Talk:Republic/Archive 4

Some of the talk on this page relates to text that can be found at following external link: Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic

Progress Report
I haven't seen any progress, just aimless name-calling. I wish you guys would exemplify the republican ideals you're all so keen on describing. How about allowing alternate POVs in the article, as Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger suggests? "Describe the dispute fairly."

WHEELER got a 24-hour block for the personal remark highlighted above. Play nice, kids. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I created an almost entirely new article at Republicanism that covers the different definitions of the term republic, and some of the current debates over the issue in the scholarly community. It also incorporates a fair bit of the article Wheeler is trying to link to. The difficulty is that Wheeler asserts there is only one of these definition is the "correct" one, which makes compromise difficult. - SimonP 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps when he comes back he'll clarify whether he wants the article to endorse one definition as correct, or merely describe the various definitions. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:37, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not about endorsing anything. It is that SimonP refuses to allow an external link.  That is the root of the problem.  And Mr. SimonP refuses to face facts.WHEELER 14:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From: When should I link externally
 * Is there any policy about extremely non-neutral external links in the Wikipedia? If so, what is it? If not, one will have to make sure that articles with links to non-neutral sites should also have links to non-neutral sites representing opposing ideas. Marcos 21:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * This has been my recent headache (see en:Arthritis for a little "link insertion war"). There's nothing wrong with a POVed link, as long as the link description makes a clear statement which POV is represented (which is not immediately obvious). I have, for example, seperated the links under en:Judaism to form categories, including one with criticisms. This makes immediately obvious which POV you'll see represented. JFW T@lk 11:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

SimonP, here is some clarification. POV links are not forbidden. WHEELER 14:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly POV links might be alright, but linking to one's own site is self-promotion and spam, which is banned. Moreover your link is not just POV but deeply factually incorrect. - SimonP 14:59, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

It is NOT factually incorrect and Wikinfo is an ONLINE ENCYCLOPAEDIA. WHEELER 15:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why then was it deleted from Wikipedia? - SimonP 15:56, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's stop beating around the bush and go to arbitration. You keep changing the rules.  I just pointed out that POV links are alright.  I want to go to arbitration.  Because nothing I do or say, you will acknowledge.  Just let the External link in.  What's the problem?  It's just that you don't want to happen no matter what factual proof I have. WHEELER 16:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you feel arbitration is necessary then go ahead. I never said the link should not belong because it is POV.  It does not belong because it is original research and factually incorrect. - SimonP 16:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Everbody blew their cool, when I said a republic is the Golden mean between Asian monarchical despostism and democracy. Not only was this Plato's thought but also a US Army Training Manual's definition of the term.
 * 1) Padeia, The Ideals of Greek Culture, Werner Jaeger, translated by Gilbert Highet, Oxford University Press, NY, l944.  Vol III, pg 236.  References to Plato's Laws 693d-e
 * 2) "In the passage that follows, the United States Army Military Manual (published in 1928 and in use for the suceeding four years {TM 2000-25}) strongly contrasts the three forms of government: autocracy, democracy, and "represntative government&mdash;the American experiment", describing the last as 'the golden mean between autocracy and democracy'". Menace of the Herd, Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Bruce Publishing Co., 1943. pg 11.

I do agree that 30% or less of Classical republic is original material. But it doesn't make it useless. It is good for an external link.

