text:
Talk:Republic/Archive 6

Professionals speak on Wheeler's behalf
I would like to point out some other help in my case Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER. Comments are adde below:
 * While his articles on classical subjects have their fair share of flaws, they are almost entirely accurate, well-researched, and extremely well-cited; I speak from about seven years' worth of education in Latin and Greek. I don't see why the deletionist push against his articles has been so strong. Any problems with his articles are problems that can be fixed and edited. For the most part I would not call his articles on classical antiquity original research; what he says is generally stuff that is widely accepted in the field. While I've seen that things have gotten messy when he starts "turf wars" and tries to shoehorn classical definitions into modern articles without proper context, when he writes on classical subjects his work has been very good. I'd much rather see an edit war (although I'd hope for that not to happen) than an article with a lot of good information deleted. I'd rather see articles on encyclopedic topics fixed rather than deleted.Kevin M Marshall 19:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. I've not looked at Classical definition of republic before, but, from my scant knowledge of classics, the most recent version before deletion  looks pretty good (well, it seriously needs pruning and thinning down, but there is the core of a decent article on what the Ancient Greeks and Romans meant by the word "republic" - surely a proper topic for an encyclopaedia, I should have thought.)

 * The problem, it seems to me from the bits I have seen on the Village Pump, is WHEELER's rather forceful reaction to others trying to add their own input. But I don't know enough to comment properly. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both of you sum things up well. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have brought over comments from true professionals on my work.WHEELER 17:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Australia and Republic
It is incorrect to describe the monarchy/republic issue as major. It is about as low in importance as you can get and still be on the rankings chart. At its peak in the year of the referendum only 4% of Australians put it in the top three issues. Definitely minor.

Secondly, Australia has a republican form of government in that sovereignty resides in the people by virtue of s128 of the Constitution, all the important powers are given to the appointed Governor-General in his own right, and the only role played by the Queen is that of powerless figurehead. The only dependence on a hereditary principle is that the Queen gets to be the figurehead. Her powers are trivial and she cannot instruct the Governor-General, her supposed representative, on the exercise of his powers. Pete 02:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There are multiple definitions of the word republic and using one definition in a section on another makes the article deeply confusing. - SimonP 02:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * I take your point, but I'm not going to accept anything that says the monarchy/republic thing in Australia is a major political issue, because it isn't. Australia has a far more republican form of government than New Zealand and Canada and other realms, where the Governor-General merely exercises the powers of the Queen. In Australia, he is given them directly and the Queen can't tell him what to do. However, you are correct in that in Australia the word "republic" generally means "not a monarchy". But Australia isn't much of a kingdom, not when compared to places such as the UK or Sweden where they have their own monarchs and there is no pwerful head of state figure such as the Governor-General.

 * Perhaps you could alter the wording to something you think I might accept? Pete 04:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Google seems to disagree. "Australia AND republic" gets far more hits than similar searches on health care, education, immigration, or taxes. - SimonP 04:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * <Snicker> How droll. Thanks for your input. Pete 06:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected an error in the new text which stated that states of the British commonwealth had their Goverons-General appointed externally. This is rubbish. Most nations within the British Commonwealth are unmistakably republics - India, Pakistan, South Africa and so on. Realms like Australia select their Governors-General internally. The nomination is advised by the relevant Prime Minister to the Queen of Australia (or Canada or New Zealand etc.) who formally appoints that person. The anomaly is the presence of a monarch within an otherwise republican form of government, not the supposed external appointment of Governors-General. Pete 19:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Split of "republic" and "republicanism"
As discussed above (not only by myself) "republic" and "republicanism" are no synonyms. They could be on the same page, if it would take less than +/- 32 kB to write such article. Instead, the present, already fairly long, "republic" article is taken for near to 90 % by "republicanism", only about 20% "republic" (which also means that in my view both concepts, or at least the text devoted to them, only overlap for about 10%): the present text of the article works as an impediment for those who want to give a balanced and non-ideological elaboration of the "republic" concept(s), of which, still in my view, the treatment is much too limited on the "republic" page now.

In other words the present article is political POV, as it inadvertedly implies one needs to adhere to "republicanism" in order to understand what a "republic" is. So even if we were far from the advisory 32 kB limit, a split is necessary for conformance to wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Above someone asks: how would it be possible to perform such split? - and then says something like "one needs the republic concept to explain republicanism, as one needs republicanism to demonstrate what can be done with with the republic concept. With the same reasoning "hardware" and "software" would be synonyms too, and in the end synonym to all other human realisations... and there would be no need to write wikipedia articles at all. So, in order to answer the question about how the split can be performed: wait and see, I'll perform the split. I mention my intention here:
 * 1) So that others might join in and help a hand (if, and only if, enough NPOV flows through their veins that they can see at least the difference between an ideological and a non-ideological treatment of the republic concept).
 * 2) So that all who read this are warned that maybe the "republic" article won't be immediately about 30 kB long, as a lot of text will need to be built gradually, in the wikipedia way (beware of butchering!)

I'm no expert in all fields relevant to the clarification of the "republic" concept(s), I can only contribute in those fields where I feel relatively at ease, so, again, feel invited to contribute.

