Template talk:Forms of government/Archive 1

Archive 1

Forms of leadership split

For anyone looking to make this a really big list, may consider the split-off I did into Template:Forms of leadership. Common political discussion doesn't often rank rule by old people against dictatorships. Cwolfsheep 03:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

F-F-FSDAFSS or something

Deleted for vandalism --62.41.69.18 07:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How about warlordism

Quite a few fourth world countries these days have no stable central authority; and instead are effectively ruled by warlords. Should warlordism be on the template?

--EngineerScotty 20:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. The template is "Forms of government", but warlordism implies anarchy i.e. no government. EamonnPKeane 18:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Warlordism implies anomie, not anarchy according to wikipedia (and anarchists).-D

Technocracy & Meritocracy

Is there scope for adding these two style of government to the list? AulaTPN 11:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think technocracy and meritocracy are styles of government as you suggest, but I don't think they can be classified as forms of government. —Sesel 11:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, so which form(s) do you think they are styles of? AulaTPN 12:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree they are styles rather than forms. I think style is somewhat orthogonal to form, meaning that styles are not subcategories of particular forms, but rather are applicable in multiple forms. Bayle Shanks (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of display and heirarchy of information

I am reverting some recent edits to the heirarchy because I believe them to be incorrect. However, I would like to discuss them here to maake sure we arrive at a concensus. The most recent edits looked like this:

Forms of government

Part of the Politics series

List of forms of government Forms of governing Anarchism Authoritarianism Autocracy Dictatorship Monarchy Absolute monarchy Constitutional monarchy Despotism Feudalism Krytocracy Oligarchy Aristocracy Ochlocracy Plutocracy Democracy Direct democracy Representative democracy Tyranny Kleptocracy Forms of National systems Republic Single-party state Communist State Fascism Thalassocracy Theocracy

The above suggests that a constitutional monarchy is authoritarianism AND an autocracy. It suggests that a monarchy is authoritarianism. It even puts democracy under authoritarianism. Lmbstl 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did that because as I see it in anyway the population of a country needs to follow an authority no matter how it came to power be it heritage, election or murder the authority still makes laws that someone else possibly unwilling needs to follow. Hence there is either anarchy(Without rulers or an Arhy(With rulers) definition of how to run a country. There are as we know many more categories that could be listed but I didn't want to add everyone of them so I was satisfied with what categories that are present. You can divide the Archy way of governing in many subgroups such as Rule by one, Rule by Minority, Rule by Majority hence I did that... However Tyranny was a little bit tricky to position so I put it nowhere. Lord Metroid 09:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, it split the listings into 2 categories: "Forms of governing" and "Forms of national systems." What is the difference? In order to govern, national sysems must be put into place. I do not yet see where such categories make the template more functional. Therefore, I reverted the template to this format: Lmbstl 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Forms of governing is the way that a nation is governed while Forms of national system is the way the nation is built. "Communist State" or "Fascism" for example does not specify how the country is governed but rather by what principles. Lord Metroid 09:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Forms of government

Part of the Politics series

List of forms of government Anarchism Aristocracy Authoritarianism Autocracy Dictatorship Fascism Kleptocracy Oligarchy Tyranny Communist state Democracy Direct democracy Representative democracy Despotism Feudalism Krytocracy Monarchy Absolute monarchy Constitutional monarchy Ochlocracy Plutocracy Republic Single-party state Thalassocracy Theocracy

Politics Portal

If there are any objections to the way things are now listed and/or categorized, let's arrive at an agreement here before we further modify the template, which affects many wikipedia pages. Kindly, Lmbstl 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you justify the categorisation that existed previously? I don't see any logical pattern in the list. Do we not want a logical pattern? Lord Metroid 09:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The logical pattern was primarily alphabetical order, followed by a concept/sub-concept heirarchy. (For example, Absolute monarchy and Constitutional monarchy clearly can be listed as sub-concepts to Monarchy). So, to answer your question, we do want a reasonable sense of order to the template, but we don't have to force it to conform to academic theory. A few of the concepts listed are more political theory than contemporary reality, and to force them into certain categories is going to create endless opinion differences.

