text:
Talk:Republic/Archive 5

Protection
I would like to have a go at fixing this rather poor article (who on earth said that Switzerland has seven heads of state?). Why is it protected and when is it going to be unprotected? Adam 19:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If your planning to make any changes I suggest making them at the republicanism article. When this article gets unprotected I plan to merge the two. - SimonP 21:04, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

A Republic and republicanism are two different things. The former is a type of state, the latter is an ideology. I don't think they ought to be merged. john k 21:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The two ideas are so closely integrated that while working on these articles I have not found any content that should not be in both articles. - SimonP 21:37, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. For instance, republican ideology in the early American republic, or in France under the Third Republic, ought to go in republicanism, but are not really necessary in republic. The article republic should deal with republics throughout history, like the Venetian Republic of the United Provinces. But there's no real need to talk about these early modern republics in republicanism, since the ideology of republicanism has generally not been very interested in these states. I could continue. john k 23:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * How do we separate "republics through history" from the ever changing ideology that underpinned these republics? Venice was named a republic because the Renaissance classicists felt that it met what they felt was the classical ideal of a republic. The United States was named as a republic, in part, because of the Founding Father's interest in classical and enlightenment republicanism. - SimonP 23:58, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone answer my questions? Adam 02:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is protected because WHEELER is a lunatic. No idea when it is going to be unprotected. john k 06:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adam will fit in well here, in that case. He is a useful mediator and a calming influence. Skyring 20:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All I am asking for is an "External link" to the Classical definition of republic that Mr. SimonP won't allow. Many people have told me it is an excellent article. I don't see why it is not allowed as an external link. And when SimonP tells me that if I wanted it to be an external link that I should ask for the community for an undelete. I did so and User:Snowspinner immediately reverts my request. I don't know what is so wrong with an external link? SimonP erases it from every article I try to put it in.

And to SimonP did the Venetians call their government a "republic" when it wasn't "a state in which sovereignty derives ultimately from the people (however defined), rather than from an hereditary principle". Sparta nor Crete were those things either yet they were republics. So what defines Venice, Sparta and Crete as republics, Mr. SimonP.WHEELER 15:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * This is pretty funny:::: "Why Aristotle uses the same term to refer two distinct ideas has confused readers for millennia. 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 the specific form mentioned earlier." from SimonP's article on "politeia". Here, he disputes with Aristotle, "Why did Aristotle" define it like that??  Here, SimonP is going to argue with Aristotle and say that an Ancient Greek who has written on many subjects is confused over his own language and words of his mother tongue and SimonP is going to set him straight. This is laughable.WHEELER 15:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey, User:John Kenny, I had an article that talked on all of the republics but SimonP deleted the Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic. Take it up with him.  I don't know what is going on.WHEELER 15:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I assume the reasons for protection are much clearer now? john k 15:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then, John K, and SimonP, if you people are so smart, What makes Sparta a republic?WHEELER 15:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sparta can be considered a republic under some definitions of that term, because it was not a monarchy as it had more than one ruler. - SimonP 16:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * "What is some definitions" How does one know which "republic" or what form of "republic" he is refering to?WHEELER 17:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Who are you referring to? If it is Machiavelli it is both the "republicanism as anti-monarchism" and "republicanism as rule by the citizens" definitions of the term. - SimonP 18:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * So which two of these terms apply to Sparta?WHEELER 18:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Both, it had two rulers so it was not a true monarchy and power partially rested with the community due to its mixed government. - SimonP 18:45, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ with you SimonP. The definition of the article on republic states that a Republic gets its sovereignty or power directly from the people, so please explain to me where the "people" developed the Spartan government and granted it power because it looks to me that it was a natural outgrowth of the character of the Dorians and of ONE particular guy.  King Minos for Crete and the aristocratic Lycurgus for Sparta.  So where does the "people" come in.  I notice you changed "people" to "community". So what definitions of republic doesn't it fit under? You specifically said "some definitions".    How many different definitions of republic are there and can you please state all of them and the references for each please.WHEELER 18:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read republicanism, which outlines the various definitions in detail, but here is a quick summary:
 * A republic can be any government system that is not a monarchy, as used in the phrase Canadian republicanism. Machiavelli in The Prince, for instance, states that "all states, all the dominions that have had or now have authority over men have been and now are either republics or princedoms."
 * A republic can also refer to any government system where authority is derived from the people, e.g. Kant in Perpetual Peace states that "the only constitution which derives from the idea of the original compact, and on which all juridical legislation of a people must be based, is the republican... in this respect government is either republican or despotic"
 * Among political scientists republicanism is a ideology based upon the writings of the classical republicans of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, e.g. see Philip Pettit's Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government
 * Especially among the American right a republic is a state that is not ruled directly by the majority but rather who elect representatives and where majority power is circumscribed by a constitution.
 * Republican can refer to something related to any party that calls it self Republican Party e.g. "Republican Senator John McCain"
 * It can be a translation of the Greek term politeia, as in the title of The Republic.
 * - SimonP 19:23, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

You know you talk around in circles. In your politiea you dispute the definition given by aristotle and so being "mixed government" has no place in any of your definitions. Your first definition doesn't match Sparta or Krete or England All three had monarchies, whether Sparta has two makes no difference monarchy or diarchy it is still rule of the royalty. And all the modern scholary works I have quoted all the words "classical republicanism" refers to the Ancient Greeks and Romans not to Machiavelli, or any other early modern era writers or their ideas.WHEELER 19:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You have yet to cite one unambiguous reference where a scholar clearly refers to "classical republicanism" being solely the thought of the ancient world, while I have given many that show it to be an ideology developed in the early modern period based upon classical ideas:
 * The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls it "civic humanism or 'classical republicanism'"
 * A University of Sussex course entirely devoted to the study of classical republicanism states that "the course will focus on the 17th and 18th century"
 * The multi volume Cambridge University Press work Republicanism begins in 1500.
 * The Renaissance Quarterly review of Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections begins "This volume of the Cambridge series Ideas in Context examines the historical and intellectual context of classical republicanism from the late Middle Ages through Florentine Renaissance humanism."
 * The clearest discussion of this issue I have seen is in Bill Brugger's Republican Theory in Political Thought where he comments on how the term classical republicanism is confusing because it misleads people into thinking it was developed in the classical period and thus advocates using the term early modern republicanism instead.
 * - SimonP 20:04, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

This is a silly argument. Since the term res publica is Latin, it is quite ahistorical to try to apply it retrospectively to the states of ancient Greece. It is true that the Romans were influenced by some aspects of the Greek city states but it is a pointless exercise to argue about whether Athens or Sparta were or were nor "republics," particularly since there is no agreed definition of republic. This article should begin with the Roman Republic and work forwards. Adam 21:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * "no agreed definition of republic"? That's odd. You were quite adamant that "A republic is a state whose head of state is a president and not a monarch." Have you changed your mind? Skyring 22:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is the standard definition of a republic in the modern world. Obviously it cannot be used for periods before the concept of "president" was invented. Adam 05:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * President. One who presides. Seems like a fairly basic concept. Those old Greeks weren't all athletics and lounging about peeling grapes, you know. But no, I don't think there's a standard definition for the modern world. Most good dictionaries have three or four, and yours is generally well down the list. Skyring 09:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Cicero labeled Sparta a Republic, i.e. respublica Lacedaemoniorum because it was mixta.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * "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.
 * Classical republicanism emphasized civic duty and social cohesion. Founders and the Classics, Carl J. Richard, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994. pg 3.