Look SimonP, There is a modern definition of effeminacy, This definition does not apply to the classical world or to Victorian English culture and literature. There is a Classical definition of effeminacy. It is needed to seperate different connotations of the word. There is [Modern Republicanism] and [Classical definition of republic]. There are differences between the modern and classical world.WHEELER 16:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wheeler, those US Army Training Manuals, while very interesting, also are often crazy, ignorant, and/or pushing a POV. I've collected a few of them (the one on political philosophy is quite amusing). I don't think they're a very good resource for anything we should take as gospel because of their often nutty content, outside of military topics. I imagine the US Army Training Manuals made today, if they still cover as broad a set of topics, are a bit more sane. :) --Improv 18:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also have found important evidence of more confusion. Rousseau called Sparta a "participatory democracy" in his Social Contract. Republics; Ancient and Modern, Rahe, pg 5. There is a lot of confusion over this term. Before the French revolution, anybody that said "republic" meant that it was mixed. That is the classical meaning and that is the title of mixed government is Republic. WHEELER 16:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * According to almost every scholar the concept of republic did not exist in the classical world, so a classical defintion is a non-sequitur. You have made the common beginner's mistake of misunderstanding what the term "classical republicanism" means.  It does not refer to the ancient world, but confusingly to the early modern period. - SimonP 16:50, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * How can the "concept of republic" not exist in the classical world? It's a Roman word.  Cicero called Sparta a Republic and Plato's treastise called the "Politiea" the Romans translated as "The Republic".  So again, I beg to differ with you.  Republicanism got its start in Greece, Read Rahe's Republics, Ancient and Modern.  It's all there.  Modern Republicanism got its start with Locke, Hume and Rousseau.  They changed the meaning of it.  You can not transport the "modern" meaning into the classical world. WHEELER 21:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The [Classical definition of republic] is about just the form of government and the sense of duty and virtue.  Crete and Sparta had the first Mixed government. Their government was called a republic by many writers. Would you allow the Classical definition of republic to be placed as an external link on Sparta, Venice, Mixed government, Republic article pages?  This is all I am asking.WHEELER 21:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, get the article undeleted if you feel it is accurate. There is a great difference between the Roman term res publica and the current term republic.  In Roman times res publica was a general term covering a wide array of government types.  Even you don't claim that Plato's The Republic has any link to the Cicero's.  It was not until the classical republic was developed in the Renaissance that republicanism became an ideology. - SimonP 23:28, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * You say this: "There is a great difference between the Roman term res publica and the current term republic." That is what I have been trying to get across to you forever. That is why there is a [classical definition of republic] and if you read Cicero he calls Sparta a republic "because it was mixta". WHEELER 20:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why ask for its undeletion when I acknowledge that it does have some original research in it. That is not allowed on Wikipedia.  I understand that and acknowledge that.  What I can't understand is why you won't allow an external link from another online encyclopaedia.WHEELER 20:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * We already have an article at res publica that describes the classical use of that term. - SimonP 00:44, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

You know SimonP, you need to read. I just bought the complete three volume set Republics, Ancient and Modern by Paul Rahe. If you go to the index of HIS book and look under the term "Classical republicanism" you will see that he marks "pp 14-202" and adds the word "passim". Classical republicanism is all about all the ancient Greek cities that were "brotherhoods of peasant warriors" pg 45.
 * "What the proponents of modern republicanism saw as a virtue their ancient counterparts viewed as a vice." pg 47.
 * "Warrior communities embody an entirely different morality". pg 62.
 * "The recognition that the unleashing of the commercial instinct would undermine the moral foundations of classical republicanism by destroying every vestige of martial spirit did not provoke consternation in circles." pg 63.
 * "Sparta was neither a monarchy nor a democracy...The most subtle of the ancient authors described it as a mixed regime." pg 152.
 * "To speak of Sparta as a kingdom, an aristocracy, an oligarchy, or even a democracy would be to take the part for the whole. Lacedæmon was, in fact, all and none of the above.  It was, as the ancient writers ultimately concluded, a mixed regime&mdash;an uneasy compromise between competing principles that managed to prevent or at least retard the emergence of partial societies by somehow admitting and somehow denying the claims of all". pg 170.

Classical republicanism is in regards to Ancient Greece, not as User:SimonP wants in classical republicanism which is totally false. Sparta is a republic, pure and simple. Athens came later. A "democratic republic" is really a democracy! Republic is a translation of the Greek word "politeia".

