User talk:WHEELER/Trouble with Republic articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia articles dealing with the governmental form of republic and its adjunct articles are seriously compromised and deficient in many regards. The whole gist of the Wikipedia articles in a sense are built to all provide a defence and support of an egalitarian British idea of republicanism. They are all slanted and it is obvious that it is a circle reasoning.

This article is in response to an Arbitration request posted here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#List_of_Republics_and_other_articles. This is an answer and a defense of what I am trying to do.

Contents

[edit] Articles in question

[edit] My Qualifications

I wrote the following encyclopaedic articles that deal with the ancient ideal of republics:

  • Synoecism]
    • The process in which politeias are converted to democracies.

Finally, I had a paper published on an online journal in England The Spartan Republic

I do know what I am talking about. I do know about "Classical republics" and am conscious of the redefinition of terms. Have any of my detractors had anything published on ancient republics by a third party? Any one of them?

[edit] Definition of the term

Wikipedia's own definition of Republic states that there are various definitions of republic; to wit:

Several definitions stress that the rule of law is an essential feature of a republic.
For example, the distinction between monarchy and republic was not always made as it is in modern times; oligarchies are traditionally considered neither monarchy nor republic,[3]; and such definition depends very much on the monarch concept, which has various definitions, not making clear which of these is used for defining republic.
For this reason, in political science the several definitions of "republic", which in such a context invariably indicate an "ideal" form of government, do not always exclude monarchy:[7] the evolution of such definitions of "republic" in a context of political philosophy is treated in republicanism.
There are a few exceptions: the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the State of Israel, and the Russian Federation. Israel, Russia, and Libya would meet many definitions of the term republic, however.

Now, from the beginning I have posted this definition of republic:

  1. Republic—A form of government by the people that includes the rule of law, a mixed constitution, and the cultivation of an active and public-spirited citizenry. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267.
    1. Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265.
    2. "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.
    3. Classical republicanism emphasized civic duty and social cohesion. Founders and the Classics, Carl J. Richard, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994. pg 3.
    4. Sir Thomas Smyth in his treatise on English government of his time defined all commonwealths (republics) as mixed. De Republica Anglorum, 1583. ch. 6

All I have emphasized is this definition of republic. Wikipedia recognizes various definitions of republic but refuses to acknowledge this definition. Mixed government's proper title is Republic more pertinently it is referred to as "Classical Republic" as is stated by Prof. Mendle:

"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."

[edit] Circle reasoning

Now, It is clear that the proper title of mixed government is a republic. Terrence Ball in his book defines republic as such. Then, Prof. Mendle also states succinctly that Classical-republican theory (is) mixed government. User:SimonP when the Classical definition of republic got deleted created two articles Classical republic and mixed government. Classical republics ARE mixed government. They have Classical republics meaning "any government without a king". They have:

"A classical republic, according to certain modern political theorists, is a state of Classical Antiquity that is considered to have a republican form of government, a state where sovereignty rested with the people rather than a ruler or monarch."

Here the Wikipedian article just makes a Classical republic into the Wikipedian article republic--a government without kings. This is circle reasoning. There are no references.

Mixed government is a Republic now called Classical republics to differentiate it from its newer connotations, the other various definitions of republic.

[edit] Roman republic

Is a republic due to its mixed character. It is a classical republic not a modern republic. This from Michael Crawford, The Roman Republic 2ND Edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978, 1992. pg 22-23.

"Two consuls instead of a king now stood each year at the head of the community; the assembly of adult males which elected them remained the same, as did the body of elders who advised them; this was the senate, composed in practice of former magistrates. Time and circustance produced various modifications in THE THREE ELEMENTS whose interplay WAS (italics in original) the Roman political system, including notably the creation of a large number of lesser magistrates; NOTHING ALTERED THE CENTRAL FACT OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, THAT IT WAS THE COLLECTIVE RULE OF AN ARISTOCRACY, IN PRINCIPLE and to a varying extent in practice dependent on the will of a popular assembly."

The Wikipedian article of Roman Republic goes to this article Republic. Nowhere on the Wikipedian article Republic is this statement~"...the central fact of republican government is the collective rule of an aristocracy." I mean here is the guy that writes a book on the Roman Republic and it doesn't match what the Wikipedian article Republic says.

That is what a Classical Republic is. It is the establishment of a senate. It is a sign of mixed government.