The main purpose of a template is to provide navigation between articles related in topic (in this case, Forms of government). Most readers, using the template for navigation (and, perhaps, the introduction of new concepts) are not going to become educated about the distinctions between anarchy and arhy through viewing listings on the template, so I don't view it as productive to present the information under a logical scheme that most readers are not going to distinguish.

I know that editing a template can be time-consuming, and I don't revert edits with abandon. I simply want to arrive at a concensus before making sweeping changes to a rather large penis template. Kindly, Lmbstl 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments makes sense and I agree with your revert after the explanation. Consensus is hence achieved! Lord Metroid 16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Template layout

When I first saw this template in the Theocracy article, I thought it was an infobox and was about to move it to the top of the article until I took another look. Rather than having the contents in a list which stretches out the page, how would this look?

Forms of government

Part of the Politics series

Politics Portal

Forms of government/Archive 1 bg:Шаблон:Форми на управление eu:Txantiloi:Gobernu erak fr:Formes de gouvernement id:Bentuk pemerintahan

I agree that this template is really, really too long. --m3taphysical (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This list as it stands is completely out of control.

I think your proposed layout and organization are on the right track, but the layout is too wide. I think that this template should be modified in two ways, one of which you do. First, really cut down on the number of top-level forms. Classically, there were just three forms: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Tyranny was a corrupted form of monarchy; oligarchy a corrupted form of aristocracy, and mob rule a corrupted form of democracy. Today, we should be able to get along with no more than five or six forms. For example, totalitarianism is a new, modern form, which certainly does not fit under any of the first three. (Anarchy would probably be another top-level category, even though it doesn't really belong here, since it's not a form of government by definition.)

Second, collapsible categories should be used. Thus, the default view should be just to see the top-level forms. If a user wants to see more, she can click on the particular form she is interested in. --Hyperion (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Anarchism

I disagree with the removal of anarchism from the list AND its labelling as an alternative to government. Anarchism is a system of self-government - which is still government. I think it should be in the list, as it is on List of Forms of Government, which this template should largely be a mirror of. I think there may be confusion between a form of government (i.e. how a territory is managed) and a system of rule (the legitimation of authority). Anarchism is a valid form of government if seen as the collective self-management of territory, without necessarily needing any rulers. 'Governments' and, in fact, most of the world, don't see the legitimacy of this idea, as it scares them silly. Plenty of people and documentation support the idea to warrant its position in this list. Trozladog 14:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitions from the OED state that anarchy is "1.a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder." or 1. b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder)." This template is used for forms of government not theoretical forms of government or politics. Therefore the only applicable definition is 1.a. in this instance. As an absence of government, it ought not to be included on this template. My opinion anyway. Coldmachine 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As all of the list are theoretical models, I don't think that this is a valid justification for rendering the second definition inapplicable. Hence, this is not a template for forms of government that currently exist in a particular polity. I think its inclusion is therefore justified. Trozladog 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia must not contradict itself. The Anarchism article contains a sourced definition which posits anarchism as being opposed to government. Redefining it to suit your purposes without recourse to reliable sources is original research on your part. If you wish to contest the definition, feel free to present contradicting reliable sources on the Talk:Anarchism page. Until then, anarchism should not be included in this template. Skomorokh ^incite 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is quite so obvious that anarchism should be excluded. And, I have not seen anyone redefining it to suit their purposes. Since an appeal has been made to the anarchism article, please note the following text that I have cut and pasted from it (bold added for empahsis).

