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changing the basic defintion

I have changed the basic defintion of a Republic from "one without a monarch as head" to simply "constitutional government". Aristotle writes of this basic meaning. The English government has always been called a "Commonwealth" or "Commonweal". England for the majority of her existence has always had a Monarch as head. A republic meaning "one without a monarch" is simply illogical and even against commonsense. The basic meaning of republic and politiea, is constitutional government.WHEELER 14:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hate to be picky, but it's been a few hundred years since England had a monarch. Perhaps you mean the United Kingdom?

One can have a constitutional democracy. One can have a constitutional monarch. One can have a constitutional aristocracy. One can have a straight republic which is mixed constitutional government.WHEELER 15:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What FOOLS

• "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.

• "At the time of the English Civil War of the 1640's some supporters of the Parliamentary cause took the radical position of advocating democracy. They reached this position in part because of their religious convictions." ibid pg 35.

• "With the Crown, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons sharing the powers of government, the British constitution was a mixture or balance of rule by the one, the few, and the many, just as republican theory prescribed." ibid, pg 36. WHEELER 18:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fools. I didn't read the book. Just read the definitions in the back of the book. Now, I read the book, in the chapter called "Democracy and Republic" and "The return of Democracy". You people look like fools and you are!!!!WHEELER 18:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Locked

Why is it that they erase something, then lock it. What's going on? I don't see a discussion here at all. All I see is censorship. There is nothing wrong with an External link. What's the beef? I fail to see it. There is no discussion. There is nothing in Wikipedia about any rules preventing outside links whatsoever. The external link to Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic needs to be restored.WHEELER 23:54, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a policy that links should be of decent quality. VfD seems to have found that the article in question was poor enough to have to be removed from Wikipedia. If the article was so poor I don't see why it should be linked to externally. - SimonP 00:11, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. See, you are just jealous. Compare your article republic with my article, Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic. You can't even begin to write an article like I can. I think all of you are jealous. I have all the information and books to back up everything in that article. My article is of decent quality. It is the Classical definition of what a republic is. It existed for 2300 years. Please check out the extensive "External links" section. It will blow your mind. Keep it locked because as soon as it is unlocked the external link goes on buddy.WHEELER 00:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And by the way I am putting my external link to Wikinfo everywhere. See ya! WHEELER 00:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, I don't want to change the "Republic" article, I just want it known that there is a definite need to have a "Classical definition of republic" which is a classical republic. That term is used in modern scholarly works. I don't care what you do for the "modern" definition but let me have the "Classical definition" back. WHEELER 01:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your definition does not fit Lacedæmon at all. A definition must fit all situations that require the term classical republic.WHEELER 01:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had this argument a year ago with Kim Bruning, slrubenstein and jrosenweig. They agreed with this duality of terms. They kept the republic and I was able to have the "Classical definition of republic". Somebody done screwed it up now.WHEELER 01:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

" I think all of you are jealous. " What is this, high school?AndyL 06:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SimonP Who are you? You make up the rules all the time. WooooWW!!! And now you charge me with spamming? What in God's name do you have against me and information. If you look at the external links of the Nazism you will see external links that say "Hitler, a rightist" and "Hitler, a leftist". There is no problem except that you are making one. What is your expertize? Anything about the Classical, Medieval or American politics? You are making a problem out of many things. Information goes where it is required. Everywhere like the Dorian page, the Spartan page, the JBS page, the Venetian page all require information on a Classical republic. I will put pertinent information there for people to learn. What's the problem? Many people have told me it is beautifully written piece. What's your problem?WHEELER 14:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Books
Nippel, Wilfrid. Mischverfassungstheorie und Verfassungsrealität in Antike und früher Neuzeit. Stuttgart, 1980. ———. Ancient and Modern Republicanism: ‘Mixed Constitution’ and ‘Ephors.’ In The Invention of the Modern Republic, edited by Biancamaria Fontana. Cambridge, 1994.