[edit] Original Research

[edit] Fact One

I am constantly attacked for doing "Original research"; all the time and everytime by Wikipedians. All I have written in the Classical definition of republic is backed up with this statement:

"History has shown that such forms of government (speaking about mixed government) are suited to a commonsense non-idealistic people: the Phoenicians of Carthage, the Dorians of Greece, Romans, and Englishmen have all developed this type of polity" (pg 76); "Besides acknowledged difficulty of the creation of such a system,...so amply illustrated by the history of Sparta, Rome, and England"

This from A.H.J. Greenidge, M.A., in A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History. And I am doing Original research? This man backs me up or rather I expanding on his take here. My article on the Classical definition of a republic was already written before I read Prof. Greenidge.

Prof. Greenidge statement proves that I am not doing any Original research whatsoever!

[edit] Fact Two

-->"In all the republics of antiquity the government was divided between a senate and a popular assembly; and in cases where a king stood at the head of affairs, as at Sparta, the king had little more than the executive." Article by Leonhard Schmitz, Ph.D., F.R.S.E., Rector of the High School of Edinburgh, of William Smith (editor), D.C.L., LL.D.: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875. on pp 1016‑1022

I am doing "original research"? How come Prof. Schmitz and Prof. Michael Crawford both back each other up and both have written in two different centuries and yet say the same thing----And none of this information is On Wikipedia?

[edit] List of republics

I tried to add Sparta to the List of republics. I first posted on 13 December 2006. I tried again on 8 June 2007. I provided references. It got reverted. I listed all these references:

  1. Cicero called Sparta: respublica Lacedaemoniorum. Rep. II. 23, Cicero, as quoted in The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Müller, 2nd ed. rev. 1839. pg 190.
    1. "At the same time, however, Lacedæmonia was a republic." Rahe, Paul A., Republics; Ancient and Modern, Vol. I, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, 1992. pg 169.
      1. "Sparta was neither a monarchy or democracy...The most subtle of the ancient authors described it as a mixed regime...In order to secure the consent of the governed, Sparta ensured the participation of every element of the citizen population in the administration of the city". Republics Ancient and Modern, Rahe, Vol. I, pg 152.
      2. "Lacedæmonia was, in fact, a mixed regime—an uneasy compromise between competing principles...". Republics Ancient and Modern, Rahe, Vol. I, pg 170.
    2. Niccolo Machiavelli called Sparta a republic: "Two principal causes, however, cemented this union: first, the inhabitants of Sparta were few in number...that by not permitting strangers to establish themselves in the republic, they had neither opportunity of becoming corrupt..." The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, trans. & ed. by Robert M. Adams, W.W. Norton & Co., NY, 1992. pg 96.
    3. Alexander Hamilton, "Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind." The Federalist Papers, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Arlington House (Classics of Conservatism Collection), New Rochelle, NY. No. 6:Hamilton; pg 57.
    4. Wheeler, W. Lindsay, "The Spartan Republic" published in "Sparta, Journal of Ancient Sparta and Greek History", May 5, 2007.

Here is the List of sources identifying Sparta as a republic. Notice that I have pulled up quotes from four different websites currently as of 2000 that call Sparta a republic.

I started this on 8th June 2007. It is 14 July 2007 and still Sparta is NOT on the list of republics. I gave several suggestions. Just list it. List it under "Classical republics".

This is what they added:

==Other meanings of Republic==

For the archaizing meanings of the word republic, as the commonwealth, or as a translation of politeia or res publica, see those articles.

These were in some respects broader than the present meaning of republic, and would include not only the republics of antiquity, as above, but, for example, the following monarchies:

Since the Oxford English Dictionary last cites this meaning from 1684, it is difficult to tell to which present states it would have been applied.

Things on wikipedia are to be done on consensus. Does this show any consensus? Look at the slant--"archaizing". The Roman Empire is really a Republic! Sparta is now a monarchy!

[edit] Politeia's

Talk about the slant here at Wikipedia. Here is a very very very good example:

On this ariticle it states: "A constitution which mixes oligarchy and democracy (terms which, as used by Aristotle, refer to vicious kinds of constitutions). "

Then right below it, it says this: "For instance, later Aristotle refers to the ideal politeia as one using a mixed government. But it is uncertain whether he is referring to governments in general or to a specific form."

Can someone explain this to me---a constitution which mixed oligarchy and democracy is "VICIOUS" but below it says mixed government is the Ideal. Which is it? Mixed with what? You know Aristotle contrasts Politeia with democracy! Democracy is the bad form of Politeia! Where and who said "mixed with oligarchy and democracy is viscious?!!!???