 * This is one of SimonP's definition, A republic can also refer to any government system where authority is derived from the people, e.g. Kant in Perpetual Peace states that "the only constitution which derives from the idea of the original compact, and on which all juridical legislation of a people must be based, is the republican... in this respect government is either republican or despotic" Notice that this definition comes from Kant 2000 years after the Greeks and the Romans. This is also the definition of John Locke.  What SimonP wants to do is to REDEFINE what a republic is by people who lived 2000 years after its first creation.  Nowhere does SimonP discuss where this originated FIRST in Western Culture.  It originated first on the Island of Crete; both Aristotle and the classicist Muller agree on this.  SimonP refutes that.  What simonP wants to do is TRANSPORT back into time a Lockean, modernist, humanist definition of republic which is patently false.WHEELER 15:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So when are you going to allow the external link?WHEELER 15:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not. Please try to understand that there is no "classical definition of republic." Can you find anyone else who has ever used the phrase "classical definition of republic," other than yourself, I certainly cannot. In the classical period there were two separate concepts politeia and res publica, both of which had some influence on each other and on republicanism. But republicanism itself was first developed in the Renaissance. - SimonP 16:30, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is so a Classical definition of republic. As I have pointed above from three different scholarly works, all use the term "classical republic" to talk about the republics of Greece and Rome.  There is a need for a classical definition for republic and a modern definition of the term.  When people speak of the republics of Rome and Greece they mean the mixed government of those republics.  Here is the term in its modern meaning:

 * "The constitution of 1793 was a radical instrument providing not only for a republic, but for an ultra-democratic governmental system, whose principle features were: (1) a unicameral legislature...(2) an executive council...(3) the reference of proposed laws to primary assemblies of citizens for definitive action." 98

 * There is a difference because in all the classical republics, there was always a "senate" house. When Athens destroyed the Council of the Aeropagus, then she became no longer a polity but a democracy.  Bicameralism where the upperhouse is the seat of the aristocracy is a true classical republic. For you can see that in the above sentence from a book, you can clearly see that republic is synonomous with democracy.  It was not so for the Ancient Greeks.  For you will not title your mixed government as Republic (mixed goverment) besides how does one say that in language.  For you want to obscound with the term republic and so "mixed government" has no proper single term like it used to.  To mean Republic (mixed government) one says "a classical republic", then the other person knows immediately that one means a goverment that is "socially" mixed with the aristocracy in the upper house and one means the governments of Crete, Sparta, solonic Athens and Rome. But you will not acknowledge this at all.WHEELER 16:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I never denied that one can refer to certain ancient states as republics. What I am arguing is that you cannot say the classical writers had a definition of the word republic. It is similar to feudalism.  It is perfectly appropriate to speak of "medieval feudalism" but trying to explain the "medieval definition of feudalism" is impossible as the term was created centuries later. - SimonP 07:05, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * How can you have republicanism starting in the early modern era? How come Venice was a repubilic in the 13th century way before Machiavelli? Did not the FF of A make a distinction between a "republic" and a "democracy"?
 * "...he was persuaded that the humane, commercial, democratic brand of republicanism established in the US was decisively superior to the cruel, martial, aristocratic republicanism of ancient times. Rahe, Republics, Vol III, pg26.
 * So there is a case for a page entiteled [Classical republics] or [Classical definition of republics]. How can you have a Modern republic without a Classical republic?  What is the logic of prefacing "republic" with "modern" anyway????????  SimonP what about this illogicity?  If there is a "Modern republic" there must be a "Classical republic".
 * And to the Sysops and Admin watching this page. The score is now 3-1.  Out of four battles with these British republicans, I have won three out of the four (Arete (excellence) not [Arete (virtue)], and the VFD on vanavsos and Family as a model for the state. User:Snowspinner and his group have failed three out of four times. Now, that we have a case history, WHY ARE YOU STILL PROTECTING AND SUPPORTING SIMONP AND HIS COHORTS because they really don't know what they are doing.  The proof is in the pudding!  And it is time to stop the charades and bring back, The Classical Definition of Republic or Classical Republics because it has been shown that these people really don't know what they are doing.WHEELER 14:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Venice is an excellent example. It had what has been termed a republican form of government since the ninth century, but it was only with the Renaissance in the fourteenth century that it began to be called a republic. - SimonP 16:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * And who pray tell said it was called a republic only in the 14th century?WHEELER 14:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If there were four different forms of government that Cicero talks about; the first three being monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, what is the fourth government called?WHEELER 14:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * De re publica 1, 45: itaque quartum quoddam genus rei publicae maxime probandum esse sentio, quod est ex his quae prima dixi moderatum et permixtum tribus. He does not say that a mixed government is called a republic, he states that the fourth form of republic is a mixed government. - SimonP 15:50, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) I worked on some republic-related articles these last days, and would like to invite, instead of listing endless texts here that only marginally contribute to eventual encyclopedia text, to come and help with these other articles, amongst others:
 * 2) De re publica: the article is only outlined with some "technical" characteristics of this text by Cicero, with links to the original Latin text and a full translation. Still missing: someone who could write down the summary of the content.
 * 3) Res publica: although I added already a few lines to this article, I suppose it is still not much more than a first schematic outline of the clarification of this Roman concept; similarly with the Greek concept politeia
 * 4) I was also writing a new intro to List of Roman emperors, detailing the transition of the Roman Republic to the era where it was led by Emperors. Similar updates would IMHO be welcome to Emperor (while this article lists all possible kinds of Empires it doesn't even give a link to lists of Emperors, apart from the one I added yesterday - note that for ancient Rome Empire does not go hand in hand with it being led by an Emperor, this needs some disambiguation still); the Roman Republic article might benefit from some more detail about how it ended and became a state led by Emperors, in the same vein.
 * 5) Keeping the republic article blocked along the procedure described above is no good, anti-wikipedian, and all the rest: blocking can only take a day or two AT MOST. I never believe the trick with the "republicanism" article will work: "republic" and "republicanism" are two different concepts, and where they overlap, there will be only be more insolvable tension if trying to force to make them overlap 100%: instead of helping towards a solution that is creating an additional one. I don't know who the sysops are in the discussion above, but they should know better. Please unblock the article ASAP, and without impediment, or I'll try to attract more sysop attention to this. --Francis Schonken 16:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right, it is time this page was unprotected. I have been working on several related pages, including politeia, res publica, mixed government, and classical republicanism and I thank you for the valuable improvements you have been making in this area. I have also merged the republicanism and republic articles. If you see a clear way to separate the two concepts please outline it for I do not see one.  From what I see republicanism can refer to the advocacy of any of the various notions of republic and similarly a republic can be the manifestation of any form of republicanism. - SimonP 17:33, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now an unmitigated disaster. SimonP has now screwed it all up. We have mixed government, politeia, classical republicanism and now republicanism meshed with republic. I can't believe what I am seeing. And the Admins and Sysops have let this happened but I am persecuted beyond all reason.WHEELER 16:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought you were the one arguing that mixed government, politeia, and classical republicanism were all the same thing? - SimonP 16:48, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I am. "Mixed government", "politeia" and Classical republicanism all belong on one page which you all deleted!  All three concepts belong on Classical definition of republic which you deleted.  You have seperated the term "mixed government" from the word "republic".  You don't seem to realize that the Romans translated "politiea" as republic and I have pointed out to you above from three different scholary works that the term "Classical republicanism" refers to the republics of Ancient Greece and Rome but you have somehow managed to make it start only in the 15th century!  You are quite mistaken in your classical meanings and understandings.  I have a lot more information I have that I know you don't have but for some reason, I am an idiot and I don't know what I am talking about and you are the expert par excellence. I know a whole lot more than you do, I can tell with your new articles and info. Your being some expert and I am sort of disqualified now is a blatant lie and an attempt to smear me.  I pointed out where the internet has many hits on Classical republicanism meaning for ancient Greece and Rome to defend and support the ressurection of the Classical definition of republic and you went ahead created a new article anyway and redefined the term.  That does not show honesty and it is not fair.  You refuse to acknowledge an old meaning of the term.  And I am not going to tell you my information so you can rush off and redefine it and then your compatriots revert any edits I do.  So we are at an impasse and this impasse comes with your ignorance, not mine.WHEELER 17:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * None of you sources even use the term "classical republicanism", much less define it. You have yet to cite one unambiguous reference where a scholar clearly refers to "classical republicanism" being solely the thought of the ancient world, while I have given many that show it to be an ideology developed in the early modern period based upon classical ideas:
 * The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls it "civic humanism or 'classical republicanism'"
 * A University of Sussex course entirely devoted to the study of classical republicanism states that "the course will focus on the 17th and 18th century"
 * The multi volume Cambridge University Press work Republicanism begins in 1500.
 * The Renaissance Quarterly review of Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections begins "This volume of the Cambridge series Ideas in Context examines the historical and intellectual context of classical republicanism from the late Middle Ages through Florentine Renaissance humanism."
 * The clearest discussion of this issue I have seen is in Bill Brugger's Republican Theory in Political Thought where he comments on how the term classical republicanism is confusing because it misleads people into thinking it was developed in the classical period and thus advocates using the term early modern republicanism instead.
 * - SimonP 17:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

