This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 100 days |
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The French article is not very good, but gives a very good Republic illustration: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9publique#/media/File:Daumier_R%C3%A9publique.jpg
Can someone add it to make the article more user-friendly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e35:8a8d:fe80:5c12:b820:c771:bfe6 (talk • contribs)
Original text as the following. Why power within a republic could be obtained through autocracy? I don't believe it. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.240.33.2 (talk • contribs)
This is unsupported by the source. The Marriam Webster entry does support the idea that "republic" is the english version of numerous other translations of "res publica", but not that the latin "res publica" originated from the greed "politeia".
I was reading the article and scrolled down to the bottom of the article, in the further reading section, and I saw a picture of "Thomas Corwins speech in senate Against the Mexican-American War" [[1]]. Well firstly, it doesn't contribute anything to this article. Secondly, even if the original editor thought that it had some meaning with the article, why would you put it under references? There is no need to request semi-protection as this was quite possibly a minor case of vandalism, and the original editor thought that it was funny to hide nonsense under references because no one reads them.
Светозар Милетић (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Svetozar Miletic
Perhaps the map would be clearer if it deemphasizes the minor differences between types of republics by using shades of the same color for republics, and shades of the same color for autocracies? For example, a map could use this color scheme:
System of Government | Most power allocated by: | Majority of power resides in: | Modern Governments |
---|---|---|---|
Democracy | Sortition | People | None |
Hybrid | None | ||
Republic | Elections | Aristocracy | see: Democracy Index |
Hybrid | |||
Autocracy | Might (e.g. coup) | Small inner circle (Dictator, Monarch, General(s), One-party state leadership) | |
Disputed |
Superb Owl (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be two competing definitions of what a republic is and ultimately rests on "people choose representatives through elections". This may be confusing because that is literally the definition of an indirect democracy. Personally I think this article is misleading as it doesn't acknowledge just how much interesting discussion goes into this debate. In my opinion: a state ruled by representatives of a citizen body is called an indirect democracy; a republic has a head of state that is not a monarch but a (directly or indirectly) elected citizen. But have a read of this it may be interesting and it shows my point with some very good sources to follow up on: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/pop24/c01
So I'd say that the United States is a democracy and a republic (has a president as head of state). The UK is a democracy and a constitutional monarchy (has the King as head of state). I won't edit the page because I'm new and also I think it warrants discussion first. GinAlley (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)