--Francis Schonken 07:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I oppose this split having two pages with identical content is pointless.
 * The content is not "identical", the idea is to link them properly. Anyway there is no "split having two pages with identical content".
 * I agree that reoublic and republicanism do have exactly the same conotations,
 * I don't agree that "republic and republicanism do have exactly the same connotations", and I never said I did (in fact I said the contrary, like many above did, SimonP seems a bit stubborn in reading what he wants to read and not reading the rest). Only in the age of Enlightenment, and still only to a certain degree, descriptions and ideologies regarding republics became mixed. Tacitus was not a "republican", Augustine was not a "republican", Macchiavelli was not a "republican", etc..., etc...
 * but for every definition of republicanism the word republic is used to describe the state being sought and vice versa.
 * Incorrect (in fact: ideologist POV)
 * - SimonP 09:15, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * The first outline of the split which I have performed up till now can probably still be further improved, I'm sure, so attacking the idea of the split on details is of no use IMHO. I'm rather happy with the result up till now. Please feel invited to contribute, and, where necessary help switch content between republic and republicanism. Thanks! --Francis Schonken 11:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was writing quickly this morning (I had a plane to catch) and left out an important not. What I meant to say was "I agree that republic and republicanism do not have exactly the same conotations." I understand some of your confusion. Also when I saw these page the content was almost identical. Currently there is still a great deal of duplication (i.e. the republicanism in the United States section is identical as is most of the further Western development portion.) I still assert this division is not useful and is not used outside this encyclopedia.  Has any scholar ever written a book on republics that did not also cover republicanism or vice versa? Does any encyclopedia of politics or philosophy have a seperate listing for republicanism and republic? Does any dictionary even have a definition of republicanism that sees it as an idea distinct from republic? - SimonP 18:14, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for having been harsh re. your error.
 * Yes, I announced the delicate operation in advance. Wouldn't you have? Yes, it took me a few hours for performing the first "disentanglement".
 * Roman Emperor is presently some 5 basic pages (not counting the lists) + several others with more detail (I even made a nice template for navigating these pages: template:epochs of Roman Emperors - and then "Roman Emperors" is only a subpage of "Roman Empire", which is only one of the "Empire" pages. Well, basicly:
 * Forcing everyone to see "republic" through the glasses of "republicanism" is a brake on developing the content of the "republic" page - you refer to many books, and then you would have it all summarized in less than 32 kb? The "republic" pages are in content still seriously lagging behind on "empire" and other monarchy-related pages.
 * The split republic/republicanism appears the more obvious for starting, because it was mixing "ideology" with "history", which is difficult to disentangle: all the more should wikipedia aim at that;
 * Categorisation of both pages needs to be different in wikipedia logic, and would be a travesty one way or another when both "republic" and "republicanism" content are kept on one page;
 * So please, let both pages lead their own life, you'll see that both'll have over 32 kb worth of encyclopedic value pretty soon. In fact I'd like to do you some suggestions, which I'm sure you have a better background for than I have:
 * Yes, the "US" part was not completely disentangled yet. But I made the republican page a "disambig" instead of a "redirect". Can you check whether this agrees with how native English speakers would experience this? Is this OK as well from US viewpoint as from British etc. viewpoint? And then the real job that could be done: I think the US section on the "republicanism" page needs to explain some more re. the roots of the republican party; and why its name was different from the democratic party - I have some vague notions about this, that, effectively, got a bit clearer through what I was working on yesterday. But I think for young people that knew no other time than the one where "republic" was as good as a synonym to "democracy", there could be some benefit from an explanation of the roots of this kind of "republicanism".
 * Disentangle the "references" lists: not all references need to be on both pages, I suppose, but since I have none of the books listed there, I can't very well discern which references are most appropriate on which page.
 * I had hoped I had found time to start the Politics (Aristotle) page already long ago. Wouldn't that be nice that you worked on that one, for example together with WHEELER, you can't continue to be mad at one another, and wouldn't that be a more-than-nice opportunity to forgive-and-forget the old differences?
 * --Francis Schonken 08:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have remerged the pages, and have moved some of the additions to a new list of republics page.
 * Oh, we're back to "do first, think/discuss later" then, no problem, I can adapt to that.

Your separation made it far harder for readers to find what they are looking for.
 * Your merging makes it nearly completely impossible to find a NPOV treatment of the concept republic, which by all means means that your treatment of the topic is worse.

Someone trying to find what is meant by the word republic by Citizens for a Canadian Republic will find no link to Canadian republicanism in your article.
 * The article wasn't "mine", high time you stop treating this article as if it were "yours". There are many ways to tackle the issue you mention apart from the merging you defend.

A reader researching the Ancient Roman antecedents of classical republicanism will have no way of knowing most of that content was in the republic article.
 * Then the fault was in the republicanism article, ever heard about wikipedia's internal linking system? You place double square brackets around the word republic in the "history" section of the republicanism article. Problem solved.

Someone researching what the title of Cass Sunstein's Republic.com means will find no discussion of the modern republicanism that book discusses in the republic article.
 * Add this reference to the republic (disambiguation) page (it has a section with "writings" already), and/or create a new article republic.com - my god with your 50.000 edits you still make yourself sound as a newbie.

Our republic article needs to cover defintions of republic as diverse as those used in the phrases Roman Republic, Republic Advisory Committee, Republic.com, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and Free Republic. We cannot just cover those definitions that are more "correct".
 * "Our republic article": I'm not collaborating to your republic article, but to the wikipedia republic article. Please mind the difference. Of course the things you mention need to be covered, but not necessarily in the SimonP way.

You also have not addressed the originality concerns.
 * Oops, I did address them (the hardware/software reductio ad absurdum), you simply, again, preferred not to see that reply.

In my reading I have never seen a reference source cover republics and republicanism in different articles.
 * Don't make me comment on the single-mindedness of your reading. Further, there simply is no wikipedia rule/guideline/policy that advises to make a single article of any topics that are "usually treated in the same (reference) book". Dada and Tristan Tzara are two separate articles, I hear nobody complaining about that.

Please recall that "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis" of information is not permitted in Wikipedia under the No original research policy.
 * Really, did you thus desperately run out of arguments to first fabricate a new policy that has no chance of ever getting generally aproved by the wikipedia community, and then draw in a policy that has nothing to do with the issue at stake? I'll mention once again the wikipedia policies that are at stake and which you seem not to worry about:
 * NPOV - not distinguishing between the history of the concept republic and the history of republicanism (an ideology!) is inherent POV.
 * article size - the present "republic" article is above 32kb, and should be split. Please make another reasonable proposition if the republic/republicanism article split proposition does not agree with you.
 * Finally I want to remark you adressed as good as none of the concerns I mentioned. Your concerns seem exclusively bent on pushing POV, and I replied to them to the best of my knowledge. You, on the other hand, appear extremely bent on ignoring other people's concerns. --Francis Schonken 13:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- SimonP 18:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * No original research is not "a new policy that has no chance of ever getting generally approved" but rather one of our core and foundational doctrines. Also it is perfectly appropriate to use the word our to refer to the Wikipedia community of which we are both members. You have not addressed the originality concerns as you have yet to cite sources that supports your division. You simply ignored my statement that our (us being the Wikipedia community) republic article needs to cover definitions of republic as diverse as those used in the phrases Roman Republic, Republic Advisory Committee, Republic.com, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and Free Republic. - SimonP 14:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh yes, you continue to read what is not written: Your newly invented principle that an article should not be split if "generally the two different topics on that page are is similar reference books" is the "new policy that has no chance of ever getting generally approved". I have to reference nothing regarding this particular topic. You have to reference to a wikipedia guideline that would state what you take as a principle. As said, No original research, which I have in high esteem, is a principle that is not at stake in this issue and drawn in by you, because you're seemingly desparate for sound arguments. --Francis Schonken 16:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is original research because you have created a new definition of is republic and republicanism. I perhaps wouldn't object if you could outline a division that actually worked. Currently the division is massively POV it accepts non-monarchy as the primary definition of republic and exiles the others to another article. You, and everyone else, have to accept that the word republic has multiple interpretations.  Within the last two months on this very page Silverback has insisted the American defintion is primary and is what should be covered by this page, Wheeler argued that the article had to say that the word republic primarily meant mixed government, and now you have come to argue it primarily means anti-monarchism.