The first to describe himself as anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,[15] which led some to call him the founder of modern anarchist theory.[21] Proudhon proposed spontaneous order, whereby organization emerges without central authority, a "positive anarchy" where order arises when everybody does “what he wishes and only what he wishes"[22] and where "business transactions alone produce the social order."[23] Like Godwin, Proudhon opposed violent revolutionary action. He saw anarchy as "a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune."[24]

Correct me if I'm wrong . . . but, the anarchism article says the "founder of modern anarchist theory" ... "saw anarchy as a form of government " and cites Selected Writings, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a reliable source. Doright (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

One person, writing centuries ago, in another language, stated anarchism was a form of government. To choose this example over, say, the definition of the concept in the lede and in contemporary secondary and tertiary sources (i.e. Encyclopædia Britannica, The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics) is blatant POV cherry-picking. The third party sources independent of the topic (as opposed to one primary source by an anarchist) clearly define anarchism as exclusive of government. If this disturbs you, I invite you to take the matter up with the editorial boards of the respective encyclopaedia. скоморохъ 06:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of blatant cherry-picking going on here. The question seems to be whether or not anarchism is a "form of government." Much of what has been argued on either side refers to anarchy, rather than anarchism, which Wikipedia currently defines as a separate topic. About anarchism, the OED says little beyond it being the beliefs and actions of anarchists. This is inconclusive either way. Ultimately, this is going to come down to two questions: 1) how do you define "government." (The OED, for instance, seems to imply some hierarchy implicit in the notion, in which case anarchism perhaps doesn't fit. But under that definition "self-government" would simply be an oxymoron. Wikipedia, which "must not contradict itself," has an article on "self-governance" (redirected from "self-government." So perhaps the OED definition is out.) 2) are you going to define "anarchism" as a form of social organization, or as a strategy of social change (broadly speaking). If you can answer those two questions, you can figure out if there's a conflict. Otherwise, it's all just annoying quibbling. Libertatia (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I take your point on anarchism vs. anarchy, I should have caught that earlier. I suggest we endorse Fang's below suggestion and replace "anarchism" with "anarchy" as a form of government for the time being. "Self-government" and "government of the United States of America" use the word "government" in such radically different ways as to constitute nothing more than family resemblance. The point, I think, is that the average reader is likely to take it to mean state, given the context (plutocracy, democracy, islamic republic, police state etc.). I am not going to define anything. скоморохъ 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gratuitous ad hominem attacks do not further your argument and discourage others from contributing to the encyclopedia. Please stop it. I think the question at hand is: Does it further the purposes of the encyclopedia to include Anarchism in Template:Forms of government? I think it might.

Please note that this template is nothing more than a convenient reformatting of the List of forms of government. This point is further driven home by noting the very first entry on the template is in fact the List and that the list includes Anarchism. It does not reflect well on the encyclopedia when the template is made internally inconsistent with its own recursive self referent. It would appear to be a glaring inconsistency to exclude it from the template when it is so obviously included in the list [1].

Also, please note that not only does the List include Anarchism but so too does the Category Forms of government [[2]] include an entry for Anarchism.

Finally, скоморох AKA Skomorokh, please do not change your pseudonym in the middle of a discussion when signing your comments as you did here[[3]]. It wastes the time of other editors when we are trying to follow who is saying what. For example, when signing your comment as Skomorokh, you say most emphatically, “Wikipedia must not contradict itself.” Then when signing as скоморох you make the encyclopedia look absurd by insisting on having the template contradict the very list upon not only which it is based but actually refers. Perhaps the virtue of consistency might also be considered when engaging in talk. Doright (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I attacked nobody. My comments were directed at your edits - which concern me - not your character, which does not. I agree wholeheartedly that we should be thoroughly self-consistent; in this template, the category, the List of forms of government and Anarchism articles. Neither the list nor the category, however, contain reliable sources to back up the claim that anarchism is a form of government. The anarchism article has a host of reliable sources which negate the notion that anarchism is a source of government: Encyclopædia Britannica, The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. You have curiously neglected to comment on these; do you not agree that we should be bound by WP:V in deciding whether to include anarchism as a form of government in Wikipedia. As to my username, I am sorry to have confused you, it was not my intention. Please explain, if you would be so kind, what is deficient about the sources I have provided, or why WP:V is not the arbiter of this matter. Regards, скоморохъ 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Methinks thou doth protest too much. The newbie editor, [[4]] was immediately and harshly accused of "Redefining it to suit your purposes." This of course begs the question of just what was imagined as the editor’s purposes? In any case, if the reply was half as civil theirs, they may have been encouraged to continue editing. As for me, the characterization of "blatant POV cherry-picking" and the assertion that I am "disturbed" by reliable sources speak for itself. You may want to consider a less mean spirited and more collegial tone.