Here is Aristotle's Schema of governmental forms. In his description of Politiea---ARISTOTLE USES REAL LIFE EXAMPLES. Who had real politieas? Crete, Sparta, Carthage and Solonic Athens. They all were a mixture of oligarchy and democracy and monarchy, aristocracy, democracy! I mean this article is so full of propaganda---its ludicrous!

I mean this is mirrored throughout the web! Aristotle defines Politiea AS a mixture of oligarcy and democracy TWICE in his book Politics. That is what the form of Politeia is! (Check the above Classical definition of republic for references.)

This is what I mean by the slant evident everywhere concerning all these articles concerning republic.

[edit] Cicero's De re publica

You know I read this book by Cicero. Now, if someone wanted to know what a "republic" is, don't you think one will turn to Cicero's De re publica for some answers?

Now, if you read the book you will come across "mixed government" and the place of Kings in the "re publica". Now, --------GO to the Wikipedia article on "De re publica" and You find NO mention of mixed government and NO mention of the place of kings or the mention of kings in this work.

This is what I mean by the slant evident everywhere concerning all these articles concerning republic.

[edit] Politeias/Republics res publica

The Wikipedia article on Republic defines it as

"A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control."

Can someone, anyone go to any Greek or Latin Text and find that there? No they can NOT! That is Nowhere in Classical literature!!! Cicero didn't write that, Aristotle didn't write that, Polybius or Plutarch didn't write that. Where the hell does this come from then?

All they defined governments as MIXED! I fail to find that anywhere in Classical literature. Whereas I take my meaning of the Classical definition of republic ONLY from Classical literature!!!!

A commonwealth, a politeia, a republic is concerned about the WHOLE society. Society doesn't just mean "the people" but means the royalty, aristocracy as well. All the Wikipedian articles slant toward "popular" and "the people". That is NOT ancient Classical thought! Res publica is about the WHOLE society the WHOLE civitas that includes the Aristocracy. The Aristocracy are just as much part of a society as anything else!

What the authors of these various Wikipedian articles have done is slant it all towards democracy and "The people" as if "the People" are the only constiuent elements of a society. Aristotle wrote, "All persons all alike DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A STATE". A politeia, a commonwealth, a res publica all incorporate a state with a diversity of persons of varying degrees of rank. This is the true definition of a res publica! My detractors can't stomach this idea or concept.

[edit] My critics

This is what my critics say:

==WHEELER==
(Taken from User talk:Nema Fakei) You have my heartfelt sympathy for attempting to deal with WHEELER. As far as I can make out, he has read, and deeply believes, two books: Karl Otfried Mueller's 1824 treatise on The Dorians, and Rahe, whose reviews describe him as weaving the myth of the perfection of the polis. Rahe is a Carolina eccentric, whom I have seen elsewhere arguing that the American Constitutional Convention was a mistake: it gives too much to democracy.

WHEELER's argument, such as it is, is that republic/res publica/politeia, wherever they are found (before 1700 or so), must mean one and the same thing: the mixed constitution of Polybius and some parts of Aristotle's Politics. I hope this helps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for the clarification of the second paragraph, though I'd guessed as much, but the first paragraph was unnecessary. --Nema Fakei 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please count from how many different people I quote from on this page alone. I didn't quote Müller. I quote Terrence Ball, Greenidge, Schmitz, Crawford, Paul A. Rahe, Mendle and I quote from Sir Thomas Smyth. All these gentlemen agree with one another. Republics/Commonwealths are Mixed government. Knowing that there are two or more conflicting definitions this old and traditional definition of republic is called "Classical republics".

In answer to Pmanderson, the Doric city-states of Crete and Sparta with their mixed forms of government EXISTED before Plato and Aristotle. Politeias or mixed governments are not the fiction dreamed up by Plato, Aristotle, Polybius or Cicero! They were actual historical realities that existed and these people defined their form of government which was mixed!

[edit] Taking things out of context

On the Talk:res publica page, I was charged with taking things out of context. This is another strategy to deny my references.

"Please try to understand that the sorts of changes you're asking for are very much disconnected from the point and context of the sources you're quoting."
"The vast majority of the quotations you regularly adduce are similarly taken out of context."

Can someone look at this whole page and say things are taken out of context?

Everything on this page is COHERENT and exhibits cohesion, similiarity. There is a relationship amongst all the quotes; they agrees with each other. How hard is this to observe? Look at how many people, over different times I have quoted. All the articles I have written. How can anybody see that there is a common theme amongst all these quotes. There is a consistency with Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Plutarch, Cicero, Sir Thomas Symth, Niccolo Machiavelli, Greenidge, Schmitz, Paul A. Rahe, Terrence Ball, Mendle.