Pocock, J. G. A. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton, N.J., 1975. WHEELER 15:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To SimonP What is the Atlantic Republican Tradition???????WHEELER 15:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hoorah WHEELER, I second all of that, and good questions, BTW! (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They seem to be making the discussion on my Talk page instead of here so I have moved their concerns here so that all may see:

• There is no such hint. Creating another article under a different name for deleted material would be an attempt to cirumvent the VfD and would result in the new article being deleted and possibly in you being banned. Also, I'm certain that editors would start examining your other articles and start putting them up for deletion. AndyL 15:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Classical definition of republic I see eight votes for deletion, one vote to keep, one to redirect, and not a single vote to transwiki to Wikinfo and link to it externally. No one has advocated this idea on Votes for Undeletion either. The consensus is clearly that the article is of no use to our readers. - SimonP 17:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

As you can tell from AndyL's response. This is not about intellectual honesty, There is a cabal running Wikipedia. Whether the material rates or not, it has already been decided to delete things. Nothing I say or do, or anybody else matters.

As to SimonP he is making the rules up as he goes. He will control information. Plain and simple. This cabal will use censorship to prevent information that they will not consider. Plain and simple. The merits and scholarship of the Classical definition will not be considered; the only consideration is that WHEELER authored it and so it must be deleted. That is the only criteria. See, they want to hold a discussion on my talk page and not on talk:republic.WHEELER 14:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to put the record straight, there is no cabal - or if there is I am aware of it - I am not acquainted with any of the other contributors to this debate, other than by reading the various contributions to the debate itself. Nor am I a marxist (although that is not really relevant to the issue). If the vote was 8 to 1 I suspect it is not as a result of a conspiracy, more likely that 8 different people individually considered the issue having seen the various contributions, and all came to the same conclusion. rossb 16:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The only criteria is "Wheeler". Wheeler came up with it==Wheeler must be deleted. Then Mr. Ross, Why did AndyL start an article called Mixed Government? Why is that there? The proper term for Mixed government is Classical Republicanism.

• "The founders wandered the unmarked borderlands between classical republicanism and liberalism, scavenging for building materials." Founders and the Classics (1994) pg 6

• "While Gordon Wood continues to emphasize the emergence of liberalism in post-Revolutionary American society in The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992), he also demonstrates the persistend of the classical republican values, particularly among the founder's generation and aristocratic class." Founders and Classics, pg 7.

• "In a piece of high presbyterian cant that long was remembered, Cartwright wrote that the civil constitution ought to match the ecclesiastical, "even as the hangings to the house"...the architect had cribbed his plans from the decorator: he had built according to the classical-republican theory of mixed government." Dangerous Positions, Mendle, (1985) pg 67.

• • Here are 2 different modern scholary works with the term "Classical Republicanism". That is the title of Mixed Government. What footing does anybody follow here. I fail to see that the other side has produced NOTHING as quotes. WHEELER 17:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • If you notice the third example was in the "Occurences of the word republic" of the original article had it there and footnoted. Why doesn't anybody look?WHEELER 17:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • For some unknown reason, now someone has deleted "Mixed Government". What is going on gentlemen? What is going on here. Yesterday, there was an article termed "Mixed Goverment" now there isn't Who voted to delete and why? Speedy deletion process. Oh boy. What game is going on now. WHEELER 17:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • • New information
        • "Gordon S. Wood, and Joyce O. Appleby have since established a new paradigm which has restored the significance of Classical influence to the Revolutionary era. But Wood and Appleby add that the early national period witnessed a shift from Classical republicanism , which emphasized civic duty and social cohesion, to "liberalism" (or "modern republicanism") which stressed individual rights and the self-regulating marketplace." Founders and the Classics pg 3.

HERE IT IS MODERN SCHOLARY RESEARCH SHOWING THAT THERE ARE TWO FORMS OF REPUBLICANISM.

As to the knowledge and expertise of our infamous Dr. SimonP of Republican theory. Let me quote Machiavelli's TRUE definition:

Thus the sagacious legislators, knowing the vices of each of these systems of government, (i.e. speaking of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) by themselves, have chosen one that should partake of all of them, judging that to be the most stable and solid. In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince, a nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check." "Discourses on Titus Livius" end of Book I chapter II, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, ed. by Robert M. Adams, pg 94.