It does not beg the question, i.e. fallaciously assume the editor had a purpose, because assuming it was a conscious decision on their part, their edit had a purpose; you have me quite baffled here. I did not assert you were disturbed by anything, you misconstrue what I wrote. I'm not interest in discussing personality, I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Regards, скоморохъ 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think the question at hand is: Does it further the purposes of the encyclopedia to include Anarchism in Template:Forms of government? I am not sure that the answer to that question is entirely determined by a debate regarding the question of does Anarchism constitute a form of government. Therefore, please do not assume that I necessarily disagree with you regarding the later question, albeit perhaps moot. It may well be the case, as I suspect, that it would further the purposes of the encyclopedia to include Anarchism in the Template, even if you define Anarchism as the absence of government, just as it seems to be helpful to include it in the category [[5]]. I noticed that you did not tag the category whereas you did tag the list as being contradictory [[6]]. Was that an oversight or does it reflect something about your thoughts on this matter? BTW, you seem to have a keener interest in this topic. I merely stumbled upon your earlier debate via a google search unrelated to Wikipedia regarding an entirely different topic. Finally, there appears to be only one other editor commenting at the time of this writing [[7]]. They do not seem to share your concern. Does their discussion impact your thinking on this matter? Doright (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the question at hand is Does it further the purposes of the encyclopedia to include Anarchism in Template:Forms of government? I also believe the answer is no; introducing confusing, analytically false information into the readers mind can never further the purpose of an encyclopedia which is intended as a learning aid. While I accept that untruths can in many cases be instrumentally useful, I strongly believe an encyclopedia whose purpose is to present (as close as possible, within consensus) accurate portrayals of topics cannot benefit in this way. I accept that the argument to the contrary is a legitimate position. The article anarchism is not in the category Category:Forms of government, only Category:Anarchism is. I haven't monitored Category:Anarchism that much, so it was an oversight on my part, yes; I'll tag the category when I'm done replying here. I have entered a Request for Comment to get a broader selection of the community to contribute their opinions. The opinion of the other editor you mention does not impact my thinking on the matter because I do not find any of their points convincing. скоморохъ 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that we agree that the question at hand is Does it further the purposes of the encyclopedia to include Anarchism in Template:Forms of government? Too bad that you posited what I view as a straw-man to the Rfc instead of the agreed upon question. How do you suggest addressing the navigational functionality provided by the template if Anarchism is deleted? I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that including it on the navigational template is providing analytically false information. Regards, Doright (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of a template is to help readers navigate Wikipedia. Anarchism, under any definition, is closely related to systems of government. The two definitions presented in this discussion are basically "negation of government" and "a form of government" (and, of course, there are many other definitions used in reliable resources). Notice that both of these definitions include "government" as an essential term. Because all definitions of "anarchism" and "government" are inextricably intertwined, a reader who is looking for information about anarchism will most likely start out on one of our government-related articles. So, for ease of navigation, anarchism should stay on the template. Aelffin (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it help readers to navigate Wikipedia via false associations? Should a template on different forms of religion include atheism? It is, after all, closely related to religion. But it is not a form of religion. To claim it is is to deceive and confuse the reader, which hardly aids their learning. Readers looking to navigate across different perspectives on government are perfectly well served by {{Political ideologies}}, which is at the foot of the Anarchism article. Thus it is both possible and desirable to have navigation between philosophies concerning government without making the false ontological commitment to anarchism being a form of government. скоморохъ 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, the answer to your first two questions is yes, for the purposes of navigation, it is helpful to include closely related topics on the template. The template is neither an educational nor a taxonomic tool. Rather, it is primarily a navigational tool. Thus, it can in many cases be important to include false associations, if they are common false associations. However, this is beside the point since the specific ontology of anarchism vis-à-vis government depends on the specific definition of both terms. Since these terms vary in their usage among reliable sources, the ontology also varies. Limiting Wikipedia to one particular definition (say, OED) over the rest (say, Webster) is blatant original research. Finally, this argument has gone back and forth between anarchism and anarchy. This is a form of equivocation, a logical fallacy. So I advise all parties to choose their words carefully. Aelffin (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Aelffin, exactly right. That's why I have declined to debate the precise definition of Anarchism. It seems like a pointless exercise for the purpose of the template and that is why I repeatedly tried to refocus the debate on the operational question; Does it further the purposes of the encyclopedia to include Anarchism in Template:Forms of government? It seems you have provided a fairly conclusive answer in the affirmative. I'll be surprised if it does not stand. Furthermore, I find Sunray's comments [[8]]adding additional weight to your argument. It seems pretty clear to me that Anarchism should not be deleted from The List, The Template, The Category, and perhaps the Contradiction Tags should now be removed. I guess we'll wait to see if the consensus becomes unanimous. Doright (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See response to Aelffin above. скоморохъ 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think anarchism should be replaced with anarchy on the list because the article anarchy describes the "system of government" in anarchistic societies while the article anarchism mostly discusses the political philosophy.--Fang 23 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this insofar that anarchism is a political philosophy, not a governmental form; if anything related to anarchism deserves inclusion, it is anarchy. скоморохъ 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, many if not most anarchists avoid the word "anarchy" altogether because of the many non-technical meanings of that term. Most of us substitute phrases like "in an anarchic society" or "under anarchist principles". Because these constructions are rather unweildy, the term "anarchism" is often used, if somewhat imprecisely, to describe an anarchic system of self-governance. Aelffin (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. скоморохъ 12:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have asked for a third opinion on this matter to help reach consensus. скоморохъ 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Following the failure of the request due to my incompetence, I have posted a request for comment. скоморохъ 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I have removed this request from the third opinion request page. This discussion has involved many editors since it began (May of 2007), and although there are large gaps of time between the original discussion and the present one, third opinions are only useful in cases where two editors are involved. I suggest you put in a request for comment, as that would be an appropriate next step to find consensus. Justin ^chat 08:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should anarchism be considered a form of government on Wikipedia? Please read the above discussion, and the lead sections of the anarchism and government articles. Thanks, скоморохъ 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer to that question does not resolve the controversy. Furthermore, I have no idea what it operationally means for Wikipedia to consider something. The question is not, Should anarchism be considered a form of government on Wikipedia? Rather, the question is: Should anarchism be included on the navigational tool Template:Forms of government? For example, one might consider, is it helpful to the user of Wikipedia to have a link to the anarchism article when considering the topic of forms of government. Doright (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely you do not disagree with the statement "If anarchism is not a form of government, it should not be included in a list of forms of government"?