I propose that Mixed government be changed to classical republicanism, the current classical republicanism by SimonP be deleted. His information is totally false. Resurrect [Classical definition of republic], edit it out the original stuff and have an external link to Wikinfo with the complete article until modern scholarship can figure out the mess. There is a difference between Modern republicanism and Classical republicanism. And that when one says a republic, in its pure form, one speaks of a mixed form like Sparta and the martial spirit of the ancient Greeks. Athens is a democratic republic which moved to being just a democracy. Solon copied the Doric Greeks. Krete and Sparta were the original republics. The official title of mixed government is "republic". It is wrong to have an article titled "mixed government" because the founding fathers, and most intelligent writers when they said, "republic" meant mixed government.WHEELER 20:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright list classical republicanism on VfD and let's finally settle this argument. - SimonP 21:52, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Paul A. Rahe&mdash;"At the same time, however, Lacedæmonia was a republic." Republics; Ancient and Modern, pg 169. WHEELER 18:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think I, or anyone else, has denied that under some definitions Sparta can be considered a republic. My Republicanism article even refers to Sparta as a republic. - SimonP 19:30, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Aristotle on the definition of a "politiea". And the whole constitution is intended, it is true, to be neither a democracy nor an oligarchy, but of the form intermediate between them which is termed a republic, for the government is constituted from the class that bears arms.. A republic is not a democracy and is not to be confused with such.
 * Now, above in previous notes, you said, my article is "factually" incorrect. Sparta is a republic and Classical republicansim is about "mixed constitutional government".  Your Wikipedian definition of a republic does not match the republics of Krete, Sparta, or Carthage or Solonic Athens and is patently false and your friend User:Snowspinner is preventing another revote on Votes for undeletion when he deletes the request in toto again. WHEELER 19:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * While it may disagree with your research, my definition agrees with all of the secondary sources I have consulted and I tend to trust accepted academics more than random people on the Internet. - SimonP 20:40, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Who called themselves "republic" in the past is irrelevant, just as many countries that call themselves "democracies" or "democratic" in the past or even today, are hardly democracies. The key criteria is whether they have a constitution and the rule of law. The current page intro seems more like it is defining a democracy than a republic. --Silverback 14:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No one thinks much of the republic article. What is being debated is my republicanism page that I plan to merge with republic once it is unprotected and Wheeler's |Classical definition of republic essay that he wants to add links. - SimonP 16:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is my whole point! I don't think you people have a clear idea that the term "republic" was changed and the ethos of Classical republicanism was changed by Machiavelli, Bacon, Montaigne and others.  You can not place your modern definition of republic back into the classical millileau.  I have another compromise.  Let's resurrect [Classical definition of republic] and name it [Republics in Classical Antiquity] which would include both Roman and Greek republics.  You have your modern definition in Republic and in Republicanism.  But these two articles do not have the same meaning and purpose as would the [republics in Classical Antiquity].  Look SimonP and others.  Aristotle agrees with Plato and Cicero's definition agrees with Aristotle.  Classical republicanism was changed in Early Modern era.  I believe that you are doing a great disservice to the Wikipedia and to knowledge by deleting the [Classical definition of republic], let's rename it and catalog the change in seperate articles. and if you don't like that compromise I suggest that mixed government be changed to Republic (mixed) or Classical Republic.  In speech, what term is one used when one is talking about Sparta?  We don't say. "Yes, I just read a book on the Spartan mixed government".  One says, "Yes, I just read a book on the Spartan republic".  Then, we talk about the "classical republics" of Greece and Rome.  The definition of modern republics is not the definition of classical republics.WHEELER 16:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds like an interesting read. Why don't you resurrect it as User:WHEELER/Classical definition of republic or on wikiinfo and point us to it.  I realize it got deleted from wikipedia proper for some reason.--Silverback 17:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ouch!!, I created the wikilink and it was there! I'll give it a look.--Silverback 17:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I notice that you state that the modern definition has gotten confused with democracy. That certainly is not the case in modern conservative and libertarian intellectual circles.  I was shocked to see a democracy component to the definition here.  It reminds me of when I received some Oracle database training and a questioner asked what a relational database was.  The instructor could only answer that it was what "Oracle" was.  He had no concept of the original mathmatical definition of a relational database was.  Perhaps a similar educational oversight or information loss has happened to the term "republic".--Silverback 17:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the notion of a republic as "not a democracy" is native to the United States. That definition is thus covered in the "Republicanism in the United States" section of the republicanism article - SimonP 17:26, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Since most of the native english speakers in the world are in the United States perhaps the US definition should be the primary one. There appear to be those in other countries that also adopt the US definition.  It is unfortuantely that sloppy thinking is causing it to lose its distinction from democracy.  It is a waste of a word.--Silverback 20:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * While the U.S. definition is not used elsewhere, the other definitions are also common in the United States. All U.S. philosophers and political scientists use the definition described in "republicanism as an ideology."  The "modern republicanism" popular over the last few years is also mainly an American development. - SimonP 20:53, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted is also not the defintion used Wheeler, what you do not understand is that there is no such thing as a classical definition of republic, the word did not exist. There are a variety of terms that are sometimes translated as republic by modern scholars. For instance politea is sometimes translated as republic, but also sometimes as constitution. Aristotle defines it as any "arrangement of the inhabitants of a state" and he considers all of the Greek city states to be politea. The Latin term res publica is also sometimes translated as republic, but it in fact simply means "thing of the people." One cannot simply combine these various terms to fabricate an ancient republican ideology. - SimonP 17:26, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is!! I just wrote above Aristotle's definition of politiea. That it is the intermediate step between democracy and oligarchy. As I have pointed above, many scholarly works are now using the term "Classical republic" for the republics of ancient Greece and Rome. We have to live with the fact that the Romans translated "politiea" as republic. We can not undo what has been accepted. Many people, especially the Founding Fathers, when they spoke of a "republic" they meant bicameralism and mixed government. That is the sense of America. You and the British, Canadian and Australian counterparts have "one side of the picture". You acknowledge that I have the "American view". I agree that there is no "ancient idelogy" that is why I used the term "Philisophy of mixed government" and not ideology or the word "Classical republicanism" because it is not a ideology. We need to have some accomodation for the American meaning and Classical meaning and the British modern meaning from Machiavelli.WHEELER 17:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There is another point. The Romans were not "original thinkers". They copied everything.  They copied the Greeks.  They were also Indo-Europeans that they naturally grew up with a Senate much like how Homer describes the Ionian government in the Illiad.  Before it was ever named a "Res publica", There was "Rex divina" and "rex ordinare".  There were Three "Rex's" that delinated several things in Roman law and custom.  "Rex publica" is not an invention just for the "Roman republic" which was bicameral, and therefore mixed.WHEELER 17:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood the passage in Aristotle. When he refers to a polity as "neither a democracy nor an oligarchy" that is not his view. It is his description of the views of Plato, which Aristotle goes on to reject. - SimonP 18:07, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