 * With your division a reader trying to figure out what Republic.com is about would have thought it has something to do with anti-monarchism. Someone researching Irish republicanism would have gotten no information on what is meant in the republicanism article. A reader wondering what the word republic means in the American constitution will no longer find that information in the republic article. Nor will someone charting the development of the Dutch or Polish republics have found what they were looking for on this page. - SimonP 00:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

POV retrieved from "republic page"
There are a number of clearly interlinked definitions of what is a republic. Perhaps the most straightforward is that republics are any states that are not monarchies. This meaning can apply to all manner of states from democracies to totalitarian dictatorships. Republicanism can thus refer to any movement opposing monarchy.

 * "Perhaps the most straightforward" is bad wikipedia writing. see manual of style. "Perhaps the most straightforward is that republics are any states that are not monarchies." is unreferenced POV.

In the early modern period philosophers developed a view of what is the ideal republic. They saw the ideal republic as one based on popular sovereignty, civic virtue, and mixed government. This meaning is often contrasted with liberalism. A republic can thus also refer to a state that matches this ideal, even if it might be a monarchy. Thus some states belonging to the British Commonwealth, like Australia could be described as republics, but they are not conventionally so labeled.

 * deceptive writing as if classical authors had not also developed several views of what is the ideal republic. And as if early modern philosophers developed a single view. And as if mixed government is one single form of government.

In the United States a third definition developed that sees republic as a synonym for representative democracy.

 * See POV - subtitle "Country POV". I don't think "representative democracy" was developed in the US alone. And deceptive as if "representative democracy" is a definition for republic.
 * Introductions by neccessity make generalizations, but I have improved the text somewhat. Also representative democracy is a defintion of republic that is widely used in the United States. Please read the "republicanism in the United States" section.  - SimonP
 * Of course it's about the best way to "summarize" we are discussing. On first sight your improvements seem to work better, but see also my reply to the next section. --Francis Schonken 14:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republicanism in the United States
You deeply misunderstand what this section is about. It is not about representative democracy it is about the American definition of republic that has representative democracy as the central qualities of a republic. There is an important distinction. You have also made a number of major factual errors. That "the distinction between the ideas of "direct democracy" and "representative democracy" (then seen as a synonym to republic) can largely be traced back to the Founding Fathers." is utterly wrong. Direct and representative democracies have been distinguished at least since Aristotle. The sentence also implies that the word republic is not still used as a synonym for representative democracy which is absolutely not the case. I'm not sure what the Belgium vs. the United States section is about, but it does not seem particularly relevant and also smacks of original research. But perhaps you could add it to the representative democracy article, where I have moved some other sections you added. - SimonP 13:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the misunderstanding of the representative/direct democracy distinction not being invented by the Founding Fathers, you already corrected that.
 * It's about the "representative democracy" as (3rd) definition of republic, from a US P.O.V. (quote: "In the United States a third definition developed that sees republic as a synonym for representative democracy"): other P.O.V.'s exist not equalling representative democracy to republic, that's what made me add the new section. This, then, leads to the question what remains the difference between "representative democracy" types of monarchies and republics. That a "marginal" distinction remains was explained by examples. The examples are referenced by the internal links to the respective heads of state: I checked for G. Ford, Baudouin, Leopold III and Albert II whether the story I alluded to was contained in the respective wikipedia articles, and they did. For Nixon I didn't check, but I'm sure the 'impending impeachement' story will be included in the wikipedia article on that president. Likewise I have no doubt about the Clinton example.
 * Note that US officials and other generally have no problem seeing Belgium as a "representative democracy" (they don't go around inciting Belgium to become "more democratical"). Neither do they have problem in respecting the head of state in his quality of King (When Bush visited our country some time ago he didn't address our King as "president"). If you think I should reference that, I would, but it seems too obvious for me, nonetheless, if you ask I'll be happy to oblige. --Francis Schonken 14:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The article makes clear that this definition is largely confined to the United States and that other parts of the world use a different definition of republic.
 * What I say is that there is that there are some kind of unresolved contradictions resulting from the way you attempt to represent the issue (then, at least, also don't reproach me if I don't understand): Please use references to clarify which US sources define republics thus; and distinguish them from US sources using the other 2 definititions mentioned earlier in the article (seems you don't understand how wikipedia referencing and "no original research" works). Do Americans talk two kinds of English, a kind for "internal use" when they talk among each other, and another kind, with different connotations, when they talk with people from other parts of the world? That is the kind of thing you want me to believe...
 * The other meanings of republic are clearly explained earlier in the article.
 * It is not clear to me then (unless referenced) which American sources use these two other definitions then.
 * There is a reason this section is titled "republicanism in the United States," it is only intended to cover the internal American debate about what is a republic.
 * Yeah, yeah, I know, the usual American POV as if the rest of the world doesn't count. In which circles is the debate carried on in this kind of terminology? Please clarify & reference. Please also read again POV: even with your explanations here on the talk page, if this section doesn't change I could remove it without further excuses while in contradiction with that wikipedia guideline.
 * The issue if monarchy is irrelevant to this issue.
 * No it isn't: Belgium claims to be a representative monarchy, and that contradicts "representative democracy" being possible as definition of a republic. So at least the thing needs to be explained, based on acceptable sources.
 * It should also be noted that while "representative democracy" is central to the American understanding of republic non-monarchy and rule by the people are also part of American republicanism.
 * The Belgian 1830 constitution was considered very progressive at the time while it had representative democracy as its very central core, and, e.g., a king left with no margin than to accept every law voted in parliament. Not something "accidentally added to it later on". I just reopened my secondary school history book on this, my assertions are all in there, and I can make nice references if you really insist.

 * Again you misunderstand our original research rule. Not only the facts must be based on secondary sources but so must the analysis. Your arguments must also be taken from the work of others not developed by yourself.  From whose work did you derive your "monarchies and republics differ in dealing with scandal" thesis?  You didn't cite any sources to explain who developed this idea. If it isn't original research it still does not belong in this article as a comparisson of the various forms of representative democracy rightly belongs in the representative democracy article. - SimonP 15:19, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's why I gave examples without developing an argument, so that anyone can decide for himself whether there is a real difference between republics and monarchies, in the case they are both "representative democracies". As far as I know wikipedia articles can be based on primary sources too, at least in part, so I think, again, its you who has to re-read the no original research guideline (in fact I re-read it myself, and true, it became a bit more strict than a few weeks ago, that's was why I added the EXTERNAL BBC link for the Delphine Boel story, because wikipedia did not have such external link yet), and please stop going around trying to intimidate others that they don't implement what's written in that guideline. The comment on whether or not "representative democracy" can be used to define republics (american or other) does not belong in the representative democracy article, but in the article where such definition is presented. And please, again, reference that definition. --Francis Schonken 17:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not an American, but I do not think it unreasonable that the section on "republicanism in the United States" covers the U.S. and does not go into detail on the situation in Belgium. I also feel that this section is sufficiently referenced. The "republicanism in the United States" section already references John Adams, the Federalist Papers, Bernard Bailyn, Isaac Kramnick, the Declaration of Independence, and three Supreme Court cases. What would perhaps be best is if you tried to read some of these sources (especially Adams, Bailyn, or Kramnick) so that you could gain some understanding of American republicanism before asserting that the article is in error. For instance you asserted that Belgium claims to be a representative monarchy, and that contradicts "representative democracy" being possible as definition of a republic. Which is simply untrue as under certain definitions, e.g. Kant's, a republic can also be a monarchy.