I have already addressed this argument. I have come to view it as a straw-man. We are talking about navigational tools for the encyclopedia. We are not talking about Set theory. Doright (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, this issue is broader than one template; there is the list, the category and the article itself to be considered. Best, скоморохъ 02:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You have some interesting observations. I think the issues, though related, may in fact be different for the article, the category, the list and the template. Let's see what others think. Your friend in WP, Doright (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should anarchism be included on the navigational tool Template:Forms of government? For example, one might consider, is it helpful to the user of Wikipedia to have a link to the Anarchism article when considering the topic of forms of government? Thanks, Doright (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If Anarchism should be removed from the template Forms of government, then it certainly must follow that Black should be removed from the List of colors. After all, black is even more clearly precisely the lack of all colors, just as some will argue that Anarchism is the lack of all government. However, just as I don't think that it is helpful to the user of Wikipedia to delete black from the list of colors, I don't think it is helpful to remove Anarchy from the navigational device Template:Forms of government. Doright (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your "Black" analogy misses the point, which is that we take our cue from reliable sources; I highly doubt that black is not considered a color by reliable sources. Regards, скоморохъ 12:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the analogy is right on point and no one denies that we take our cue from reliable sources. Your edits seem to constrain the usage to a single POV (even though reliable sources, Proudhon & Merriam-Webster, have already been provided that do not share that POV) and then further deny the Wikipedia user a valuable navigational tool. For example, Black is included in the List of colors even though there are reliable sources that say it is not a color. Doright (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think it definitely belongs. Atheism can be found at Template:Religion topics. The way I'd think about it is if I were to design a state, what choices would I have for my government. I could choose a republic, communism, etc, but I could also choose atheism. Lack of government is a form of government to me because it is a choice one could make in lieu of a government. The other argument is that nav templates are designed for ease of navigation; atheism seems like a topic that a user browsing forms of government would be interested in easily finding. Oren0 (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment; I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have anarchism listed in a "Government-related topics" template. Regards, скоморохъ 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• This navigation template is clearly intended to help readers navigate to "government topics" -- note that's a subtle but very important distinction from "forms of government" -- and anarchy is very clearly relevant in that regard. That said, I agree that listing it as a "form of government" may be a bit off, so we may need to address the scope of the template; perhaps we should just move this to {{government}} to save ourselves the trouble of being so literal? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Anarchism is not a form of government. According to the Wikipedia article, it's philosophy. Also anarchism by definition is against any government. Did history ever experienced any anarchistic government? I don't think so. My mention of "Anarchy" might be appropriate. Chelentano (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Totalitarianism vs. Authoritarianism