And i say again there are three Modern Scholarly works that say:
 * 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.
 * "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 I have the word in context being used. The word "Classical republicanism" refers, not to an ideology but the Classical period of Greece and Rome.

Let's try this. Restore the Classical definition of republic, or rename it Classical republics and your article on classical republicanism be renamed to Classical republicanism (ideology). Mixed government and politeia all need to go to Classical definition of republic. Now, I have suggested compromise after compromise and you have presented me with fiat after fiat. mixed government and politeia are fiat decisions on your part and your misknowledge of the classical world is very evident in all this and is very destructive. The proper term for mixed government is Republic and the term for politeia is Republic. How you get to control what goes on around here is beyond me. There is obvious confusion in academic circles on both sides of the Atlantic. What you are imposing is the British, Canadian, Australian "modern Republican" POV and the American side? Nowhere. Where is the Classical definition for Classical students—NOwhere. Your mixed government page is not proper and you are attempting to re-write history with that page.WHEELER 18:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How does this page answer to what the "Roman republic" is? If Cicero called Sparta the spartan REpublic this page is nonsense. It is all nonsense for the classical world. And i can't believe that sysops and Admins and others are letting you do this. Not at all.WHEELER 18:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * But none of those quotes refers to the classical period. "The persistence of classical republican values" can just as well refer to the classical republican values developed in the Renaissance. "The classical-republican theory of mixed government" is similarly referring the Renaissance theory. The that the "unleashing of the commercial instinct would undermine the moral foundations of classical republicanism" can also refer just as easily to the early modern ideology of classical republicanism. - SimonP 18:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Looking at all of this back-and-forth at once, it's pretty clear to me that "classical republicanism" is an ambiguous term, and should be turned into a disambiguation that lets the reader choose between Republics in antiquity and modern republicanism or some such. When I hear "classical" I hear "Greek and Roman world", but SimonP seems to hear "early modern". The Renaissance etc folks did not really understand how the ancient republics worked - the necessary scholarship and archaeology wasn't done until the 19th century, nor the relevant anthropology until the 20th - so the description of their idea of ancient republics must necessarily be different and separate from what modern research understands about the ancients. When I'm wearing my "classics" hat, I want to see an article that reflects last year's books and journals, not what they thought in the Middle Ages. Stan 21:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Classical republicanism is admittedly a very confusing term, but it is not ambiguous. Most people when they hear the term "classical republicanism" jump to the obvious conclusion that it must mean the republicanism of the classical period.  However, for those who work in this area "classical republicanism" has long referred to the republicanism of the Renaissance that was based on classical models and this is still the accepted definition.  I have yet to encounter a work, and Wheeler has yet to show me one, that rejects this meaning.  What is important is that the article clearly explains this, which I shall endeavour to do, and that it points to an article on the states of classical antiquity that are sometimes called republics, such as the stub I have created at classical republic. - SimonP 22:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is a fairly clear definition: "we might say the classical republicans were simply a loose family of writers, running from Machiavelli and his fifteenth century Italian predecessors to the English republicans Harrington, Sidney and others; passing from thence through the eighteenth-century commonwealthsmen and Montesquieu." - SimonP 22:17, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Might say"? Not exactly a formal definition! That's why I suggest disambigger - if you have a vague term subject to misinterpretation, better not to misrepresent it as having a more formal definition than it does in reality. BTW, "states of classical antiquity that are sometimes called republics?" Both specialists and nonspecialists universally call post-Tarquinian pre-Augustan Rome the "Roman Republic". Stan 22:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read the article you will see the imprecision is over exactly which of the early moderns is a classical republican, not whether it also includes ancient thinkers. If someone could cite a single example of a scholar who uses a contrary definition to the standard one it would convince me that a disambig page is in order. If an expert like Wheeler cannot find one after several weeks of discussion, however, I doubt one exists. As to your second point I used "sometimes called republics" because states like Athens and Sparta are only occasionally called republics, and are not usually so dubbed by scholars. - SimonP 23:03, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * SimonP, I ask that you please have Mixed government, politeia and Classical republic, deleted. And that the information on these three pages be resurrected on Classical definition of republic and have this changed to [Classical republic].  I don't have a college degree.  The sign of my expertise and knowledge in the field is being the originator of a particular page.  I need this for my "respect" in wikipedia.  I don't have a college degree---All I have is the "proof" of my originating pages on wikipedia.  We can go to the Undeletion process, ask for the deletion of these articles and the undeletion of Classical definition of republic. I ask that this be considered.  I would greatly appreciate it.WHEELER 14:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I can tell that the people who have written and started res publica, Commonwealth, de re publica, No one has read the book, De re publica. Cicero says that a democracy is NOT a commonwealth.  