Jump to content

Talk:List of republics/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

The Roman Empire as a republic

User:Pmanderson, see way above, were he writes that the Roman Empire is a republic.

"Within the classical republic, everything turned on lógos. In the time of

Caesar’s dictatorship, for example, when Cicero remarked to his brother that there was no longer at Rome a res publica, and when, after Caesar’s assassination, he spoke in De officiis of the res publica as having fallen and as being utterly lost, he was using the pertinent term polemically, in a new and perhaps unprecedented fashion, to lament the complete disappearance of ‘the middle ground’ opened up by the practice of lógos in political deliberation, and he was suggesting that the dictatorship of Caesar was indistinguishable from tyranny and incompatible with the consensus iuris that bound the city together. At Rome, Cicero contended, ‘only the walls of the city’s buildings stand and remain’. At Rome, he insisted, ‘eloquence’ is at an end. At Rome, there is no genuinely public business [negotium], no space for political contention, no opportunity for a man to display his abilities in public debate concerning the advantageous, the just and the good. On a city, where for centuries oratio had arisen from a competitive exercise of ratio on the part of the leading citizens, an ominous and seemingly permanent silence has fallen. The res publica is no more; it has been overturned. Such was the conclusion that he had reached.15" Paul A. Rahe, "In the Shadow of Lucretius: The Epicurean Foundations of Machiavelli's Political Thought", History of Political Thought, Vol. XXVIII, #1, Spring, 2007.

When Caesar ascended, Cicero observed that the Roman republic ended.WHEELER 19:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You might have read the paragraph as you cut and pasted it; "destruction of the res publica is a novel polemical term, used "in a new and perhaps unprecedented fashion", by a man who did not survive to see the Augustan settlement. Observe also the "seemingly permanent" in the next sentence; oratory returned to Roman life with the peace, as the careers of Seneca the Elder, Quintillian, and Dio Chrysostom should make clear. Saying that Caesar or Anthony did not operate a res publica was not, in the long run, extraordinary; but neither man was an Emperor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I quote a PUBLISHED Academic Peer reviewed paper. And you quote what? NOTHING. See, this is what I get. I quote from a Published Academic Paper; I quote from a political encyclopaedia with an editorial board, and the Consensus denies it all! Just fabulous don't you think?WHEELER 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