"I think, then, that to found a republic which whould endure a long time it would be bewst to organize her internally like Sparta, or to locate her, like Venice, in some strong place". ibid, pg 97.WHEELER 16:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Mr. SimonP wants to play a shell game. He deleted and covered up his own booboo. Why did Mr. SimonP erase this part off the Talk page when it shows that he doesn't know what he is talking about? What is going on here?WHEELER 20:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Ed Wanders By

Wheeler asked me to take a look at this mess. I don't know why, because I'm almost certain to disagree with him. (Anyway, I'm flattered. :-)

Some problems I've identified just by skimming this talk page:

• Definitions of "republic" and "democracy" are hard to agree on because some people have a particular idea of what an ideal goverment should be. Hence, "your" definition is wrong because it's not as good as what "I" had in mind.
• An unwillingness (or is it neglect?) to attribute various definitions to the original authors who proposed them. There are dozens of conceptions of what an ideal government ought to be. Plato is surely the most famous, but men like American and French founders have gotten some press in recent centuries, too.
• The unresolved relationship between socialism and democracy. Is it possible for a "republic" to be (a) democratic or (b) socialist? (Digression: do the communist countries calling themselves the "democratic republic" of this or that, really constitute democracies or republics in any way?)

Okay, now I'll read the article. Gimme a coupla hours, though, I actally have a life.... -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:35, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

(talk)]] 15:35, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Merging

On an unrelated note I have rewritten the problematic article at republicanism and incorporated much of the content from this page. When this page is unprotected it would be a good idea to fully merge to two, preferably at this title. - SimonP 05:55, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

As to the knowledge and expertise of our infamous Dr. SimonP of Republican theory. Let me quote Machiavelli's TRUE definition:

Thus the sagacious legislators, knowing the vices of each of these systems of government, (i.e. speaking of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) by themselves, have chosen one that should partake of all of them, judging that to be the most stable and solid. In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince, a nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check." "Discourses on Titus Livius" end of Book I chapter II, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, ed. by Robert M. Adams, pg 94.

"I think, then, that to found a republic which whould endure a long time it would be bewst to organize her internally like Sparta, or to locate her, like Venice, in some strong place". ibid, pg 97.WHEELER 16:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The first quote is Machiavelli's a description of mixed government, not of republic. He is merely saying that a mixed government is helpful for a republic, not that all republics are mixed governments. The second quote is also not a definition but, like mixed government, techniques for the survival of a republic. - SimonP 18:00, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

SimonP, you are grasping at straws. You don't know what you are talking about Mixed government is a republic. Machiavelli calls Sparta all the time a republic. I have finished reading the Discourses and I am reading The Prince now. Don't pull the wool over my eyes. You just don't acknowledge plain and simple English. He says right there above you, "if you want to found a republic, organize her like Sparta". Get any clearer? You are playing games with the facts. And your deletion of this earlier shows your ulterior motives. WHEELER 21:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I take it now Mr. SimonP that you please remove the "protected" from the page and let me add an external link and anywhere else that needs mention of it. Thanks.WHEELER 21:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is good that you are reading The Prince as Machiavelli's definition of a republic is on the first page of that work. The passage you cited are merely part of his instruction of how to make republic stable. It does not say that having a mixed government is an essential element of republicanism, just a useful one. Mixed government it is just one element of what classical republicans felt made a good republic. This topic is already covered in some depth in the "republicanism as an ideology" section. - SimonP 21:53, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

1

Mr. SimonP, your actions on trying to hide this when you deleted the material on the talk page, is a sign that you don't know what you are talking about and you have ulterior motives. And your talking in circles when you don't want to acknowledge that you are heavily mistaken.