It is NOT about equality because democracy has NO "rank distinctions" and Cicero starts the beginning of the Commonwealth when Romulus established "the foundations of our commonweath" when he started a "senate". pg 125 of Loeb. I can tell than none of you ever read Cicero's Republic and yet we are defining the term such that it abrogates everything the ancients thought.  You know it pays to read the SOURCE material.WHEELER 17:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * This is now the definition of republic: "In the United States republic came to mean a state that did not practice direct democracy but rather had the government only indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of the world this is known as representative democracy."  This means that Republic=Democracy.  This is so wrong.  Why shouldn't republic be a redirect page to democracy.  Democracy is also "Anti-monarchical" so a democracy is also a republic!. Come on people?  Where is the demarcation lines between words and meanings UH?WHEELER 18:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when has democracy also been "anti-monarchial", many of the world's most successful democracies are monarchies. - SimonP 22:40, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * And what about the other stuff above?WHEELER 23:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It is essentially meaningless. Politeia clearly does not equal the English word republic and mixed government is but one part of republicanism.  Moreover even if I believed classical definition of republic should be undeleted, which I do not, it cannot happen as the wider community has already decided its fate. - SimonP 01:17, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Republic/Archive 5


text:
A1B reactor

The A1B reactor is developed by the United States Navy for the Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Each ship will be powered by two A1B reactors. The new reactor was named A1B, following the Navy's reactor-designation scheme of type, generation, and manufacturer: A for aircraft carrier, 1 for the maker's first reactor plant design, and B for Bechtel, the company making the reactor.

As Navy planners developed requirements for the Gerald R. Ford class, they concluded that the A4W reactors that powered the previous Nimitz-class aircraft carriers offer too little power for current and anticipated future shipboard needs, and decided to commission a new reactor design from Bechtel Corporation, which has "performed engineering and/or construction services on more than 80 percent of [land-based] nuclear plants in the United States." The A1B reactor is more efficient, more adaptable, smaller, and lighter than the A4W design. It also has improved operator interfaces.

Nuclear reactors power aircraft carriers by the fission of enriched uranium to boil water, causing turbines to turn and generate electricity. This process is largely the same as in land-based nuclear power stations, but with one notable difference. Naval reactors directly use turboshaft power for turning the ship's screws. Over decades of development several other design differences have emerged between naval reactors and the usually much larger power station reactors.

It is estimated that the thermal power output of each A1B will be around 700 MWth, some 25% more than provided by the A4W. Improved efficiency in the total plant is expected to provide improved output to both propulsion and electrical systems. Using A4W data with a 25% increase in thermal power, the A1B reactors are likely to produce enough steam to generate 125 MW of electricity, plus 350000 SHP from just one reactor to power the four propeller shafts.

The greater electrical generation capacity will allow for elimination of service steam on the ship, reducing staffing requirements for maintenance. In addition, the use of electromagnetic aircraft catapults (EMALS) will free the ship's air wing from the constraints of pressurized steam, used aboard the Nimitz-class carriers.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: A1B reactor


text:
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—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—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—"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; §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; §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; §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; §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)

title: Talk:Republic/Archive 4


text:
Fort Jefferson

Fort Jefferson may refer to:
 * Fort Jefferson (Florida)
 * Fort Jefferson National Monument, now Dry Tortugas National Park
 * Fort Jefferson (Ohio), a historic fort
 * Fort Jefferson, Ohio, an unincorporated community
 * Fort Jefferson (Kentucky)

title: Fort Jefferson


text: User talk:67.184.77.45

title: User talk:67.184.77.45


text: User talk:80.43.23.236

title: User talk:80.43.23.236


text:
Battle River (electoral district)

Battle River was a federal electoral district in Alberta, Canada, that was represented in the House of Commons of Canada at various times from 1914 to 2005.

This riding was created in 1914 from parts of Strathcona and Victoria ridings. It was abolished in 1952 when it was redistributed into Acadia, Battle River—Camrose, Red Deer and Vegreville ridings.

In 1966, it was recreated from parts of Acadia and Battle River—Camrose ridings. It was abolished again in 1976 when it was redistributed into Crowfoot, Red Deer, Vegreville and Wetaskiwin ridings.

The riding has existed several times:

 * from 1914 – 1952
 * from 1966 – 1976
 * from 2004 – 2005

In 2004, Westlock—St. Paul riding was renamed "Battle River", but the name was changed back to "Westlock—St. Paul" before an election was held.

title: Battle River (electoral district)


text:
Talk:Download (band)

Untitled
Does this band have a website? Thanks! The previous unsigned comment was left by User:24.168.203.75

 * Yes, they do... right here, though it's not up-to-date. K3V!N 02:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

IDM?
What separates IDM from Techno? I've always thought of artists like Aphex Twin, Autechre, and Boards of Canada to be IDM, and bands like Download (in III and Effector) to be Techno.