TELL THE WIKITRUTH

I would like somebody somewhere to please explain to me why Sparta was called a republic for a gazillion years, all sorts of Academic books use the term "the Spartan republic", yet the Hive mind won't allow the Doric Greeks that created this form of government be listed as a republic? Here is the List of sources identifying Sparta as a republic. How come Wikipedia won't? WHEELER 01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I POSTED THIS FROM AN POLITICAL ENCYCLOPAEDIA;
"Continuous service was considered the only public pursuit, and therefore the only proper activity for a citizen of the Spartan republic; all men shared in politics in that they all were devoted to the public defense." "Around the seventh or sixth centuries B.C.E. two Greek cities, Sparta and Athens, seem to have developed the first republican political orders. Although these two regimes differed remarkably from modern republics, such as the United States, and were strikingly different from one another,..." From: International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration: R-Z. Volume: 4. Contributors: Jay M. Shafritz - editor. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1998. Page Number: 1964. My question is 1998 "modern scholarship". Is this "encyclopaedia" "modern scholarship"? Is Sparta a republic by the standards of this "encyclopadia"? Or is it a crank case? the author is a nutjob? sparta is still NOT a republic? Does the Consensus accept "Jay M. Shafritz" or will they find some adjective in order to denigrate and then deny Sparta on the list of republics?WHEELER 03:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This political encycylopaedia, that calls itself "Authoritative and definitive" calls Sparta a republic and that Sparta created the republican order. Yet Wikipedia won't let sparta be called a republic on its talk page or in this list of republics? And I am about to be banned for this? Can someone look into this? Read this whole talk page. It is all about trying to get Sparta on the List of republics. Isn't this crazy?WHEELER 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • What WHEELER has found is that there are three political philosophers who use "republic" to translate politeia, on the grounds that poleis include an assembly of all male citizens (a small part of the population, especially in Athens and Sparta). This is still a minority of modern political philosophy; polity or politeia are standard usage.
  • Lane wrote one article, explaining one school of thought. To use "republic" appears to be common among that school of thought; but if it's so not used elsewhere, even in that encyclopedia, we should not adopt it as our standard usage either.
  • This has nothing whatever to do with mixed government, "aristo-democracy", or any of WHEELER's other fantasies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am genuinely baffled. We say "Athens and most other Greek city-states". Does WHEELER deny that Sparta and Gortyn are Greek city-states? (And why insist on Crete? Argos, Corcyra, Corinth were Dorian too; and certainly republics.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not baffled, you are dissimulating and being childish now. I done posted Paul A. Rahe and others. Rahe points out that Crete is the home of the FIRST politiea as does Aristotle, Mueller and others. Sparta is a republic. I have done posted all the references--read them. Every country is listed by name so will the City-states that have Republics be named. Crete was NOT a single country but in the texts it is so named and probably not all the city-states were Dorian.WHEELER 23:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Citation for Rahe, please, preferably with page and chapter. It's not in any of the mentions indexed in Republics, Ancient and Modern, which goes so far as to index references to the fictitious Cretans of Plato's Laws, a citation of St. Paul, and the long passage on the homosexual raiding parties in which the Cretan erastai routinely indulged.
TO User:Pmanderson. User Pmanderson states that there is NO mention in the index of Republics, Ancient and Modern about Crete being the first Politeia. Well in the Index of the first Volume under Crete (ON PAGE 355) is this "first gives rise to politeia, 289, (n. 123)". So, now we go to page 115 (Where note 123 refers to) is this sentence, "Precisely the same pattern is evident in Ephorus's extraordinary description of prevailling practice in the region of Greece where the polis as a religious and military community governed by constitutional forms (politeia) seems first to have emerged."123 Now, we go to page 289 with n. 123:
Ephorus FGrH 70 F149 (ap. Strabo 10.4.16-22). For briefer praphrases of this passage, see Arist. F611.15 (Rose) and Heraclid. Pont. Pol. 3(Müller FHG II 211-12). See also Pl. Leg. 2.666e. For additional evidence, much of it from inscriptions, see Ronald F. Willetts, Ancient Crete: A Social History (London 1965) 110-26. See also Henri Jeanmairie, Couroi et courètes (Lille 1939) 421-55. For Crete as the locus for the first Greek politeia, see Arist. F611.14 (Rose) and Heraclid. Pont. Pol. 3.1-2(Müller FHG II 211). Perhaps with some reason, the Cretans claimed to be the source of nearly everything that was Greek: Diod. 5.77.3-8.
There it is for you all typed out! All the info you wanted. It is all right there for you!WHEELER 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If Mueller does not say that all the Cretans were Dorians (in historic times), he is worse than his reputation. See Strabo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Aristotle begins with Crete. enuf said!WHEELER 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Because that is What Aristotle does! Why don't you pick up Aristotle Politics and you have the FIRST list of republics. It is all right there. Aristotle FIRST discusses Crete, then Sparta, Then Carthage, then Solonic Athens. It is all very very simple. If you read Aristotle's Athenian Constitution, Aristotle notes that "Athens was growing by slow stages into a democracy. So if it is growing by slow stages into a democracy, what was turning? A republic/politeia. It is all right there in Aristotle's Politics, but since there is NO original research--Paul A. Rahe, Mueller, Greenidge, Plutarch all point to Crete as the very first Republics. It was the Doric Greeks that created the idea! Not Machiavelli!WHEELER 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
If I believed that Aristotle were starting a chronological survey in the middle of Book II, this would move me to respond that we have no more reason to follow the Politics here than to follow the Historia Animalium in Zoology. But I do not; were Aristotle going back to the beginnings, he would not start from Hippodamus of Miletus; and he would probably start with Carthage. This is another irrelevancy, like Greenidge — saying Sparta is like Edwardian England is not saying that it is a republic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sparta is a Republic

Wikipedia says that if it is "original research" then have in published. My paper "The Spartan Republic" has been published by Sparta, Journal of Ancient Sparta and Greece. This is a journal in England. This paper is now a part of their permanent resource guide on the site under the section "Politics". These people I don't even know, a whole group of them, accepted my paper on Sparta. It is here at: The Spartan Republic. Sparta is a Republic and will be on this article! None of the hive mind here has had anything published! I have had my paper published in an Academic Journal. Sparta is a Republic! I have also used countless references on this page including a list of people calling it so throughout history including Niccolo Machiavelli! I am not leaving this article until Sparta is listed. The Doric Greeks invented this Form of Government! It will have pride of place on this article!WHEELER 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Back on track

OK, the dust has settled. Time to get this back on track. The proposal below is a repeat of the above (which no-one but WHEELER directly opposed).