 * As to the original research debate it is long been at the heart of the no original research rule that an argument based on primary sources but developed by a Wikipedian is not acceptable. Your passage on dealing with scandal is clearly an original essay. It begins with a thesis statement (The difference between "republic" and "monarchy" types of representative democracies only appears marginally in the different approach to crises in which the head of state is involved.) Continues with a series of examples attempting to prove the thesis and ends with a conclusion. Not a single secondary source is cited in the text nor have you added any sources to the references section that could contain such an argument. - SimonP 20:38, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Republic/Archive 6


text:
Michael Cox (independent bishop)

Most Rev Dr Michael Patrick Cox, MA, OMD (born 1946 (age 51)) is an Irish independent bishop. From Mitchelstown, County Cork, he is a well-known member of the Independent Catholic movement in Ireland and is also known for ordaining the singer Sinéad O'Connor. He is the founder and bishop superior of the Irish Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Early life
Cox was an Irish soldier and a Dún Laoghaire harbour policeman.

Ministry
Michael Patrick Cox was ordained to the priesthood in Switzerland on 1 May 1978 as part of Order Mater Dei by Bishops Maurice "Hermenegildo" Revaz (Bishop Superior at the time), William "Rufino" Daly, Richard "Sixto" Corr, James Boyle and Ciaran "Bernardo" Broadbery. This Order was founded by a group of former Bishops of the Carmelites of the Holy Face who had left when this order under Clemente Domínguez y Gómez transformed into the Palmarian Catholic Church, with Clemente claiming he had been crowned Pope Gregory XVII of the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ. Their holy orders derive from Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục.

He was then validly consecrated Bishop in Dublin by Broadbery on 27 April 1982 and subsequently appeared on The Late Late Show shortly afterwards.

Broadbery was consecrated in 1977 by Clemente Domínguez y Gómez of the Carmelites of the Holy Face (which would later become the Palmarian Catholic Church), who in turn was consecrated by Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục. In September 1976, Thục, and those he had ordained, were excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Cox offered Tridentine Masses at Monkstown, County Dublin, in the mid-1980s.

Cox's church is St Colman's, in the townland of Cree near Birr, County Offaly.

In May 1998, Cox consecrated a Catholic priest, Patrick Buckley, as a bishop. In June 1998, Jim Cantwell, director of the Irish Catholic Press and Information Office, said that Cox's consecration of Buckley was valid but illicit. However, the Catholic Media Office of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales later "said that it doubts that the bishop's episcopal consecration is valid".

In April 1999, Cox ordained female rock singer Sinéad O'Connor as a priest. Her ordination ceremony, after six weeks of theological study, was held in a Lourdes hotel bedroom. O'Connor then assumed the religious name of "Mother Bernadette Mary". This action is not considered valid within the Catholic church

At The Sacred Council held at St Colman's Church in the townland of Cree near Birr, Co Offaly 21–23 April 2000, Bishop Cox was elected Archbishop-Patriarch of OMD for life and to hold a veto over the whole order of OMD.

In 2001, Cox planned to convert his 75 ft commercial fishing trawler, called The Little Bishop, into "a mobile floating church, offering on-board marriages and baptisms to people around the British Isles." Cox planned to protest against the ship being sailed into Ireland by the pro-choice feminist group Women on Waves. In 2004, Cox's 84 ft trawler, called The Patriarch, caught fire while underway and sank.

In 2011, Cox was a candidate in the general election for the Laois–Offaly constituency, coming last with 60 votes. In 2013, a District Court judge requested that the Garda Síochána investigate a marriage conducted by Cox for a 17-year-old Traveller youth and his partner. Civil marriages in Ireland require that the participants are over 18, or have a Court Exemption Order if this is not the case. Cox states that such weddings conducted by him are religious, not civil, so there is no religious reason why somebody 16 years old should not get married.

"I recognise their [Traveller] customs and appreciate them. Anyone who asks why I do what I do- I tell them that I make it clear the wedding ceremony is purely religious. I do not register marriage with the state." Cox insists on parental consent and parents being present at the ceremony.

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

title: Michael Cox (independent bishop)


text:
German cruiser Emden

Emden was a light cruiser built for the German Navy (Reichsmarine) in the early 1920s. She was the only ship of her class and was the first large warship built in Germany after the end of World War I. She was built at the Reichsmarinewerft in Wilhelmshaven; her keel was laid down in December 1921 and her completed hull was launched in January 1925. Emden was commissioned into the fleet in October 1925. Her design was heavily informed by the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles and the dictates of the Allied disarmament commission. Displacement was capped at 6000 LT, though like all German warships built in the period, Emden exceeded the size limitations. She was armed with a main battery of surplus 15 cm guns left over from World War I, mounted in single gun turrets, as mandated by the Allied powers. She had a top speed of 29 kn.

Emden spent the majority of her career as a training ship; in the inter-war period, she conducted several world cruises to train naval cadets, frequently visiting East Asia, the Americas, and the Indian Ocean region. In 1937 and 1938, she briefly participated in the non-intervention patrols during the Spanish Civil War. At the outbreak of war, she laid minefields off the German coast and was damaged by a British bomber that crashed into her. She participated in the invasion of Norway in April 1940 as part of the force that captured the Norwegian capital at Oslo.

The ship thereafter resumed training duties in the Baltic Sea. These lasted with minor interruptions until September 1941, when she was assigned to the Baltic Fleet and tasked with supporting German operations during the invasion of the Soviet Union. Training duties resumed in 1942 and lasted until late 1944, when she took part in minelaying operations in the Skagerrak. Damaged in a grounding accident in December 1944, she went to Königsberg for repairs. In January 1945, she participated in the evacuation of East Prussia to escape the advancing Soviet Army. While undergoing repairs in Kiel, Emden was repeatedly damaged by British bombers and later run aground outside the harbor to prevent her from sinking. In the final days of the war, she was blown up to prevent her capture. The wreck was ultimately broken up in place by 1950.

Design

According to Article 181 of the Treaty of Versailles, the treaty that ended World War I, the German Navy was permitted only six light cruisers. Article 190 limited new cruiser designs to 6000 LT and prohibited new construction until the vessel to be replaced was at least twenty years old. Since the six cruisers that German retained had been launched between 1899 and 1902, the oldest ships—SMS Niobe, SMS Amazone (1900), SMS Nymphe, SMS Thetis, and SMS Medusa—could be replaced immediately. Design work on the first new light cruiser, ordered as "Ersatz Niobe", began in 1921.