What I think separates IDM from Techno is that techno is basically electronically created beat music, where IDM is techno with more emphasis on percussion and ambience and less emphasis on the synthetic sound. To me, Download is Techno in III and Effector because even though they have a relatively noticable ambient quality in parts of their songs (ex: Flight of Luminous Insects), they still sound mainly synthetic and their percussion isn't the main theme of the music like it is for Autechre and Aphex Twin. Of course, I'm using "percussion" loosely here to mean any sound with high attack and a harsh sound, as opposed to a relatively normal attack that the beats in III and Effector have.

 * I would have to agree. If you check out several sites, they'll label some albums Industrial/IDM, and the ones you mentioned get Techno. I would definitely say Download is more IDM than anything. cEvin Key did come from Skinny Puppy so he has the Industrial/Post-Industrial background which comes through on his albums. Xe7al (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd much rather Download be labeled as Industrial and Techno, even though Techno is so overused in today's culture enough that it's used to describe anything that isn't Heavy Metal. I don't like how some people think that IDM is the replacement term for techno so that all the stereotypes that Techno has accumulated aren't piled onto the music that we all love, though I can certainly see why you'd want to do that, if that's what you want to do.

So that's what I think--Download is more Techno than they are IDM.

Oh yeah, and I did change the IDM on The Eyes of Stanley Pain because IDM is more of a "less is more" sort of thing than "more is more", like Stanley Pain has. The complexity of those songs aren't described properly as "IDM", IMHO.

Thanks for reading, please reply with your opinions. I'm open to discussion on the subject, and though I have some strong opinions on the matter, I do everything in my power to remain open-minded to the views of others. :) K3V!N 02:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Download (band)


text:
Bagrat IV of Georgia

Bagrat IV (ბაგრატ IV; 1018 –24 November 1072), of the Bagrationi dynasty, was the king (mepe) of the Kingdom of Georgia from 1027 to 1072. During his long and eventful reign, Bagrat sought to repress the great nobility and to secure Georgia's sovereignty from the Byzantine and Seljuk Empires. In a series of intermingled conflicts, Bagrat succeeded in defeating his most powerful vassals and rivals of the Liparitid family, bringing several feudal enclaves under his control and reducing the kings of Lori and Kakheti-Hereti, as well as the emir of Tbilisi to vassalage. Like many medieval Caucasian rulers, he bore several Byzantine titles, particularly those of Nobilissimus, Kouropalates, and sebastos.

Early reign
Bagrat was the son of the king George I of Georgia ((r. 1014 – 1027)) by his first wife Mariam of Vaspurakan. At the age of three, Bagrat was surrendered by his father as a hostage to the Byzantine emperor Basil II ((r. 976 – 1025)) as a price for George's defeat in the 1022 war with the Byzantines. The young child Bagrat spent the next three years in the imperial capital of Constantinople and was released in 1025. He was still in Byzantine territory when Basil died and was succeeded by his brother Constantine VIII ((r. 1025 – 1028)). Constantine ordered the retrieval of the young prince, but the imperial courier was unable to overtake Bagrat – he was already in the Kingdom of Georgia.

After George I died in 1027, Bagrat, aged eight, succeeded to the throne. Queen dowager Mariam then returned to prominence and became a regent for her underage son. She shared the regency with the grandees, particularly Liparit IV of Kldekari, and Ivane, Duke of Kartli.

By the time Bagrat became king, the Bagratids’ drive to complete the unification of all Georgian lands had gained irreversible momentum. The kings of Georgia sat at Kutaisi in western Georgia from which they ran all of what had been the Kingdom of Abkhazia and a greater portion of Iberia/Kartli; Tao/Tayk had been lost to the Byzantines while a Muslim emir remained in Tbilisi and the kings of Kakheti obstinately defended their autonomy in easternmost Georgia. Furthermore, the loyalty of great nobles to the Georgian crown was far from stable. During Bagrat's minority, the regency had advanced the positions of the high nobility whose influence he subsequently tried to limit when he assumed full ruling powers. Simultaneously, the Georgian crown was confronted with two formidable external foes: the Byzantine Empire and the rising Seljuq Turks. Although the Byzantine Empire and Georgia had centuries-long cultural and religious ties, and the Seljuqs posed a substantial threat to the empire itself, Constantinople's aggressiveness on the Caucasian political scene contributed to an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, and prevented the two Christian nations from effective cooperation against the common threat. With assertion of the Georgian Bagratid hegemony in the Caucasus being the cornerstone of Bagrat's reign, his policy can be understood as the attempt to play the Seljuqs and Byzantines off against one another.

Dynastic wars
Shortly after Bagrat's ascension to the throne, Constantine VIII sent in an army to take over the key city-fortress of Artanuji (modern Ardanuç, Turkey) on behalf of the Georgian Bagratid prince Demetre, son of Gurgen of Klarjeti, who had been dispossessed by Bagrat IV's grandfather, Bagrat III, of his patrimonial fief at Artanuji early in the 1010s. Several Georgians nobles defected to the Byzantines, but Bagrat's loyal subjects put up a stubborn fight.

Constantine's death in 1028 rendered the Byzantine invasion abortive, and, in 1030, Queen Mariam paid a visit to the new emperor Romanos III ((r. 1028 – 1034)). She negotiated a peace treaty, and returned with the high Byzantine title of curopalates for her son in 1032. Mariam also brought him the Byzantine princess Helena Argyre as wife. Helena was a daughter of Basil Argyros, brother of Emperor Romanos, and the marriage was a diplomatic effort to establish a strategic association. However, Helena's death shortly afterwards at Kutaisi presented the Georgian court with the opportunity to pursue yet another diplomatic initiative through Bagrat's marriage with Borena, daughter of the king of Alania, a Christian country in the North Caucasus. In 1033, the royal court faced another dynastic trouble, this time with Bagrat's half-brother Demetrius, a son of George I of his second marriage with Alda of Alania. Demetrius and Alda lived in Anakopia, a fortress in Abkhazia, which had been bequeathed to them by the late king George I. Although an attempt by some great nobles to exploit Demetrius' possible aspirations to the throne in their opposition to Bagrat's rule failed, the Georgian court's efforts to win his loyalty also went in vain. Threatened by Bagrat, the dowager queen Alda defected to the Byzantines and surrendered Anakopia to the emperor Romanos III who honored her son Demetrius with the rank of magistros.