Are both of these really needed? There are already multiple children listed for authoritarianism. It seems redundant to me to add in totalitarianism at the bottom of this template. Any objections if it's removed? Coldmachine 22:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mixed government is a Republic

Mixed Government is a republic, has been called republics and the proper title of mixed governments is Republic! Why the obscurantism? Why the Censorship? I thought Wikipedia policy IS NPOV, not cliques running obscurantism!WHEELER 02:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just Government?

A template is a navigational tool, it should not be used as a taxonomic tool. When we try to use a template as a way of categorizing items (x is a type of y), we are engaging in original research unless we are able to find a reliable source for each item which identifies that item as a member of the category in question. The likelyhood of being able to do this for every item is low, so many important subjects are likely to be excluded. Also, when reliable sources disagree on whether "x is a type of y" we cannot choose among them without engaging in further original research. As a solution to this problem, I suggest we rename the template Government. This way, we are making no claims that the particular items on the template are in fact forms of government according to any particular classification scheme. Aelffin (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily "original research" or problematic to include an article in a template, it is only bad practice when the link's inclusion is contentious, in which case reliable sources are needed. You make a good point as regards the purpose of navigation vs categorisation. I dislike the vagueness of "Government" vis a vis "Forms of government" because it alters what is a neatly defined topic to a broader scope, but I won't oppose a change. скоморохъ 12:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my suggestion would favor a slightly less neat categorization, but I think it would eliminate a lot of unproductive debate. And after all, the point of an encyclopedia is to take a person's vague understanding and transform it into a more precise understanding. Aelffin (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources have already been provided that support the inclusion of Anarchism. It is bad practice to change the name of a template that all editors agree is superior, i.e.,"Forms of government," merely because an editor declines to admit other WP:RS POV's regarding one of its elements. Renaming to Government may be solomonic but degrades the encyclopedia. In that sense it may be more like dividing the baby in half than it is solomonic solution. Doright (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I mean, the issue arose in the context of what I consider to be a rather nit-picky debate (the anarchism question), but there are plenty of other challengable items on this template. I mean krytocracy--have you read that article? Apparently, the word was only ever used once. I don't consider the name change Government to be a compromise at all. I think it's superior title for a whole host of reasons. Above all, the fact that a template title should be very broad and general. Cast a wide net, and you'll direct as many people as possible to the articles they're looking for. Aelffin (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Aelffin, I have to admit I have not read the krytocracy article, but your question does hold out the promise that I might find it entertaining. Since I apparently misunderstood your view, I'm happy to defer to your and Skomorokh aka скоморохъ judgment that a change to "Government" is the right thing to do. Although the evidence is pretty clear that the change can not be justified on the basis of an editor cherry picking a particular definition of Anarchism to the exclusion of other reliable sources, since it seems no editors object to the change, I propose that we conclude within the next few days that a consensus has been achieved. Best, Doright (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC) . . . PS, I took a quick look at krytocracy. Based upon your comments, I was surprised by this result. Doright (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised too. My comments were based on the fact that the article had a single source and only mentioned the word's use in that source. Still, it's pretty obscure--compared to say, anarchism. Aelffin (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for move to Government?