The Navy hoped to finish the ship as quickly as possible and to keep costs to a minimum, and so requested permission from the Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control to use steam turbines, boilers, and conning towers from scrapped vessels to complete Ersatz Niobe. The NIACC rejected the request. The Navy also hoped to use an armament of four twin-gun turrets for the new ship. The NIACC rejected the twin-turret design, but allowed the use of 15 cm guns from existing stocks of spare barrels. Nominally within the 6,000-ton limit of the Versailles Treaty, Emden in fact exceeded the restriction by almost 1000 LT fully loaded. In 1923, after work on Emden had already begun, the Germans proposed using the definition for standard displacement adopted in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, which was significantly less than full-load displacement. The Allied powers approved of the change, and thus Emden, which had a standard displacement of just under the 6,000-ton limit, was retroactively made legal.

The ship was based on the blueprints from the late-war cruiser SMS Karlsruhe (1916), primarily due to personnel shortages in the design staff and the closure of the Navy's Ship Testing Institute, and the blueprints for Karlsruhe were still available. Completed to a dated design, she proved to be something of a disappointment in service, primarily owing to her weak broadside of just six 15 cm guns. Nevertheless, the ship incorporated major advances over the earlier designs, including large-scale use of welding in her construction and a significantly more efficient propulsion system that gave her a cruising radius fifty percent larger than that of the older ships, which proved to be quite useful on the extended training cruises of the 1920s and 1930s.

General characteristics

Emden was 150.5 m long at the waterline and 155.1 m long overall. She had a beam of 14.2 m and a designed draft of 5.3 m; at standard load, the draft was 5.15 m, and at combat load the draft increased to 5.93 m. Her designed displacement was 5960 LT, with 5300 LT standard and 6990 LT combat displacements. Her hull was constructed with longitudinal steel frames and incorporated seventeen watertight compartments and a double bottom that extended for 56 percent of the length of the keel. She had a waterline armored belt that was 50 mm thick; her armored deck was 20 to 40 mm thick, and her conning tower had 100 mm thick sides.

The ship had a standard crew of nineteen officers and 464 enlisted men. While serving on cadet training cruises, her crew numbered twenty-nine officers and 445 enlisted, with 162 cadets. After 1940, her standard crew was increased to twenty-six officers and 556 enlisted, and after being reduced to a training ship, her crew numbered thirty officers and 653 enlisted men. Emden carried six boats. The German Navy regarded the ship as a good sea boat, with slight lee helm and gentle motion in a swell. The cruiser was maneuverable, but was slow going into a turn. Steering was controlled by a single large rudder. She lost speed only slightly in a head sea, but lost up to sixty percent in hard turns. She had a metacentric height of .79 m.

Machinery
Emden was powered by two sets of Brown, Boveri & Co. geared steam turbines; they drove a pair of three-bladed screws that were 3.75 m in diameter. Steam was provided by four coal-fired Marine-type water-tube boilers and six oil-fired Marine water-tube boilers divided into four boiler rooms. The engines were rated at 46500 shp and a top speed of 29 kn. On speed trials, her engines reached 45900 shp and a maximum of 29.4 kn. The ship was designed to carry 300 MT of coal, though additional space could accommodate up to 875 MT. Oil capacity was 200 MT as designed, and up to 1170 MT in additional fuel bunkers. This gave the ship a cruising radius of 6700 nmi at 12 kn. At 18 kn, her range fell to 5200 nmi. Electrical power was supplied by two systems of three generators each, with a total combined output of 420 kW at 220 Volts.

Armament
The ship's main battery was to have been eight 15 cm SK L/55 guns in twin turrets, but the Allied disarmament authority refused to permit this armament. Instead, she was equipped with existing stocks of 15 cm SK L/45 guns in single turrets. The guns were C/16 models; they fired a 45 kg shell at a muzzle velocity of 835 m/s. They could elevate to 40 degrees and had a maximum range of 17600 m. The eight guns were supplied with a total of 960 rounds of ammunition. Emden was also equipped with two 8.8 cm SK L/45 anti-aircraft guns, and a third was later added. These guns had between 900 and 1,200 rounds of ammunition in total. As designed, she was to have carried eight deck-mounted 50 cm torpedo tubes in dual launchers, but only four tubes were fitted as built. In 1934, these were replaced with more powerful 53.3 cm tubes. The ship carried twelve torpedoes.

In 1938, the ship's anti-aircraft battery was strengthened. She received two and later four 3.7 cm SK C/30 guns and up to eighteen 2 cm Flak guns. The capacity to carry 120 mines was also added. In 1942, two of the four torpedo launchers were removed, and she was rearmed with a new model of 15 cm gun. This gun was the Tbts KC/36 model, and was designed for use on destroyers. It fired a slightly smaller 40 kg shell at a higher muzzle velocity—875 m/s. The gun could elevate to 47 degrees for a maximum range of 23500 m. By 1945, the ship's anti-aircraft battery consisted of nine 3.7 cm guns and six 2 cm guns.

Construction – 1931

Emden was laid down at the Reichsmarinewerft shipyard in Wilhelmshaven on 8 December 1921. Political instability and Germany's financial weakness in the early 1920s delayed construction of the ship, and she was launched on 7 January 1925. Admiral Hans Zenker gave a speech at her launching, and the ship was christened by the widow of Karl von Müller, who had commanded the original SMS Emden during World War I. The new cruiser was commissioned into the fleet nine months later, on 15 October 1925. Intended for use as a training ship for naval cadets, Emden was assigned to the Marinestation der Nordsee (North Sea Naval Station); she began sea trials after entering service, and these were interrupted with alterations in the Reichsmarinewerft that included a reconstruction of the battle mast. After these were completed in 1926, she conducted individual training and made numerous visits to foreign ports in northern European waters. In August and September 1926, she took part in annual fleet maneuvers, and in October she returned to the shipyard again to have her aft funnel increased in height to match the forward one. Emden was at that time allocated to the Training Inspectorate of the Navy.

Emden embarked on her first long-range training cruise on 14 November 1926 from Wilhelmshaven. The ship traveled to south around Africa and across the Indian Ocean, where she stopped in the Cocos Islands, where the wreck of the original Emden was still present. The crew held a memorial service there on 15 March 1927 before continuing on to East Asian waters. She visited ports in Japan before crossing the northern Pacific Ocean to Alaska and then steamed down the western coast of North America, calling in various harbors along the way. Emden continued south through Central and South American waters, crossing into the Atlantic Ocean and turning north; the ship was in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on 25 December. She returned to Germany by way of the Azores and Vilagarcía, Spain, arriving in Wilhelmhaven on 14 March 1928.