In 1039, Demetrius returned to Georgia with Byzantine troops. This time, he was supported by Liparit IV, of the Liparitid clan, the most powerful noble in Georgia.

Liparit, as duke of the district of Trialeti and later as a commander-in-chief of the royal armies, had appeared as the defender of a boy-king Bagrat early in the 1030s. Liparit's military prowess had been demonstrated once again in 1034 when, at the head of a combined Georgian-Armenian army, he defeated a Shaddadid troops in Arran. In 1038, Liparit was on the verge of capturing the ancient Georgian capital of Tbilisi, which had been a Muslim stronghold since the 8th century. Fearing his growing power, the Georgian nobles persuaded Bagrat to withdraw Liparit's army and thus thwarted the plan. As a result, Liparit became a sworn enemy of the king and began actively cooperating with the Byzantines for vengeance on Bagrat and his nobles.

On behalf of the pretender Demetrius, Liparit enjoyed a series of successes against Bagrat. In spite of Demetrius' death in 1042, Liparit continued his struggle in alliance with the Byzantines and David I of Lorri. After the defeat at Battle of Sasireti, Bagrat was left with the western provinces only. During the Seljuk campaigns in Anatolia in 1048, Liparit, who had been fighting on the Byzantine side, was captured at the Battle of Kapetron. Bagrat took advantage of this, and returned to his eastern possessions. The king's fortunes were quickly reversed, however, upon Liparit's return from captivity. The rebellious duke forced Bagrat to flee to Constantinople where he was kept, as a result of Liparit's intrigues, for three years. In the absence of Bagrat (1050–1053), Liparit was an effective ruler of Georgia; he even installed Bagrat's son George as king and declared himself a regent. After Bagrat's return, Liparit again warred against him. Eventually in 1060 his followers conspired and surrendered the duke to King Bagrat, who forced him into a monastery. Now, Bagrat gained a momentum to restrict the power of dynastic princes, reduced the kings of Lorri and Kakheti to impotence, and briefly held Tbilisi.

Seljuk attacks
In the 1060s, Bagrat faced with an even greater problem: the Seljuks under Alp Arslan started to penetrate the frontier regions of Georgia. Bagrat had to buy peace through marrying his niece to Alp Arslan sometime after 1064. She later married the Seljuk Persian vizier Nizam al-Mulk.

The Seljuk threat prompted the Georgian and Byzantine governments to seek a closer cooperation. To secure the alliance, Bagrat's daughter Mart’a (Maria) married, at some point between 1066 and 1071, the Byzantine co-emperor Michael VII Ducas. The choice of a Georgian princess was unprecedented, and it was seen in Georgia as a diplomatic success on Bagrat's side.

On 10 December 1068, Alp Arslan accompanied by the kings of Lorri and Kakheti as well as the emir of Tbilisi again marched against Bagrat. The provinces of Kartli and Argveti were occupied and pillaged. Bagrat's long-time rivals, the Shaddadids of Arran, were given compensation: the fortresses of Tbilisi and Rustavi. After Alp Arslan left Georgia, Bagrat recovered Kartli in July 1068. Al-Fadl I b. Muhammad, of the Shaddadids, encamped at Isani (a suburb of Tbilisi on the left bank of the Mtkvari) and with 33,000 men ravaged the countryside. Bagrat defeated him, however, and forced the Shaddadid troops to flight. On the road through Kakheti, Fadl was taken prisoner by the local ruler Aghsartan. At the price of conceding several fortresses on the Iori River, Bagrat ransomed Fadl and received from him the surrender of Tbilisi where he reinstated a local emir on the terms of vassalage.

The last years of Bagrat's reign coincided with what Professor David Marshall Lang described as "the final débacle of eastern Christendom" — the Battle of Manzikert — in which Alp Arslan dealt a crushing defeat to the Byzantine army, capturing the emperor Romanos IV, who was soon deposed and died in misery. Bagrat IV died the following year, on 24 November 1072, and was buried at the Chkondidi Monastery. The suzerainty over the troubled kingdom of Georgia passed to his son George II.

title: Bagrat IV of Georgia


text:
Dushara

Dushara (Nabataean Arabic: 𐢅𐢈𐢝𐢛𐢀 dwšrʾ ), also transliterated as Dusares, is a pre-Islamic Arabian god worshipped by the Nabataeans at Petra and Madain Saleh (of which city he was the patron). Safaitic inscriptions imply he was the son of Al-Lat, and that he assembled in the heavens with other gods. He is called "Dushara from Petra" in one inscription. Dushara was expected to bring justice if called by the correct ritual.

Etymology
Dushara is known first from epigraphic Nabataean sources who invariably spell the name dwšrʾ, the Nabataean script denoting only consonants. He appears in Classical Greek sources Δουσάρης (Dousárēs) and in Latin as Dusares. The original meaning is disputed, but early Muslim historian Hisham ibn al-Kalbi in his "Book of Idols" explains the name as Dhū l-Šarā (ذو الشرى), "etymologically probably 'the one of the Shara (mountains north of Petra)'", referring to a mountain range southeast of the Dead Sea now known as al-Sharat. This interpretation is accepted by some scholars, and compared to other Canaanite gods who are associated with mountains or geographic areas (like Baal Lebanon, Baal Hermon, and YHWH Teman and YHWH Shomron from Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions). If this interpretation is correct, Dushara would be more of a title than a proper name, but both the exact form of the name and its interpretation are disputed.

Worship
In Greek times, he was associated with Zeus because he was the chief of the Nabataean pantheon as well as with Dionysus.

A shrine to Dushara has been discovered in the harbour of ancient Puteoli in Italy. The city was an important nexus for trade to the Near East, and it is known to have had a Nabataean presence during the mid 1st century BCE. The cult continued in some capacity well into the Roman period and possibly as late as the Islamic period.

This deity was mentioned by the 9th century CE Muslim historian Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi, who wrote in the Book of Idols (Kitab al-Asnām) that: "The Banū al-Hārith ibn-Yashkur ibn-Mubashshir of the ʻAzd had an idol called Dū Sharā."