 Modern scholarly works 
 * "Polybius' theme is the imperium Romanum in expansion, and on it he sets the seal of Greek approval when he declares it to be the result, not of chance, but of manifest destiny working through the agency of her chosen people; adding, in characteristic fashion, that the success of the Romans is to be ascribed to the advantages of the  'mixed form'  at the time fashionable in Greek political philosophy." 50


 * "The histories of ancient Greece published at that period, though encapsulating a great deal of truthful historical data, were intended to provide an antidote to political liberalism, whilst pledging the encomium of the ‘harmonious’ British mixed constitution." 53


 * "While Gordon Wood continues to emphasize the emergence of liberalism in post-Revolutionary American society in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, he also demonstrates the persistence of classical republican values, particularly among the founders' generation and aristocratic class." 86


 * "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." 68


 * "The recognition that the unleashing of the commercial instinct would undermine the moral foundations of classical republicanism by destroying every vestige of martial spirit did not provoke consternation in all circles". 88

Here simon is the term used in four different scholarly works which doesn't at all match your classical republicanism.WHEELER 18:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. Mixed government was a part classical republican thought, and the classical republicanism article says exactly that. What I have been saying is that it is not the only element. - SimonP 19:31, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

 Aristotle's Politics  The first thing to notice is that in the Politics, Aristotle DOES NOT LEAD OFF with Athens! It starts with Krete, then Sparta, then Carthage and then Solonic Athens.
 * "And the whole constitution is intended, it is true to be neither a democracy nor an oligarchy, but the form intermediate between them which is termed a republic, for the government is constituted from the class that bears arms. Loeb, pg 105; &sect;1265b 25; II, iii,9.
 * "As for Solon, he is considered by some people to have been a good lawgiver, as having put an end to oligarchy when it was too unqualified and having liberated the people from slavery and established our traditional democracy with a skillful blending of the constitution: the council on the Areopagus being an oligarchic element, the elective magistracies aristocratic and the law-courts democratic". Loeb, pg 165; &sect;1273b 35; II, ix, 2.
 * Right below this is: "...Solon seems merely to have abstained from destroying institutions that existed already, he does appear to have founded the democracy by constituting the jurycourts from all the citizens." (This means that the future democracy grew out of the jury courts that grew too strong.) ibid.
 * "For as the law-court grew strong, men courted favor with the people as with a tyrant, and so brought the constitution to the present democracy". ibid.
 * "...in this manner finally the successive leaders of the people (ed. note: like Hitler, like Mussolini, Like Roosevelt, Like Mao Tse-Tung, Like Lenin, like Trotsky, like Pol Pot, like Gus Hall, like Bill Clinton, etc and so forth) led them on by growing stages to the present democracy. Loeb pg 167; &sect;1274a 10; II, x, 3-4.
 * "But this does not seem to have come about in accordance with the intention of Solon, but rather as a result of accident (for the common people...became proud and adopted bad men as popular leaders when the respectable classes opposed their policy)...ibid.WHEELER 17:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 Aristotle's Athenian Constitution  Now remember, this was not extant until the 1890's. Noone, Machiavelli, The Founding Fathers, John Aylmer, Rene Descarte, Montaigne, John Locke or any others had the Athenian Constitution!
 * "The Council of Areopagus was the guardian of the laws, and kept watch on the magistrates to make them govern in accordance with the laws." Loeb, 21; iv 2-4.
 * "These reforms made the constitution much more democratic than that of Solon; for it had come about that the tyranny had obliterated the laws of Solon by disuse, and Cleisthenes aiming at the multitude (ed. note: the Herd) had instituted other new ones, including the enactment of the law about ostracism." Loeb pg 67; xxii 1.
 * "At this date, therefore, the state had advanced to this point, growing by slow stages with the growth of democracy;..." Loeb pg 71; xxii, 1.
 * "But as the populatiojn increased, Ephialtes...having become the head of the People (ed. note: the Herd) and having the reputation of being incorruptable and just in reagard to the constitution, attacked the Council. First he made away with many of the Areopagites by bringing legal proceedings against them...he stripped the Council of all its added powers which made it the safeguard of the constitution..." Loeb pg 75; xxv 1-2.
 * "In this way the Council of the Areopagites was deprived of the superintendence of affairs. After this there came about an increased relaxation of the constitution, due to the eagerness of those who were the leaders of the People." Loeb pg 77; xxvi 1. (ed. note: "relaxation"="effeminacy"; soft nations breed soft men)
 * Pericles lived under a full democracy. A democracy in full force. The government was not mixed.WHEELER 18:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Please summarise the above in your own words as much as possible. That will make it easier for people to follow the discussion. Kim Bruning 18:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 Aristotle's Politics 
 * "Deviations from the constitutions mentioned are tyranny corresponding to kingship, oligarchy to aristocray, and democracy to consititutional government (the Greek word is "politeia"); for tyranny is monarchy ruling in the favor of the monarchy (or one in charge); oligarchy government in the interest of the rich, democracy government in the interest of the poor; and none of these forms governs with regard to the profit of the community." Loeb 207; &sect;1279b 5-10; III, v, 4. Later on, he calls democracy "the rule of the poor".