The ship spent much of the rest of the year preparing for the next major cruise, which began on 5 December. By this time, the ship had come under the command of Korvettenkapitän (Corvette Captain) Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière, who had come aboard in September. The ship steamed down to the Mediterranean Sea and stopped in Istanbul, Turkey, before traveling south through the Suez Canal, across the Indian Ocean to the Dutch East Indies, and then to Australia. Emden then crossed the Pacific to Hawaii before proceeding to the west coast of the United States. She then steamed south to the Panama Canal, which she transited to the Caribbean Sea. The ship then crossed to Las Palmas in the Canary Islands before returning to Wilhelmshaven, which she reached on 13 December 1929.

On 13 January 1930, Emden left Wilhelmshaven on her third voyage abroad. She steamed into the Atlantic and stopped in Madeira before crossing over to tour several ports in the Caribbean, including Saint Thomas in the US Virgin Islands, New Orleans and Charleston in the US, Kingston, Jamaica, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. The ship recrossed the Atlantic, stopping in Las Palmas and Santa Cruz de Tenerife on the way, before arriving back in Wilhelmshaven on 13 May 1930. There, she went into the shipyard for an extensive overhaul. In October, Fregattenkapitän (FK—Frigate Captain) Robert Witthoeft-Emden took command of the ship.

Emden embarked on her next overseas cruise on 1 December. The ship initially cruised to Vigo, Spain before entering the Mediterranean. She stopped in Souda Bay, Crete and then transited the Suez Canal, stopping in Aden, Cochin, Colombo, Trincomalee, Port Blair as she crossed the Indian Ocean to Sabang in the Dutch East Indies. Emden then visited numerous ports in Southeast Asia, China, Japan, and the Pacific, including Bangkok, Victoria, Labuan, Manila, Nanking, Shanghai, Nagasaki, Osaka, Nii-jima, Tsuruga, Hakodate, Otaru, Yokohama, and Guam. Emden then crossed back through the Indian Ocean, stopping in Mauritius before arriving in South Africa; there, she stopped in Durban and East London, where a group of the ship's officers went to Johannesburg; there, they were received by J. B. M. Hertzog, the Prime Minister of South Africa. On the way back to Germany, the ship stopped in Lobito and Luanda in Portuguese Angola, Las Palmas, and Santander, Spain. She reached Wilhelmshaven on 8 December 1931.

1932–1939
On 1 January 1932, Emden, under the command of FK Werner Grassmann, was transferred from the Training Inspectorate to the Commander of Reconnaissance Forces, Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) Conrad Albrecht. During this period, the ship took part in training exercises with the fleet's scouting forces, including the annual fleet maneuvers in August and September. She also participated in a fleet training cruise into the Atlantic, during which she visited Funchal and Las Palmas with the light cruiser GERMAN CRUISER Leipzig. Emden was decommissioned on 1 April 1933 for an extensive refit that involved the replacement of her four coal-fired boilers with oil-fired models. Both funnels were shorted by approximately 2 m and gaffs for the wireless transmitters were installed on the aft funnel. On returning to service on 29 September 1934, FK Karl Dönitz, the future commander of the Kriegsmarine, took command of the ship. At this time, she returned to the Training Inspectorate and resumed long-range cruises. The first such voyage began on 10 November, and included stops in Santa Cruz de La Palma, Cape Town and East London, Porto Amelia in Portuguese Mozambique, Mombasa, Kenya, Victoria, Seychelles, Trincomalee, and Cochin. On the way back home, she entered the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal and visited Alexandria, Cartagena, Ponta Delgada, Lisbon, and Vigo, before anchoring in the Schillig roadstead outside Wilhelmshaven on 12 June 1935.

Emden started her sixth major training cruise on 23 October, under the command of Kapitän zur See (KzS—Captain at Sea) Johannes Bachmann, which went to the Americas. She crossed the Atlantic by way of the Azores, toured the West Indies and visited Venezuela, before passing through the Panama Canal to Guayaquil, Ecuador on 25 December. She then steamed north to Puerto San José, Guatemala before continuing on to Portland, Oregon and then crossing over to Hawaii. From there, she returned to Central America, crossed back through the Panama Canal, visited more islands in the West Indies, and then cruised the eastern coast of North America, stopping in Baltimore and Montreal. The ship then recrossed the Atlantic to Pontevedra, Spain and returned to Germany, arriving on 11 June 1936. In August, Bachmann was replaced by KzS Walter Lohmann. The next major training cruise began on 10 October; Emden steamed to the Mediterranean Sea and visited Cagliari on the island of Sardinia, and passed through the Dardanelles to Istanbul, and continued on through the Bosporus to the Black Sea. There, she stopped in Varna, Bulgaria, before returning to the Mediterranean and steaming through the Suez Canal. The ship stopped in British Ceylon on her way to East Asia, where she visited ports in Thailand, China, and Japan. On the way back to Germany, she stopped in Padang in the Dutch East Indies and Bombay, India. Another trip through the Suez Canal brought the ship back to the Mediterranean; she stopped in Algeciras, Spain on 15 April 1937, passed through the English Channel three days later, and reached Voslapp, Germany on the 19th. The ship finally returned to Wilhelmshaven on 23 April.

On 11 October 1937, Emden began her eighth major cruise, departing Wilhelmshaven for the Mediterranean under the command of FK Leopold Bürkner. There, she joined the German naval forces that had been sent to the non-intervention patrols enforcing the arms embargo on Spain during the Spanish Civil War. Emden remained here for only a few days, from 16 to 18 October, before continuing on through the Suez Canal to the Indian Ocean. There, she stopped in a variety of foreign ports, including Massawa in Italian Eritrea, Colombo in British Ceylon, Mormugao, India, and Belawan and Surabaya in the Dutch East Indies. On her return to the Mediterranean, she briefly rejoined the non-intervention patrols off the Spanish coast from 14 to 21 March 1938. She then continued on to Amsterdam and ultimately arrived back in Wilhelmshaven on 23 April.

In June, KzS Paul Wever relieved Bürkner in preparation for the next major cruise, which began on 26 July. Emden steamed north to Norway, then crossed the North Atlantic to Iceland, stopping in Reykjavík before turning south to the Azores and Bermuda. There, she stopped in Hamilton from 30 August to 3 September; the visit proved to be an unfriendly one, as international opinion had turned decidedly against Nazi Germany during the Sudeten crisis. Indeed, a planned visit to Havana, Cuba was cancelled and Emden was recalled to Germany. She stopped in Funchal from 10 to 15 September on the way back to Wilhelmshaven, though before she arrived the Munich Agreement that ended the crisis had been signed, and so international tensions decreased enough to allow Emden to continue the training cruise. The ship turned south and entered the Mediterranean and later the Black Sea. She was present in Istanbul from 19 to 23 October, when the funeral for Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the first president of Turkey, was held. Emden returned to Germany by way of Rhodes and Vigo, arriving in Wilhelmshaven on 16 December. From 29 March to 15 April 1939, Emden was used as a fishery protection ship. During this period, she visited Reykjavík. In May, Wever left the ship and his place was taken by KzS Werner Lange.