Safaitic inscriptions mention animal sacrifices to Dushara, asking for a variety of services.

title: Dushara


text: Template:Nintendo-stub

title: Template:Nintendo-stub


text:
User talk:Bjd

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 20:54, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

DUDE !Wassup ?

title: User talk:Bjd


text:
User:Mindspillage/inigo

Quotes

 * "But we had consensus!" "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
 * "Jimbo Wales IS the brute squad."
 * "No, not to test5!"
 * "You bested my Spaniard, so you must have studied. And in studying, you would have learnt that Wikipedia is not a democracy."
 * "No more edit wars! I mean it!" "Anybody want a peanut?"
 * "You killed my article. Prepare to die!"
 * "There's a shortage of perfect stubs in this world. 'Twould be a pity to damage yours."
 * "When I was your age, encyclopedias were called books. And this is a special book. It was the book my father used to read to me when I was sick, and I used to read it to your father. And today I'm gonna read Wikipedia to you."
 * "The article was speedied, or was an hour ago. If it is otherwise when I find it I shall be very put out."
 * "Is very strange. I have been in the revert business so long, now that it's over, I don't know what to do with the rest of Wikipedia."
 * "Good night, new user. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely block you in the morning."
 * "[raspy voice] The Pit of Wikipedia! Don't even think of trying to escape!"
 * ArbCom : "Ever since Jimbo blocked him, his confidence has been shattered."
 * Willy on Wheels : "Why'd you say that name? You promised me you would never say that name!"
 * ArbCom : "What, Jimbo Wales?"
 * Willy on Wheels : "Aahaahh!"
 * ArbCom : Jimbo! Jimbo! Jimbo!
 * Willy on Wheels : "I'm making more sockpuppets!"
 * Volunteer: Where am I?
 * Mindspillage: [raspy voice] The Mailroom of Despair! Don't even think...
 * [clears throat]
 * Mindspillage: ... don't even think about trying to escape. The messages come in far too quick. Don't dream of getting your friends to help you, either; the only way in is secret. Only Sannse, UninvitedCompany, and I know how to get in and out.
 * Volunteer: So I'm here till I quit?
 * Mindspillage: Until we invalidate your account, yeah.
 * Volunteer: So it's to be torture?
 * Mindspillage: [nods enthusiastically]
 * Volunteer: I can cope with torture.
 * Mindspillage: [shakes head enthusiastically]
 * Volunteer: Don't believe me?
 * Mindspillage: You survived RfA, so you must be very brave, but no one withstands OTRS.
 * Mindspillage: You survived RfA, so you must be very brave, but no one withstands OTRS.

title: User:Mindspillage/inigo


text:
User talk:WhitmoreFan

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:WhitmoreFan


text:
MNM (professional wrestling)

MNM (Mercury, Nitro, and Melina) were a professional wrestling stable in World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Ohio Valley Wrestling (OVW) who consisted of Joey Mercury (previously Joey Matthews), Johnny Nitro, and their manager Melina Perez.

Mercury and Nitro first began teaming together in 2004 in OVW, WWE's developmental territory in Louisville, Kentucky. Melina, who at the time was Nitro's actual girlfriend, joined them as their manager in February 2005. While working in OVW, Mercury and Nitro captured the OVW Southern Tag Team Championship on one occasion.

MNM were called up to the SmackDown! roster in April 2005, in which Mercury and Nitro went on to win the WWE Tag Team Championship. While in WWE, their ring personas was that of a trio of Hollywood celebrities, complete with a red carpet ring entrance, that had them accompanied by "paparazzi". The duo lost the title in July 2005. After their third and final reign ended in May 2006, Nitro and Melina blamed Mercury for the loss and attacked him, splitting the team. Nitro and Melina were let go from the SmackDown! roster and debuted on the Raw brand. In November 2006, MNM reunited for a brief period, before Mercury was released from his contract in March 2007.

Concept
Partly inspired by Paris Hilton, the concept behind the group was that they were Hollywood celebrities. Upon their debut on SmackDown!, they claimed to be the "it team on the scene", because of their good looks and celebrity status.

As part of their in-ring personas, MNM had a distinctive ring entrance. They walked to the ring on a red carpet, while members of the "paparazzi" took photos of them. The male members of MNM usually wore fur coats to the ring. As they took them off, Melina suggestively rubbed their abs while removing the title belts from their pants, where they hung in an exaggerated phallic fashion. Melina had a signature entrance which involved her doing a split on the ring apron—from the floor—then bending forward and crawling under the bottom rope.

Ohio Valley Wrestling (2004–2005)
MNM was formed in the former World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) "farm territory" Ohio Valley Wrestling (OVW). Melina Perez, Johnny Nitro's real-life girlfriend, was introduced into the company in 2004 as his ex-girlfriend, an ally of Matt Cappotelli with whom Nitro was engaged in a scripted rivalry. Almost immediately, however, Perez betrayed Cappotelli and sided with Nitro. Together they introduced Joey Matthews to become MNM. While in OVW, Nitro and Matthews won the OVW Southern Tag Team Championship once, holding it for over two months.

Tag Team Championship reigns (2005–2006)
MNM was called up to WWE's SmackDown! roster in April 2005, with Matthews undergoing a name change to "Joey Mercury". They made their debut during Carlito's interview segment Carlito's Cabana, where they interrupted an interview between Carlito and Rey Mysterio, and attacked Mysterio. This provoked a feud between MNM and Mysterio and his partner, Eddie Guerrero, over the WWE Tag Team Championship. Two weeks later, in their debut match on the SmackDown! brand, they defeated Mysterio and Guerrero to win the WWE Tag Team Championship after Guerrero refused to tag into the match. While Nitro and Mercury held the championship, Melina was placed in an angle with Heidenreich. She publicly mocked him and was the impetus for an attack on him by Nitro and Mercury. In July, MNM were scheduled to face Heidenreich in a two-on-one handicap match, but attacked him before the match started. Road Warrior Animal saved Heidenreich from the attack and as a result, Heidenreich and Road Warrior Animal challenged Mercury and Nitro for the WWE Tag Team Championship at The Great American Bash. MNM lost the match and the championship to Heidenreich and Animal at The Great American Bash. On the August 4 episode of ""Smackdown!'', MNM defeated Booker T (wrestler), and Chris Benoit.

The loss of the WWE Tag Team Championship was seen as "bad publicity" by Melina so she introduced Jillian Hall, a storyline spin doctor to repair their image. Hall got them a cover article in SmackDown! magazine, and began to introduce the team before and aid them during matches. In September 2005, Hall left the group to join John "Bradshaw" Layfield (JBL), who had lost a match to Rey Mysterio.