You don't want to acknowledge the facts. Let me quote from The Prince, "Setting aside republics, about which I have spoken at length elsewhere; I will only concern myself with princely states..." (pg 4) The Prince is not about any republics or democracies!!!! The Prince is a handbook for PRINCES; Leaders of their state or city; nothing about 'republics!!!! Republics are discussed in his "Discourses on Titius Livius" not in The Prince. The English Bishop, Stephen Gardiner, was one of the Foundational stones in republican theory of mixed government, wrote an unpublished treatise on Machiavelli. Machiavelli influenced the early Republican Theorists of England.

You don't know what the heck you are talking about at all. And why do I argue with a man that can't understand plain English is beyond me. If you can't understand Plain English, I can't help you. Your not understanding of plain english and your deletion of my points showing your errors shows that you are dishonest. And if the administrators watching and reading this debate and are still going to let this stupidity continue is just beyond me. Your failure to see facts is a proof that your ideology is stronger than reality. WHEELER 14:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An Explanation of SimonP
"This recalls Hegel's reaction to a student's observation that the facts contradicted his theory. Hegel looked at the man severly over his spectacles and said, "All the worse for the facts." Trotski's outlook was quite similar. He confessed, 'The feeling of the pre-eminence of the general over the particular, the law over the facts, the theory over the personal experience, originated in me at an early age and was strengthened with the years". Leftism Revisited, pg 488, #1150.
The Roof, The Roof, The Roof is on fire, we have no water let the m!#$@$f!@#%@# burn! Burn baby Burn!. This is the essence of modern thought. SimonP has no water.WHEELER 15:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When did I ever remove material from a talk page? Could you show me the diff where this action occurred. - SimonP 15:14, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Someone has conventently manipulated the page history. How interesting. On Friday afternoon, I came up on the computer and checked Talk:republic. The whole section called "merging" was deleted. I checked the page history and SimonP removed the whole section. So I reverted the section as 198.... Now, someone has manipulated the history page to show otherwise. How interesting. On Friday afternoon, when I checked Talk:republic the merging section was gone!WHEELER 15:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2

Wow, we in the cabal have even greater powers than I imagined. All I see in the history on Friday is an anon IP removing my comments. This must mean that after I, in shock, deleted your points because of their unassailable brilliance and edited the page history to remove my underhanded actions that I then must have fiendishly vandalized my own comments through an anonymous IP to try and slander your good name. Either that or you ran into a caching problem. - SimonP 16:07, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize.

NOW TWO editors not one editor, Terrence Ball and Richard Dagger in 1995 wrote: "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.

This is an authority. NOT your opinion. Let me repeat Here is a MODERN Scholarly work that backs up everything I said NOW, UNPROTECT the page please. WHEELER 18:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What SimonP
Please check out republicanism. This is how it goes. They delete [Classical definition of republic] then write their own article and as SimonP argues with me, he grabs pointers and starts building his own article with his particular bias. That is okay. No one says Jack to him. But God Forbid if Wheeler has anything to do. And they won't let any information pass through. SimonP unprotect this page and allow the external links whereever I choose. Because your "republicanism" is not Classical republicanism. Does not apply to Sparta or Crete or the Greek mentality of things.WHEELER 18:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I wrote in Republicanism agrees exactly with Ball and Dagger. According to Machiavelli, and those that followed him, the ideal republic is mixed, virtuous, and based upon law. This does not mean that Machiavelli believed every republic was mixed, virtuous, and based upon law, only that the best ones were. My article also covers the spread of these ideas and the current debate over the role they played in the lead up to the American Revolution - SimonP 18:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

3

You just keep on talking in circles. And what I am witnessing is a coup de etat. You destroyed my article in order to fulfill and rewrite history. What "republic" was not mixed?WHEELER 18:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to your definition Athens was only a republic under Solon, but Machiavelli refers to Athens as a republic throughout its history. See Discourses Chapter LIX, for instance. - SimonP 19:21, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ancient/Modern, classical republicanism used, another link with the term classical republicanism, Course outline on classical republicanism, Wikibooks: Classical Republicanism, Classical republicanism in Tudor England

