Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical definition of republic

Classical definition of republic

This is a personal essay (and a rather good one) based on individual research by a user who cannot accept the neutrality policy no matter how many times it is explained to him (see the talk page). There appears to be no prospect of him allowing it to become npov. He is of the opinion that his idiosyncratic views are fact because he has read many books and fully referenced his article. I think he needs to find another outlet for his views, as Wikipedia is not suited to his purpose. Wincoote 01:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• This is the best-written and most extensively sourced original research article I've ever seen. But it's still original research, so delete. Szyslak 02:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a research paper. It's too long and the primary author expects readers to follow footnotes to read other sources. I shouldn't have to read other sources to understand an encyclopedia article. Hedgeman 05:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not for original research. This (set of) article(s) is original research. Delete. Uncle G 08:17, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. --Sillydragon 08:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I was rather worried about Wheeler's sanity when reading the discussion pages on this; a long walk or a cold bath might help him calm down a bit. It is clearly a well written and researched piece but as various people have said - it is original research. Brookie 16:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial, pedantic original research about nominal linguistic shift in the usage of the word republic, not well-written, fuzzy-headed and rantish too. Does that about sum it up? Wyss 21:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP This is not Original Research; it cannot be since all the information it contains appears to come from the public domain. It may be an "Original Compilation" but then, so are all the articles that I write. Extracting information from text books and other published resources is not Research. Besides it looks like a very scholarly article and a valid contribution to Wikipedia. ping 07:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • subsequently....withdrawing my vote to keep; I stand corrected on the definition of Original Research. ping 06:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note, rossb below responds to this in a way that's similar to my own thinking... except that I don't think any salvage effort would be worth it. Wyss 09:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much, perhaps most original research in the humanities is based on information that is in the public domain. In fact I doubt that there is any significant information about the classics which isn't in the public domain. Wincoote

• • This is Original Research. It may make use of published sources, but it uses them in a very idisyncratic way, to attempt to prove a particular thesis. Basically it assumes that when classical or other authors use the terms res publica in Latin, politeia in Greek, or commonwealth in English they are all referring to a particular constitutional form of mixed government, which in many cases is pretty evidently not the case. Delete (or possibly re-work under a title such as Constitutional theory of mixed government so as not to hijack the term "Republic").rossb 07:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, the talk page makes it clear that the article was written as soapboxing. But do you really believe there's nothing here that can be salvaged for other articles? Citing sources in support of original assertions is OR, but describing what sources say themselves is not. The article has a great deal of the latter. Gazpacho 08:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the main author wouldn't permit it and there are plenty of articles on related issues which can be worked on more constructively. The whole slant of this article is too idiosyncratic for it to be worth anyone's effort to try to turn it into something else, and no one is likely to want to deal with the hysterical reaction that would be the likely response of the main writer. Thus there is no realistic prospect of it ever becoming npov. Wincoote 09:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article rather hysterically describes a non-descript linguistic shift in a word's usage over the past 2500 years or so. Ironically, this shift appears to be somewhat less than average, and I sense that the author has some PoV political ax to grind (among other things). Wyss 09:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. (Note to administrator: but don't count this as a Keep if that would block a consensus to Delete). While there are some paragraphs that are original research and the article seems to have been written to present the author's somewhat idiosyncratic POV about republican or "mixed" government, I don't think it suffers from this more than a great many other articles, and there is a considerable amount of useful fact. The original research aspects can be cleaned up, although the attitude of the author on the Talk page suggests that this might be a bit of a battle. The basic problem I have with the article is that it overlaps the topic of Republic, and I don't see sufficient grounds for it to be an independent article. It should be merged with Republic, although I hesitate to set WHEELER loose on that article. By the way, I don't find this article terribly well-written. Yes: the sentences are grammatical and the diction and style are those of an educated writer. But it is a bit disturbing to see these labelled as "good writing" because the article is really too long, meandering, unfocused, and a bit muddled. --BM 15:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was just trying to reduce the outrage about the nomination I expected from WHEELER, but by the standards of 99% of articles nominated on here it is a work of genius. Still no sign of him surprisingly, and a consensus is established now. Wincoote 08:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Today on the talk page he basically called me a Marxist with "Jewish" thinking. Funny that, since being a descendant of resourceful, independant-minded anabaptists, their lingering influence strikes me at almost every turn of my life. He's only managed to strengthen my opinion that the content of this article is so riddled with hysterical agenda, any NPoV content would require much work to glean and merge, so my vote to delete it all does stand. Wyss 17:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • The problem with merging it with Republic is that although it purports to be about the concept of a republic, it's really about the use of certain words which would not actually equate to "republic" in modern usage, and about a certain type of mixed government which the author on very dubious grounds maintains is the "true" definition of a republic. rossb 15:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, I wouldn't suggest that it should be merged en bloc, but tather that the useful material and information from the article be worked into Republic. But if nobody wants to undertake that, it is also fine with me if the article is just deleted. --BM 15:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I somewhat agree, but ultimately fall closer to the direction of deletion. -Sean Curtin 02:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any salvageable content into republic, delete article - this title is pretty useless, and any links should just be changed. The article is really a mixed bag. It's written to present a particular argument, so it effectively becomes a personal essay. It's also not terribly coherent, and frequently synthesizes material in ways that give the whole product a strong feel of original research. However, the republic article is no great shakes either, and obviously this article is written as a critique of that one. Some elements could be saved, but what is really needed is someone with a much better grounding in the theory of political science to give the entire subject area a major rewrite. --Michael Snow 17:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've started editing the Republic article, initially the opening paragraphs, and will maybe do a bit more from time to time (not that I'm an expert). Actually I think we should be very careful what we import into that article from "Classical definition of republic". By the way I see from a link on Republic that Wheeler has now reproduced "Classical definition of republic" at Wikinfo:Classical republic classical definition of the republic. Wikinfo is probably a much more suitable vehicle for this sort of work than Wikipedia, so we shoudn't feel too bad about deleting all his hard work. rossb 21:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In Defense of the Classical definition of republic