On the October 28 episode of SmackDown!, Mercury and Nitro were placed into a tag team title fatal four-way match against the teams of the Mexicools (Super Crazy and Psicosis), William Regal and Paul Burchill, and the WWE Tag Team Champions Legion of Doom 2005 (Heidenreich and Road Warrior Animal). During the match, Mercury and Nitro were able to perform the Snapshot on Heidenreich, to win the championship for a second time. MNM successfully defended the championship against Eddie Guerrero and Batista on the November 4 episode of SmackDown!. In December, they began a feud with the Mexicools, who earned the right to face MNM at Armageddon for the WWE Tag Team Championship. Before Armageddon however, on the December 16 episode of SmackDown!, MNM lost the WWE Tag Team Championship to Batista and Rey Mysterio. A storyline was begun before the match, where Melina attempted to seduce Batista into forfeiting the match. The storyline played over to the December 30 episode of SmackDown! when, before MNM invoked their rematch clause, Melina held a press conference in the ring where she claimed that Batista had sexually harassed her. During the tag team match, Mark Henry aided MNM in winning back the WWE Tag Team Championship. The following week, MNM defeated Batista and Mysterio in a steel cage match to retain the championship, Henry's aid. Henry was only with the group a short time before his contract was sold to Daivari in storyline. They went on to successfully defend the championship against The Mexicools and the team of Matt Hardy and Tatanka in early 2006.

Dissolution (2006–2007)
In April 2006, MNM were placed in an angle in which they found themselves in a losing streak against the team of Paul London and Brian Kendrick. In non-title tag team matches, singles matches, and even a six-man tag match, London and Kendrick defeated the duo every time. At the Judgment Day pay-per-view in May 2006, MNM lost the tag team championship to London and Kendrick. After the match, Nitro and Mercury started brawling, disbanding the group. Later that night, Melina lost a singles match against Jillian Hall and after slapping General manager Theodore Long in anger, she and Nitro were fired from the SmackDown! brand in storyline. Off-screen, Nitro and Mercury did not get along, and WWE management decided to split the tag team and send Nitro and Melina to the Raw brand. In addition, Mercury was about to begin serving a suspension for violating the WWE Wellness program.

After the team split, Nitro, alongside Melina, was quickly placed into the Intercontinental Championship picture, winning the title twice. In November, after serving his suspension and a brief stint back in OVW, Mercury returned to WWE, reuniting MNM to answer an open challenge put out by The Hardys (Matt and Jeff) for the December to Dismember pay-per-view. On the 4th episode of ""Raw"", MNM and Rated RKO defeated D-Generation X and Hardy Boyz. At December to Dismember, MNM lost to the Hardys. MNM and the Hardys met again at Armageddon as part of a four-way ladder match, which also included the teams of Dave Taylor and William Regal and Paul London and Brian Kendrick. During the match, which saw London and Kendrick retain the WWE Tag Team Championship, Mercury was legitimately injured when he was struck in the face with a ladder, necessitating a trip to the emergency room where his broken nose received 15 stitches. The facial injury was worked into the angle, and when Mercury returned wearing a protective covering on his face, the rivalry between the teams intensified with MNM actively seeking to injure one or both of the Hardys, even going so far as to attack and perform a Snapshot on Matt on exposed concrete following a match. MNM lost to The Hardys at the Royal Rumble, and again at the No Way Out pay-per-view in February, which concluded the feud.

Post-breakup
After their feud with the Hardys was over, Nitro and Melina continued to team on Raw, while Mercury wrestled in singles competition on SmackDown!. On March 26, 2007, through WWE's official website, it was announced that Mercury had been released from his contract.

Melina and Nitro's association began to fizzle out when Melina became the WWE Women's Champion and began garnering attention as a singles performer. Melina was released from her contract in 2011.

During the 2007 supplemental draft, Nitro moved to the ECW brand, was renamed John Morrison and would go on to capture the ECW World Championship. Morrison formed a partnership with The Miz, capturing both the WWE Tag Team Championship and the World Tag Team Championship, as well as becoming a two-time Slammy Award winner. He also gained his third WWE Intercontinental Championship shortly after his alliance with The Miz, before leaving WWE in 2011.

Mercury returned to WWE in 2010, first as a member of CM Punk's Straight Edge Society, and later began working as a trainer in Florida Championship Wrestling (later renamed NXT). He most recently appeared on television alongside The Authority and as part of J&J Security, former WWE World Heavyweight Champion Seth Rollins's "personal security".

Nitro and Melina had a brief reunion when Melina made an appearance in Lucha Underground at Ultima Lucha, attacking Alberto El Patron during his match with Nitro, now known as Johnny Mundo, allowing Nitro to pick up the win.

On September 22, 2017, Nitro, under his John Morrison ring name, and Mercury reunited for the first time in ten years at an All Pro Wrestling event, defeating Reno Scum.

Championships and accomplishments

 * Ohio Valley Wrestling
 * OVW Southern Tag Team Championship (1 time)
 * Pro Wrestling Illustrated
 * Tag Team of the Year (2005)
 * World Wrestling Entertainment

 * WWE Intercontinental Championship (2 times) – Johnny Nitro
 * WWE Tag Team Championship (3 times)
 * WWE Women's Championship (1 time) – Melina

title: MNM (professional wrestling)


text:
Jonathon Ross (footballer)

Jonathon Ross (born 3 November 1973) is a former Australian rules footballer in the Australian Football League. He played with the Adelaide Crows.

A well-built, strong key position player, Jonathon Ross had the potential to go far. However, his career was hampered by knee injuries and off-field drama and after playing 12 games in his debut season (1992) he managed just eight more games in the next four years. He was offered a chance at Collingwood but lost his place for disciplinary reasons.

Ross was sacked by the Magpies after being charged with unlawful assault, being drunk in a public place, four counts of assaulting police and resisting arrest shortly after arriving at the club.

He is the son of former St Kilda player Lester Ross.

title: Jonathon Ross (footballer)


text:
Funny Farm

Funny farm may refer to:

 * Funny farm, a pejorative slang term or euphemism for a psychiatric hospital
 * The Funny Farm (film), a 1982 film starring Peter Aykroyd
 * Funny Farm (film), a 1988 film starring Chevy Chase
 * Funny Farm (TV series), a Canadian musical comedy television series from 1974 to 1975
 * Funny Farm (Milwaukee TV show) a Milwaukee children's show
 * Funny Farm (play), a 1975 television play by Roy Minton
 * Funny Farm, an album by King Kong
 * Funny Farm, an album by Pip Skid
 * Funny Farm (novel), a novel by Jay Cronley
 * Funny Farm (webcomic), a webcomic

title: Funny Farm


text:
User talk:CBR1kboy

I am a 44 year old male living in Denver. I am an information security professional in the private sector. My hobbies include riding motorcycles, reading, playing guitar, and photography.

title: User talk:CBR1kboy


text: Category:Nintendo stubs

title: Category:Nintendo stubs