I have to do this Kim because SimonP refers to the Wikipedian article on Athenian democracy which is in error. I just want an external link and I believe that some parts of the [Classical definition of republic] be reconstituted. He is still blocking. And plain English does not help. Aristotle in the above phrase mentions that democracy is the bad form of politeia. I mean I write an article with over 90 references and still noone can figure out the mess. I wish somebody would around here. I quote and we go around in circles. I quote and he opines. I don't know how to make it any clearer.WHEELER 19:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is all in Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic. Solon created a "mixed government". SimonP refutes that. Cleisthenes restored some of it but not all of the Solonic institutions. Epiaphltes destroyed the "mixed" constitution of Athens and inaugurated the "democracy". SimonP wants to say that "politeia" is the same as democracy. It is not! Democracy is democracy and "politiea" are republics. This is the classical definition. How hard is this to understand?WHEELER 19:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So the question is, "When are you going to allow an external link? Am I free to put an External link from Wikinfo? I am waiting for an answer. WHEELER 14:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * When did I claim politea means democracy? - SimonP 15:16, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that democracy and republic are mutually incompatible, they are not. An English translation of Discourses LIX can be found here (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149d/bk1ch59.html). - SimonP 16:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) pulled up quote by SimonP. Notice every time I catch him he turns the tables again.  Around and Around we go. WHEELER 16:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Compatible, adj, capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another. Being compatible does not mean they are the same thing. - SimonP 16:57, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Simon, simon, "Democracy" and "Politiea" are titles given to subjects. Democracy is not an interchangeable word for "republic". When one says the word "Democracy" what comes to mind is a government controlled by the people. When one says the word "classical republic" what comes to mind are the self-governments of Greece and Rome and any government that is mixed like England and America. When one says the word, "Modern republic" or just "republic", what comes to mind, Okay, "This person is talking about a government without a monarch for its head or any constitutional government. Democracy and politiea are not compatible because they mean TWO different sets of ideas.  The words "cat" and "dog" are not compatible because they mean TWO different sets of ideas.  There is "modern republicanism" and "Classical republicanism". Classical republicanism is not and ideology.  It just represents the form of mixed government with the martial ethos and virtues.  Besides, "The Classical definition of republic" fits into the Kyklos.  No one of your definitions or articles "define" those things which seperate it from others and doesn't fit into the kyklos.  Words are used in Language to transport one idea to the next individual.  If "republic" means, "Any government w/o a king as its head", then any government like "ochlocracy", democracy, aristocracy, is a republic. But Cicero and many others after him like Machiavelli, and Alexander Hamilton, called Sparta a republic.

Athens was a republic too...but only under Solon and Cleisthenes. What those excerpts above say and demonstrate is how Athens turned from a "politiea" to a democracy. The Kyklos. Where do you think Socrates and Plato got the idea of the Kyklos? Where? From Athens of course. There needs to be DEMARCATIONS of definitions of words so people are NOT CONFUSED. And your articles are confusing and the proper title of your mixed government is a [Classical republic](not your definition). WHEELER 18:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added an article on the word politeia, please read it and hopefully you will understand some of the errors you have made. - SimonP 18:37, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)