• The editors of Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal ( editors: Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pp 265 & 267) have printed the right definitions:
  • 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.
  • 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.

Where did this information come from????????????????????????? In 1995, This is a definition that says that a republic is mixed!!!!! So where in the republic article, is this """"mixed"""" answered and spoken about?????

And if you read the Bibliography section of the Classical definition of a republic, you would see that there. It is all there. Why don't you people read?????

• Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a PHD in Political Science wrote, "It will be seen that the classical and scientific meaning of that word remained unchanged for 2300 years, not withstanding the scandalous ignorance displayed by editors, teachers, college professors, stump orators, and other irresponsible persons who are prominent in the public eye." (Menace of the Herd, 1943 pg 2.)

To the charge of "original research"--What the heck is Ball's and Dagger's definition come from? Von Kuehnelt has degrees in philosophy and economics and a PHD in Political Science and he doesn't know what he is talking about?

• Cite your sources is ""Wikipedia"" policy!!!! Without sources and references and quotes, any articles ARE USELESS TO COLLEGE STUDENTS AND GRADUATE STUDENTS. I write my articles so that college and graduate students can use my work to further their work.

I am rewriting the convention of an encyclopaedic article. I am thinking outside the box. With the internet and this format, we are not confined to a publishers and written paper format. Our articles can be expanded to be really useful and much more academically fruitfull.

• I am writing an article so that a sixth grader, who has no classical reading, can understand the concept and theory. I am writing an article, per Wikipedia, that an Asian kid or a South American kid can understand who don't have all the references close at hand. Many don't have bibles--How can they not understand the impact the Bible had thoroughtout the Protestant and Roman Catholic Worlds, without it being referenced.

• The Greeks and Romans are the 'Root and Foundation of our civilization. Cut them away, and we are lost. This article is neccessary to understanding our ancestors actions both in Rome, Early Modern Britain, and Colonial America.

• Your ignorance of the matter, your bad education, your propagandist teachers, your lack of reading of the classics and your lack of wide reading, is not an excuse to label my work "original".

Your actions of delete, are proof positive that I have to include a lot in the article because of the lack of classical education, classical works, and an understanding of Greek philosophy; Classical culture, Classical thinking, and Classical milleau.

• The Discussion page is just that---A DISCUSSION PAGE. And I will use it for a soapbox if I want to. That is what it is there for.

• I do acknowledge that some of it is a little "Original" research because Logic and the principle of non-contradiction requires it. For example, the British word for commonwealth is the same for republic. If England Tudor was called a Republic, how can the following roundheads under Cromwell call it a Commonwealth. Paramenides principle will come into play. The Principle of noncontradiction. Immediately any teenager or sixth grader is going to come upon immediate confusion. It's right there. W/O a little bit of clarification, the confusion disappears. Paramenides principle comes into play. It must be used.

• What many of you forget is that COMMONWEALTH is for everbody not just for the people. What about the "commonweal" for the Aristocracy? HUh???? What about the "commonweal" for the Monarch, his family and relatives? What about them???? That these groups of people don't deserve the "Commonweal". A republic/commonwealth is a for a concern for ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE REALM. Some how you people think that the common weal only is for the lower class---That is BS.

When you say that the Commonwealth is only for the lower classes, you are turning the Commonwealth into a democracy!!!!!

• Modern people have a habit of liking to tell other people what to think. With the inclusion of many quotes, I have made the article much more interesting for kids. I let the people speak for themselves. It is much more clearer that way. Here is another inovation. That will enhance Wikipedia as the place to go. Let the words speak for themselves instead of me telling or interpreting what they said, which will propably be the wrong way any way.

• User talk:Wheeler/Confusion over term republic

• As a Greek, I am writing an article for Sixth graders and for College students. All can use it with the simplest of language, thorough for those ignorant of classical millelieu and sources and thorough referencing for graduate students and teachers. All may use it.