To me, it seems best to simply accept the limitations imposed upon us by WP policy and work within that to produce a consistent list. I therefore propose:
This is a list of all states past or present which define(d) themselves as a form of republics, with the following provisions:
  1. States which do not recognise an English variant of their name, but use in their native name a word whose closest translation is 'Republic' are included (for example, Gumhūriyyet Maṣr el-ʿArabiyyah, "The Arab Republic of Egypt"), but their non-English name should be noted.
  2. Micronations, groups which claim territory but are not widely recognised as states (for modern countries, roughly following the criteria at List of countries) are not included.
  3. States that do not currently use the title "republic" (or equivalent) but did at one point may be included, but must be marked with the dates through which they did.
Many states that do not themselves use the term have been classified by commentators as republics, while the republican credentials of many self-declared republics have been questioned. This list does not seek to mediate between these two, but simply lists all those and only those states that define themselves as republics.
Why? Because it's not really a matter for debate whether a country calls itself "republic". On the other hand, it's difficult to objectively make judgements about what constitutes a republic and whether one country or another fits the definition. Subsections would be limited essentially just to those in existing section 3, i.e. sorting by qualifier.

Are there any objections to this? --Nema Fakei 22:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan

Though Pakistan is officially called "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan", its actual form of government does not fit with other Islamic Republics. The heading of that section lists Islamic Republics as republics governed in accordance with Islamic Law. Pakistani law is based off of English Law, and it is called an Islamic Republic because Jinnah considered it a country for Muslim people, not a country to be governed according to Muslim law. A review of Pakistani law and the Pakistani consitution will show that shariat law was not a factor at all in the creation of Pakistan. I think the heading of what an Islamic Republic is should be changed.

sources: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html#Govt http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Pakistan

also the Oxford History of India is a good resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.140.171.250 (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Licchavi "Republic"

The notion of the Vedic "republics" is not uncontroversial. The primary sources cited as evidence for their existence and constitution are based on Vedic canonical texts. This Vedic evidence is considered to be "scant" and of "uncertain significance." Where political assemblies are mentioned, the information provided is considered "insufficient" to state anything "precise about their nature." While, it is left that the forms, sabhci and samiti, with their construed political connotations, might be imagined as "semi-republican" assemblages, there is hardly enough evidence to characterize the polities as full fledged republics.

all quotes from: T. Burrow. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 34, No. 2. (1971), pp. 416-417.

another source: N. K. Wagle. The American Historical Review, Vol. 77, No. 4. (Oct., 1972), pp. 1170-1171.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonof76 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Seperate modern republics?

After Medieval republics, this list really degenerates into an unintelligible mess. The Holy Roman Empire isn't listed anywhere and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is tossed in as "Poland" in the unitary republics. You can't dispute noble republics so long as the likes of Sparta, Licchavi, and Novgorod are included with no argument. I think the "Enlightenment and later" list should be seperated into Early Modern Era, 19th Century, and Modern (20th century and later) just to introduce SOME semblance of clarity in here.--69.65.179.254 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (actually a logged-out 2ltben)

The organization of the last segment of this list was just ridiculous to the point of being unintelligible. I've seperated them into two lists, one by period and one by type. I leave it to you to follow.--69.65.179.254 (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC) (actually a logged-out 2ltben)

Citation Needed

Who put in all the citations needed? I mean, I can see the Republic of Licchavi or whatever needing a citation, but the people's republic of China? Really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.219.23 (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Someone above declared that any modern nation that considers/considered itself a republic should be included, and it's rather self-evident on the vast majority of those nations. As Wikipedia:Citing sources says, it's not necessary to cite something that isn't likely to be challenged. And, so far as I know, no-one's going to dispute that the People's Republic of China claims it's a Republic. --Narfil Palùrfalas (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This list is flawed

This is not a list of Republics, only a list of countries that CALL THEMSELVES republics. Replublics are countries ruled by law, usually with some kind of constitution that can not be rewritten by a simple majority, that wouldn't match most of the countries listed here.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Defining Republic

Since this article is a derivative of Republic, it should follow that this article defines republic using the Wikipedia definition. If one isn't going to reflect the content in the article on Republics, then this article should definite be renamed. Or the article on Republic should be changed. Either or. --69.65.179.254 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC) (actually a logged-out 2ltben)

Agreed, this article should be renamed "List of countries that call themselves Republics." A separate list should be created that actually lists countries which match the definition as you said.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Soviet and Russian republics

Are the former Soviet and the current Russian republics (e.g., RSFSR, Estonian SSR, Byelorussian SSR; Ingushetia, Tuva, Mordovia) republics too? 116.48.155.127 16:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is North Korea included?

Sure, North Korea recognizes itself as a republic, but it isn't in how it operates. So why include it? --2605:A000:D141:3800:9450:4878:E749:C80 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of republics. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of republics. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of republics. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_republics/Archive_2&oldid=1226102266"