Talk:Republic (disambiguation)

Comment 2005

See also talk:Republic (Plato) --Francis Schonken 22:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discussion 2018

The note after Federal republic is not needed. The words "Federal republic" are clear enough by themselves. The notes imply some agenda for promotion and violate basic neutrality.
The note after Republic of Ireland is not needed. The country's name is a well accepted label for that nation. Again, the notes imply some agenda for promotion and violate basic neutrality. It looks like vandalism.
The note after United States of America is another implication of someone's personal agenda and violates basic neutrality. Should be removed.
---DHT863 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason for Republic of Ireland to be in the list of governments - if there is then the note should explain what it's purpose is.
What is purpose of Republic of South Africa on the list? Could be removed.
What is purpose of Weimar Republic on the list? Could be removed.
More later. --- DHT863 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does MOSFAB mean? --- DHT863 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on this disambiguation page of consequence or profundity. For the sake of time, let's all move ahead please. Do not "undo" another person's hard work unless they show an outrageous blunder of giant magnitude. Simply build on previous efforts. Don't be obstructionist. Don't be adversarial. Do be civil, say please and thank you, say welcome, say apologize if necessary. Be helpful to rookies by stating exactly what line of Wikipedia's Style Manual is important and explain how it applies. --- DHT863 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but these are all statements of opinion.

No, the term federal republic alone is not self-explanatory, and the description didn't indicate an obvious agenda of any sort.
No, the note after Ireland is quite helpful.
Again, no.
Perhaps. I'm not overly familiar with this era or whether it might ever have been known as simply "republic" it "the republic".

Disambiguation pages are not meant to have anything of "consequence or profundity". They are nothing more than a navigational aide to help readers locate articles that may be referenced by ambiguous terms. WP:MOSDAB is shortcut for the disambiguation page style guideline. older ≠ wiser 02:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your reply is not understandable. Until you show honest respectful commentary I have not choice but to "undo". The burden is on you. Please try to be civil and don't start an edit war. I beg that you review the concepts of neutrality, objectivity, intellectual honesty. --- DHT863 (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is a navigational tool. The purpose of this page is solely to help a reader looking for something they seek as "Republic" or "The Republic" to find the English Wikipedia article which will best answer them. Annotations on the page are to help clarify which entry is which, or to explain why a particular entry is on this page. This page is not the place to include examples of entities which are not republics or other WP:POV issues. WP:MOSDAB has much to say on disambiguation pages and what should and should not be included. PamD 08:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is for navigation but your execution is very confusing rather than helpful. The very first line "where the citizens choose the leaders of their country" might mean something to you personally but adds nothing except possible confusion because it sounds odd like a political agenda. Definitions are not allowed on disamb pages. The solution is to replace first two lines with "A Republic or The Republic may refer to:".

Next the phrase "a federation of states with a republican form of government" is redundant and confusing rather than helpful.