It seems like we have consensus for a move, but I'd like to hear any objections now instead of edit warring later. Any dissenters? скоморохъ 13:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A move like that is poor form. Something like Template:Government covers a LOT of ground. Whereas, this list simply covers the forms of government (or lack thereof). I don't see the argument here... this is a template, and its purpose is to direct. Why such a big fuss about putting anarchism on the list? Is it a form of government in the most rigid definition? No. But point to the policy that says articles series must be a perfect definition? This appears to be nothing more than constructive obstruction. Black is not a color, but we can still call it one to avoid unnecessary confusion.

So, to say the least, I believe this Template (and the associated list) need to remain exactly as they are. Justin ^chat 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some precedent, take templates like {{emotion}} or {{deities}}. Or (I think) one of the monstrously large templates you're worrying about below, {{logic}}. I can see where you're coming from; was quite surprised there wasn't already a template at such a general name as {{government}}, myself. {{government series}} or some such, perhaps? Status quo works, but I haven't quite given up on finding something that makes everybody happy, at least so long as talk is cheap. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We do have {{Political ideologies}}. скоморохъ 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we make it a straw poll? Aelffin (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Change per discussion above. Aelffin (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Voting is evil, but per my explanation above, I oppose the move. If you wish to make Template:Government go for it... I'm a little stunned there isn't one. But there is no sense in moving THIS. Justin ^chat 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem kind of redundant to have both though? Aelffin (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say, but I doubt it. "Government" is a topic that could span hundreds of more specific templates. There's no way all of the information presented on this template will end up surviving on Template:Government, so this may end up coming back eventually. This is a VERY specific topic, whereas Template:Government should be a VERY broad topic. Justin ^chat 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• It seems we do not have the consensus that I thought. I am persuaded by User_Talk:Justin and a review of the discussion of this and related pages that no consensus exits for the move. All arguments for the change have failed on their merits, except for the one that says we should try to accommodate the needs of an editor. It is now clear that forms of government is a useful template that addresses a need that will not be met by a fantastically larger and more general template. Furthermore, it has already been demonstrated that even if a taxonomic determination was required, which it is not, WP:RS citations have been provided that tend to suggest the view that Anarchism is not a form of government is only one WP:POV. I believe Anarchism should remain on the template forms of government and the template should not be moved nor renamed. Additionally, removal of the contradiction tags placed at the outset of this controversy should be considered. Best to all, Doright (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're calling consensus after two days? Aelffin (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I wrote, "It seems we do not have the consensus that I thought." Also, please note that this dispute over Anarchism, which the "move to government" proposal was meant to resolve, has been going on for months, not "two days." Doright (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean you're calling the results in the straw poll (aka consensus request) I suggested two days ago. There are two different issues on the table, and the one in this thread is over the name of the template. The anarchism question, which has been going on for a couple months is being discussed above. I agree with you in the above thread (that anarchism belongs on this template regardless of whether it's Government or Forms of Government), but I disagree on the issue being discussed in this thread--what the name of the template should be--and I think two days is far too early to call the template-name question settled regardless. Aelffin (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry if I was misunderstood. I was not calling the results in the straw poll. What I was referring to was my prior mistaken belief, that there was a consensus for a move that led me to "defer to your and Skomorokh aka скоморохъ judgment that a change to 'Government' is the right thing to do." Again, I agree it is premature to call it; I was just clarifying the change in my views in light of the contributions of the other editors. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Doright (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Minarchism