World War II
After the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, Emden took part in laying a defensive minefield off the German coast in the North Sea on 3 September, along with several light cruisers and destroyers. The barrier stretched across the German Bight from the coast of the Netherlands to the Jutland peninsula; the purpose of the minefield was to secure the seaward flank of the Westwall. She conducted the operation with the other light cruisers GERMAN CRUISER Nürnberg, Leipzig, GERMAN CRUISER Köln, and GERMAN CRUISER Königsberg and sixteen destroyers. After laying her first set of mines, she returned to Wilhelmshaven to restock her mines. While Emden was moored in the harbor, a force of ten British Blenheim bombers from No. 107 and No. 110 RAF squadrons attacked the port on 4 September. Bootsmat Diezelsky on one of the cruiser's 2 cm guns shot down one of bombers, which inadvertently crashed into the ship. It is widely believed, that the aircraft hit Emden in the starboard, and it was N6199 from No. 110 Squadron flown by F/O Emden. However, according to more detailed analyses, the cruiser was attacked by aircraft from No. 107 squadron. Borisenko states that Emden was hit by the Blenheim N6189 flown by F/O Herbert Lightoller, while Tetera claims that N6188 flown by P/O W. Murphy struck the ship, while Lightoller's aircraft fell on the pier. Borisenko states that Lightoller's aircraft in fact hit the cruiser's port board, while the bombs it had released exploded in the water on her starboard side, causing additional superficial damage. There are different casualty numbers quoted, but the newest research by Tetera indicates eleven men from Emden killed, including two officers, and another thirty wounded; these were among the first casualties of the German fleet during the war.

Emden then transferred to the Baltic, where she was assigned to commerce protection duties. She returned to Wilhelmshaven for periodic maintenance from 2 December to 3 January 1940, after which she resumed training duties. During the shipyard period, a degaussing coil was installed just above the waterline to protect the ship from magnetic mines and her anti-aircraft armament was strengthened. After the work was completed, Emden returned to training duties through the winter of 1939–1940.

Operation Weserübung

As Germany assembled forces for the invasion of Norway, codenamed Operation Weserübung, Emden was allocated to Group 5, which was tasked with seizing Oslo. She joined the group as it began forming in Swinemünde on 12 March. The group consisted of the heavy cruiser GERMAN CRUISER Blücher, the flagship, the heavy cruiser Lützow, three torpedo boats, and eight R-type minesweepers. On the night of 5 April, Emden and Blücher conducted searchlight training to prepare for night operations. The following day, Emden embarked 600 soldiers and their equipment in Swinemünde before proceeding to the collection point for the invasion fleet, Strander Bucht outside Kiel. At 03:00 on 8 April, Group 5 left Strander Bucht and steamed to the Oslofjord, where they arrived at midnight.

After reaching the approaches to the fjord, Emden transferred 350 of the men to the R-boats to allow them to go ashore. The element of surprise was lost, however, and on entering the narrows in the fjord, Blücher was engaged and sunk by Norwegian coastal defenses at Oscarsborg Fortress in the Battle of Drøbak Sound. Lützow was also damaged before the Germans broke off the attack. After the loss of Blücher, Emden and Lützow disembarked their troops further down the fjord so they could attack the coastal defenses from the rear. Once the ground troops had begun their attack, Emden and Lützow closed with the Oscarborg fortress at 15:55 and began providing covering fire. The Germans then negotiated surrender terms with the other Norwegian forces later on 9 April. Emden entered the port on the morning of 10 April, thereafter serving as a joint communications center to coordinate Kriegsmarine, Wehrmacht, and Luftwaffe operations. She was relieved of this duty on 24 April, though she remained in Oslo until 7 June. During this period, Großadmiral (Grand Admiral) Erich Raeder visited the ship on 17 May. Emden arrived back in Swinemünde on 8 June, where she resumed training duties.

Baltic operations

From 7 November 1940 to 15 February 1941, the ship was in dry dock for maintenance. In September, she was assigned to the Baltic Fleet, centered on the newly commissioned battleship GERMAN BATTLESHIP Tirpitz; the Baltic Fleet was tasked with preventing the Soviet Navy from breaking out of the Baltic. Emden and Leipzig were the core of the southern group, which was based in Libau. The fleet remained on station only briefly, and when it became clear that the Soviet fleet had remained in port, the German Baltic Fleet was dissolved. On 16 September, Emden was operating off Dagö with Leipzig and three torpedo boats; the ships came under fire from Soviet coastal batteries, but were undamaged. A group of four Soviet torpedo boats also made an unsuccessful attack on the German squadron. Emden again provided gunfire support to German troops fighting on the Sworbe Peninsula from 26 to 27 September. Later on the 27th, the ship was transferred to Gotenhafen. She was assigned to the newly formed Training Unit of the Fleet in November 1941, and she would remain attached to the unit for the rest of the war. From June to November 1942, the ship was thoroughly overhauled in Wilhelmshaven, before returning to Gotenhafen on 7 November. Raeder again came aboard the ship for the voyage back to Gotenhafen; this was his last visit to a warship before his resignation.

While on sea trials after the 1942 overhaul, Emden reached a speed of 26.9 kn, significantly less than her original top speed. By that time, the ship had been in service for sixteen years and retained her original engines. Due for an engine replacement, the war situation prevented the work from being done and Emden soldiered on. The year 1943 passed uneventfully for Emden, though she received a strengthened anti-aircraft battery that included 10.5 cm and a pair of 4 cm Bofors guns. The ship took part in a pair of minelaying operations in the Skagerrak in late 1944, the first from 19 to 21 September and the second from 5 to 6 October. The increasing frequency of Allied air attacks on the minelaying operations led to their cancellation in late October. For the rest of the year, she was occupied with escorting convoys in the Baltic. On 1 November 1944, Emden assisted the cruiser Köln, which had run aground. Emden herself ran aground in the Oslofjord on 9 December, though she was refloated the following day. She left Oslo on 23 December and steamed to Königsberg for repairs, arriving two days later.

After entering the dry dock at the Schichau-Werke shipyard in Königsberg, her guns were removed and repair work began at a leisurely rate. She was there, still awaiting the completion of repairs when the Soviet Army attacked the city of Königsberg in January 1945, and on 23 January the naval high command ordered all naval forces in the city to evacuate. Emden had her guns reinstalled and she embarked the remains of Paul von Hindenburg and his wife, which had been disinterred to prevent them from falling into the hands of the advancing Soviet Army. She carried them to Pillau, under tow from several icebreakers, where they were transferred to the transport ship MS Pretoria. In Pillau, Emden's engines were put back in working order, though she was only able to use one of her propellers. Emden then steamed as fast as was possible to Kiel, where she arrived on 6 February. There, she went into drydock at the Deutsche Werke shipyard for repairs.