The choice of items listed under Governments is mysterious to me. If you want Federal republic then there must Democratic republic for symmetry. But then neither one should be there because the use lower case republic. A Federal republic is a concept of political science and is not a government. Why is Republic of South Africa on the list and what is so special compared to all the other republics in the world? --- DHT863 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DHT863: You have described the annotation "a federation of states with a republican form of government" as POV: it is taken directly from the lead sentence of the target article, so has been accepted there as a good neutral description of the term. Please stop removing it. PamD 18:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: It's the context. In the context of the article it is okay but take it out of context and anything could lose the same as this case. In this case, I am saying it definitely has lost something because it looks and sounds redundant: ie "Federal = a federation of states" and "republic = with a republican form of government" - hard to get more repetitive than that. Unless you have another explanation then you are forcing me to continue removing the redundancy. I do have a proposal for compromise: why not simply remove the entire line after all why is "Federal republic" in that list in the first place. If there's a valid reason then that would also imply that "Democratic republic" should also be there for balance. How is "Federal republic" any better than "Democratic republic"? So my offer to you is either remove the note after Federal republic and insert Democratic republic or alternatively remove the entire line of "Federal republic". This is not an issue of style or application of rules but common average intelligent objectivity. Can you possibly give a convincing argument to justify your version? I have not heard one yet. --- DHT863 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Another alternative is to rewrite the note in a way that says what you mean without being redundant. If it's clear to me then we're good to go. --- DHT863 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DHT863 Sorry, but there is nothing redundant or POV about a simple description that echoes the language of the linked article. I'm beginning to think that it is YOU that have some sort of ideological chip on your shoulder and are seeking to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that exist only in your own mind. older ≠ wiser 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To older PamD Following by DHT863: Sorry you're unable to explain or defend your ideas except by denial because there is definitely a redundancy and POV problem. You lifted a line out of context and I strongly recommend that you use more care in the future. In fact, you could solve the redundancy issue by rewriting the note in your own words in a way that says what you want us to know but corrects the redundancy issue. We have not been able to figure out why you want that note attached or what your intention was. We can not imagine what the message is and you will not offer any clues, none. On another issue, if it is okay with you then I would like to insert "Democratic republic" in the list as a show of fairness. Can I do that or would you prefer to make the edit? Thanks. --- DHT863 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you have not shown that there is any POV and the redundancy is questionable. It is a completely ROUTINE matter to echo the lead of the linked article as the description of the item. If there is some bias (evidently detectable only to yourself) you should address it in that article. older ≠ wiser 22:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To wiser Following by DHT863: Well, maybe your right but are you backing down from "denial" to just "questionable"? I hate to repeat but that note is about as redundant at it gets. I'm saving it as a joke about the problem of redundancy. As for a "ROUTINE" matter, the application of that concept does require picking a wise choice in order to avoid blunders such as redundancy. It can't be all that "routine" if that's the only line where it is used. What is the difference between a note after "Federal republic" and blank spaces after Republic of South Africa or after Roman Republic or after Weimar Republic? Could the difference be that there is a POV that is important to note about a Federal republic? I simply wish you could rewrite the note in a way that is not a redundancy. I think you know that is a fair option. If, as you claim, there is no POV issue then it is easy to prove your case by inserting another line for "Democratic republic". That would be proof to me. Thank you for all your time and effort. --- DHT863 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Bkonrad Following by DHT863: The note after Federal republic has a POV problem because "a federation of states" refers to the states of the US and that is irrelevant to rest of world. Secondly, there is a POV problem with "a republican form of government" which refers to US Republican Party. In order to avoid redundancy and POV problem I suggest the note be replaced with: "Federal republic, a type of republic modified by concepts of federalism". Isn't that more universal? --- DHT863 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The note after Federal republic has a POV problem because "a federation of states" refers to the states of the US and that is irrelevant to rest of world. In other words, you have an issue with the phrasing of the the lead in the federal republic. As a disambiguation page, this only reflects what content the reader can expect to find at the linked article. there is a POV problem with "a republican form of government" which refers to US Republican Party -- no, what world do you live in where a "republican form of government" refers to the US Republican Party? Do you have sources for that? That certainly is not what the linked article says and it is not what I think any reasonable person seeing the phrase is going to think. older ≠ wiser 16:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Bkonrad; following by DHT863: Let me explain more: I go to other sites open to commentators from around the world. You never know what country your talking to. It could be Canada, British, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India, Western Europe, Northern Europe, and so on. You have to learn how universality is demanded from around the world. Citizens outside of the US find it offensive that the US calls itself "America" because that is the name for the whole new world North, South, and Central. You can get into a long drawn out argument about politics only to learn that they thought "republic" meant that the Republican Party was in control. Sounds dumb to you but the point is it is not necessary. You can avoid confusion by dedicating efforts to universality dedicated to neutral POV. Assume everything is subject to misunderstanding and choose words carefully to say not only what you mean but communicate your ideas in the most objective, truthful, neutral point of view. Wikipedians must learn to write in "International English". By writing in colloquial American English you can ruin Wikipedia as a source of information for the rest of the world. I don't want to step on toes here but maybe you can discuss this with PamD to learn more. Thanks. -- DHT863 (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your issue seems to be with the language used in the article. It is not the purpose of the descriptions on disambiguation entries to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, merely to give an indication of what is in the article. older ≠ wiser 17:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Bkonrad; following by DHT863: Just curious but who else have you discussed this with? Are you a member of a group? And how did you acquire the authority to police this article? Thanks. -- DHT863 (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No special authority is needed. But there are guidelines that should be followed, such as WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 19:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I came here because of DHT863's request at the help page. I'd never seen this disamb page before. I've read all the page and all the comments above, and you seem to be picking a fight where none exists. Please stop. User:Bkonrad, Pam and I all have tens of thousands of edits, you currently have 122, nearly all to this disamb and its talk page. Isn't it at least possible that you may be wrong? Even if you are not, the consensus is not to implement your suggested changes, so that's what will happen. Uninvolved admin User:Black Kite has protected the page temporarily so you don't continue reverting and get yourself blocked for disruptive editing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone at least explain why my suggestions are wrong? I don't claim any great infallibility but my suggestions are offered as honest improvements. It is unfair to say my suggestions are "wrong" and imply that I'm a vandal. So here I am on the Talk page searching for "consensus" but nobody talks. My only intention is improvement and conformance to all other similar pages. The only reason I am focusing on this page is because it looks weird compared to other similar pages - to me that is a signal it needs polishing. Is there anyone one that is able to grant me the courtesy of admitting the merits of my suggestions and then explain why you don't want my improvements - I have no trouble accepting rational explanations. I don't want to step on any toes. I don't want to upset procedures. I'm very disturbed by the accusation of "picking a fight"? But please, help me understand by explaining rather than dishing out denials. Thanks. -- DHT863 (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misused political terms

Regarding "Federal republic" meaning "a federation of states with a republican form of government": a republic can not be a monarchy but it can be an autocracy, an oligarchy, or a democracy. So a democracy can have a republican form of government (the philosophy not the US political party) but an autocratic republic can not have a republican form of government and an oligarchic republic can not have a republican form of government only a democratic republic can. The reason is because the principles of republicanism require that a nation must have a democratic form of government in order to be considered as complying with the philosophy. So the note is ambiguous unless it clearly states that it only refers to the special case of a "federal democratic republic". The note is kind of trivial and I don't see that it serves any useful purpose. -- Calif.DonTracy (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is it your opinion that the first sentence in the federal republic article is incorrect? If so, make the case on the talk page for that article. Disambiguation pages merely reflect the articles to which they refer and cannot make assertions that are not supported by the linked article. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]