I think Minarchism should be removed because Minarchism is a view about the role of government in peoples lives (government control and involvement in peoples lives should be reduced to a bare minimum) rather than a form of government itself.--Fang 23 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion about that here, where I have suggested a template based on forms of government, not qualities of government. Please review above. Thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Nightwatchman state being equivalent to Minarchism?

~ender 2008-11-29 11:11:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.18.165 (talk)

Constitutional monarchy

Cant Constitutional monarchy be included under both the democracy heading as a form of Representative democracy and under the monarchy heading as a form of monarchy?

Robocracy

Why was Robocracy taken off this list? It was here the last time I checked, but someone took it down, as far as I can see. I think it should stay there, it's as much a form of government as anything else on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouMoo! (talk • contribs) 13:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion about paring down the list here. Bayle Shanks (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mobocracy

Remove mobocracy from the list as it currently redirects to ochlocracy, which is listed on the same list below mobocracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.192.74 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Use Template:Sidebar?

Anyone object to my recoding this template to use {{Sidebar}}..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, since it's part of the "Politics series" of sidebar templates, I've been bold and used {{Politics series sidebar}}. Hope that's okay. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Add Kritarchy?

Apparently, it's subtly different from Kritocracy...
~ender 2008-11-29 11:13:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.18.165 (talk)

Types of Government versus descriptions of Government

Videocracy (not on the panel) and Logocracy merely describe governments (use of images, use of words), instead delineate different types of governance. Why isn't there also a term for 'rule of law' (which would most probably have to be a logocracy... hmm), as well?
~ender 2008-11-29 11:22:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.18.165 (talk)

How is this template different from Template:Forms_of_leadership?

Psephocracy - government decided by elections, media is focused on inconsequential events and issues, leaders cobbling together alliances with the parties they had fought against, a system totally dominated by electoral victories and defeats.

Sophocracy not a neologism [9], should perhaps redirect to Noocracy

Ochlocracy ought to be listed as Ochlocracy/Mobocracy

Majoritarianism - ought to be considered for entry as well, maybe right next to Ochlocracy.

Tyranny - ought to make the list as well.

Indirect democracy

~ender 2008-11-29 11:54:PM MST

And Consociational state and Kleptocracy aren't actual forms of government either. Any opposition to the creation of a second portion of the info box to store these "descirptive elements in? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Epistemocracy and Gerontocracy

Hi. I've added Epistemocracy and Gerontocracy as a result of a deletion discussion about Template:Forms of leadership. No opinion about its inclusin. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove magocracy?

Shouldn't magocracy be removed from this? Since its really a fictional type of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magocracy

200.49.188.27 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Government by itineration

What about adding this? Government by itineration? Malick78 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion

Fictional governments and obscure theoretical governments should be removed. Inclusion should be restricted only to governments that have actually been implemented, or widely used labels that have been applied to describe historical governments.--Sophist234 (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that fictional governments should be removed. However, I think theoretical governments that are discussed by many reliable sources should be included. --Loremaster (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've left those in. Save for kleptocracy, I've only removed obscure forms of government that aren't widespread in scholarly literature.--Sophist234 (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sultanism

I've added sultanism to the list, but I'd suggest that we follow some scholarly-defined categorization. As it is, the list is mixing forms of state and forms of government, with no clear definition and low lisibility. --Dans (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1