While in Deutsche Werke, Emden was under continuous air attacks. An air raid on 11 March set the forward deck and port side torpedo launchers on fire with incendiary bombs. Another attack on 3 April scored a direct hit on the ship's forward funnel, destroying it. On the night of 9–10 April, an Allied bombing raid severely damaged the ships in Kiel; the heavy cruisers GERMAN CRUISER Admiral Hipper and GERMAN CRUISER Admiral Scheer were both destroyed by bombs and Emden was slightly damaged by a near miss astern. Further, more serious damage was done on 13 April, and the next morning she was towed out into Heikendorfer Bucht. She had a 15 degree list to port, but the crew managed to stop the flooding and seal the hull. To prevent her from sinking, she was run aground in the shallows, and was decommissioned on 26 April 1945. To prevent her capture by the advancing Allied armies, her crew destroyed the ship with explosives on 3 May, five days before the end of World War II in Europe. The wreck was broken up for scrap in situ over the following five years. Her bow ornament is currently on display in the Deutsches Museum in Munich.

title: German cruiser Emden


text:
Fauve

Fauve or Fauves may refer to:

Fauvism, an art movement, or

Music

 * Fauve (collective), French arts collective of music and videography
 * The Fauves (band), an Australian rock band
 * The Fauves (album)
 * Fauve (musician), stage name of Swiss musician and singer Nicolas Julliard (born 1972)

People

 * Stephan Fauve (born 1955), French physicist
 * Fauve Hautot (born 1986), French dancer and choreographer
 * John Paul Fauves, Costa Rican visual artist
 * Fauve, name formerly used by comics artist and writer Holly Golightly

Other uses

 * Fauve (dog), a short legged hunting breed of dog
 * Central African Republic national football team, nicknamed "Les Fauves"
 * Fauve Software, a defunct company
 * Fauve (film), a 2018 short film

title: Fauve


text:
Single-letter second-level domain

Single-letter second-level domains are domains in which the second-level domain of the domain name consists of only one letter, such as x.com. In 1993, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) explicitly reserved all single-letter and single-digit second-level domains under the top-level domains com, net, and org, and grandfathered those that had already been assigned. In December 2005, ICANN considered auctioning these domain names.

Active single-letter domains
On December 1, 1993, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) explicitly reserved the remaining single-letter and single-digit domain names. The few domains that were already assigned were grandfathered in and continued to exist.

The six single-letter domains in existence at that time under .com, .net and .org were the following:

The .org TLD was subsequently reopened for single-letter domain registrations. These and selected other gTLD and ccTLD single-letter domain names currently in use, typically as shortcuts, are listed below.

Many other single-letter second-level domains have been registered under country code top-level domains. The list of country code top-level domains which have been identified to allow single-letter domains are:

 * .ac
 * .af
 * .ag
 * .ai
 * .am
 * .bo
 * .by
 * .bz
 * .cm
 * .cn
 * .co
 * .cr
 * .cx
 * .cz
 * .de
 * .dk
 * .fm
 * .fr
 * .gd
 * .gg
 * .gl
 * .gp
 * .gs
 * .gt
 * .gy
 * .hn
 * .hr
 * .ht
 * .ie
 * .im
 * .io
 * .is
 * .je
 * .kg
 * .ki
 * .kw
 * .la
 * .lb
 * .lc
 * .ly
 * .md
 * .mg
 * .mk
 * .mp
 * .ms
 * .mw
 * .mx
 * .mu
 * .nf
 * .np
 * .nz
 * .pe
 * .ph
 * .pk
 * .pl
 * .pn
 * .pr
 * .pw
 * .ro
 * .sh
 * .st
 * .tc
 * .tl
 * .tt
 * .to
 * .tv
 * .ua
 * .vc
 * .vg
 * .vn
 * .vu
 * .ws

Non-ASCII single-character domains
Single-character non-ASCII second-level domains also exist (as seen below), also known as Internationalized domain names (IDN), these domains are actually registered as their Punycode translations (which are more than a single character) for DNS purposes. ICANN oversees a process for determining registration rules that involves wide-ranging stakeholder input and assorted Working Groups. In the case of .com domains, decisions are then implemented by Verisign, the contracted backend operator for the .com registry. The result is a list of 96,957 codepoints allowed for IDN registrations. As mentioned above, some additional domains previously-registered are "grandfathered" and remain active. Many gTLDs also allow IDN registration.

These 96,957 distinct IDN characters eligible for registration in .com are the essential building-blocks of languages worldwide. A single letter domain does not provide the context found in a longer string or group of words. They may appear similar to one another or to other English / Latin characters; due to this potential for confusion, browsers have restricted the characters that may be rendered and will display the restricted characters in their Punycode form. They are sometimes used as pictorial symbols and memorable links.

Project94
In 2012, the Public Interest Registry (PIR) initiated Project94, in which 94 one- and two-letter domains in the top-level domain org, that had been traditionally reserved, are awarded to qualifying organizations.

Market value of single- or two-letter domains
Only three of the 26 possible single-letter domains have ever been registered under the .com domain, all before 1992. The other 23 single-letter .com domain names were registered January 1, 1992 by Jon Postel, with the intention to avoid a single company commercially controlling a letter of the alphabet. Many but not all .com two-letter domain names are among the most valuable domain names.

While it is widely believed that the domain names business.com and sex.com have been the most valuable domain name transactions, prominent two-letter domain names have only been sold after nondisclosed transactions handled by specialized broker and law firms.

The value of the LG Corp (the South Korean electronics conglomerate formerly known as Lucky-Goldstar) purchase of LG.com was never published. LG Group missed the first sale of the domain name in 2008 from the original owner the chemical company Lockwood Greene to the dot-com entrepreneur Andy Booth; Booth had used it to launch a footballing website known as LifeGames. LG Corp bought "lg.com" one year later, in 2009. Following the purchase, LG Group changed worldwide marketing to LG.com, which is now their central internet address for all countries. All national LG country domain names like "LG.de" or "LG.com.mx" redirect to "LG.com".

The value of the initially secret November 2010 Facebook purchase of FB.com was revealed two months later to be $8.5 million in cash and the rest in stocks.

IG Group paid $4.7 million in September 2013 to buy IG.com.

GMO Internet, Inc. purchased Z.com for nearly $6.8 million from Nissan, who previously used it for the Nissan Z series cars.

Controversy
With the 2005 announcement that registration of the remaining single-letter names might become available, some companies have attempted to establish a right to the names by claiming trademark rights over single letters used in such a context. U magazine, a college-oriented publication, went so far as to rebrand its website as "U.com" and apply for a trademark registration of the same phrase, before sending a letter to ICANN attempting to gain priority for the domain if it should ever become available in the future.

title: Single-letter second-level domain