Point is type "Classical Republicanism" at google and there are 45,000 hits. Machiavelli like most people confuse things and if he read Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, he would now there is a difference. A democracy is not a state so it can not be a politeia. many people don't catch this.WHEELER 19:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So if Machiavelli is wrong, whose definition of republic did you base your article on? I never denied that "classical republicanism" is a non-existent term, in fact I read and cited Zera Fink's The Classical Republicans for my republicanism article. One important, but understandable, error you seem to have made is in assuming that "classical republic" is the term used to describe republics and thought on republics in the classical period. Rather political scientists use the term "classical republic" to refer to the ideas of a republic during the early modern period, which were inspired by classical works. Scholars acknowledge that the terminology is confusing and some thus advocate the use of the term "early modern republic" instead. - SimonP 20:05, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning is always in circles. Your repubicanism does not work in The Kyklos, What steps are taken that change a republic into a democracy or a republic into a tyranny? Your article is totally worthless for that purpose. Your republicanism is just democracy. You confuse the terms. What government did Sparta have? Your circle reasoning is confusing. Governments are defined by their "dominant" factor. You use Greek terminology all except for the Roman word respublica which is a translation of a Greek word and yet to refuse to use their system of definition. Can't be done! Dominant factor is the essence of all the differences between "forms" of government. WHEELER 20:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

4

Let's quit this circle jerking around. You have your article on republicanism. I am not going to touch it at all. Do what ever you want pal. Why can't you just allow the external link? What is your bloody problem? This disagreement will not end between you and me and let's stop filling pages for archives. Just bloody drop the protection. I have proven my case after case and all you do is opinion opinion and more circle jerking. I have done nothing but provide quote after quote after quote after quote after link after link after link. Just stop your childishness for once. and let it be.WHEELER 20:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your article should not be linked to because it is fundamentally flawed a "classical definition of republic" is as illogical as the "medieval definition of feudalism" or the "Renaissance definition of socialism." Read the links you posted above your course on classical republicanism "will focus on the theory and practice of republicanism between the 16th and 18th centuries." The Cambridge University Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage only sees republicanism existing after 1500. Any thing worthwhile in your article has been integrated into republicanism and classical republicanism. - SimonP 20:51, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

WHEELER asks: " Why did AndyL start an article called Mixed Government? " I did no such thing. If you check the article's history you'll see that the person who started the mixed government article goes by the name of WHEELERAndyL 04:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have quoted 10 excerpts from books. SimonP has not quoted a thing. In your reference to Machiavelli calling Athens a republic can you please write out the full quote for me please?

And Second, if Athens was a republic when was she a democracy? WHEELER 16:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are assuming that democracy and republic are mutually incompatible, they are not. An English translation of Discourses LIX can be found here. - SimonP 16:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

5

You are assuming that Machiavelli had all the information to make a decision. Machiavelli is seriously flawed along with many other writers including the testamony of the Federalist papers. The Athenian constitution was lost until 1880. No one read it in the Medieval era, nor the English constitutionalists, nor Machiavelli, nor the Founding Fathers. Now, in the Athenian constitution, Aristotle writes the "These reforms made the constitution much more democratic than that of Solon; for it had come to pass that the tyranny had obliterated the laws of Solon.". xxi 1. "At this date, therefore, the state had advanced to this point, growing by slow stages with the growth of the democracy." The Athenian constitution is how the "polity" was converted into a democracy.

There were 11 revolutions in Athens. Was the rule of Peisistratus the republic?, or the democracy? You claim that Athens was a republic? was it a republic under Peisistratus, the rule of the 400 hundred and under the Thirty? You make no distinctions? When one says Athens was a republic are you refering to all the Tyrannies Athens had as well? Think now.WHEELER 17:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Machiavelli considered any state that was not ruled by a monarch a republic, and this use is consistent throughout his writings. If you are rejecting Machiavelli's definition of republic, whose definition are you using? Your own? - SimonP 17:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

What you must consider is that Machiavelli is not clear on his terms since he did not have the Athenian constitution. Machiavelli, without the Athenian constitution, is not an expert on much. Faulty information is not an excuse for truth. Truth is not based on faulty information. Machiavelli is in fault through ingnorance. Democracies are not republics. Democracies are democracies; Republics are republics. The Roman republic is not a democracy. It was mixed. So I ask again, is Athens a republic through the rules of Peisitratus, the 400, and the Thirty? If Rome is a republic then Athens is a republic and there is no difference is there?WHEELER 17:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who states that "democracies are not republics?" That is true of some definitions of republic, but not most of them. - SimonP 18:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any specific changes you would like to see made to republicanism or classical republicanism? Is there any information in your Wikinfo article that I have not integrated into either of those articles, but that you feel should be? Is there information that I have added that you consider incorrect and should be removed? Any whole sections that should be deleted? Being specific will help to focus our attention on building a better encyclopedia. - SimonP 18:17, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

6

Who states that "democracies are not republics?" That is true of some definitions of republic, but not most of them. - SimonP 18:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

See, the Western mentality is to "Define and Divide". To seperate so there is clear thinking. I see the "Eastern" mentality of "synthesizing"; of mushing all things together. There is no demarcation between the term "Republic" and "democracy". John Aylmer did not confuse England with Athens. He said England looked like Sparta. Cicero called Sparta a republic; not Athens. Your whole thought is based on half-knowledge and not complete knowledge. Who is to define the difference between Democracies and republics? The Greeks of course who coined all the terms except 'republic' but republic is a term for "Politiea" another Greek term. Greeks defined forms of government by the "dominant factor". A republic does not have a "dominant factor" whereas the dominant factor of democracies are "the lower class"; Aristotle says that democracy really is the rule of the POOR. WHEELER 18:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your definition of republicanism and classical republicanism are the same articles. Why don't you just redirect republic, republicanism and classical republicanism to democracy! Please explain the difference between 'democracy' and 'republicanism' and if they are the same just redirect 'republicanism' to democracy.

How to build a better encyclopaedia, there has got to be clear demarcations between terms and not confuse people.WHEELER 18:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SimonP said, "Machiavelli considered any state that was not ruled by a monarch a republic, and this use is consistent throughout his writings. If you are rejecting Machiavelli's definition of republic, whose definition are you using? Your own?"

Machiavelli also called Sparta a "Republic" and it had two kings. Sir Thomas Smyth called England a republic and it had a king.WHEELER 18:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

SimonP also called Sparta a "Republic" and it had two kings. Sir Thomas Smyth called England a republic and it had a king.WHEELER 18:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I guess Machiavelli felt that having two kings at once did not constitute a proper monarchy. A monarcy is after all "the rule of one." You seem to not understand that there are multiple definitions of republic. According to some definitions constitutional monarchies can be republics while with other meanings this is absolutely not the case. This is covered in section three of the republicanism article.

You should also note that to political scientists the dynamic is not republicanism vs. democracy, but republicanism vs. liberalism, with both republicanism and liberalism being types of democracy. The republicanism article, or more specifically the republicanism as an ideology section, thus focuses on how it differs from liberalism. - SimonP 18:54, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

7

There are not multiple definitions of republic. You are just confusing the subject. And if there are as you say "multiple definitions of republic", then why prevent "The Classical definition of republic"? Everywhere where you try to turn, you show incoherence and illogicity. My article is very logical, coherent, flows and differentiates. No one is confused reading my article. They know exactly what to look for and how to define it.WHEELER 19:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that the ideology of the Republican Party, Canadian republicanism, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and classical republicanism are all the same thing? I'm sorry if my article confuses you, but in philosophy things are rarely simple. Your article, however, is meaningless in that there was no "classical definition of republic" as the concept did not exist in the classical period. As I said before "classical definition of republic" is just as illogical as the "Renaissance definition of socialism" or the "Medieval definition of feudalism." - SimonP 19:30, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

You are such a hypocrite SimonP. You and your cabal delete "Classical definition of republic" and then when I point out that there are 45,000 hits for Classical republic you turn around and create "Classical republicanism". Ow wow. That is really good. You still haven't answered my question When was Athens a democracy? Dates please.WHEELER 01:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how its relevant, but our Athenian democracy states it was a democracy "from the early-6th to the mid-4th century BC." - SimonP 01:44, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)