Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 September 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< September 11 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 13 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 12[edit]

T. W. Wood[edit]

I would like to know whether Thomas Waterman Wood is a different T. W. Wood from the T. W. Wood that illustrated books for Darwin and Wallace - Commons:T. W. Wood. That they have the same initials, surname, occupation (artist) and apparently first name, it seems to me unlikely that they were different people. But I don't see anything about such work in the biography here, and Waterman Wood seems to have lived in America pretty much exclusively - is it likely that he would have done so much art for British books when he was that far away? Richard001 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest they are different people. The artwork is quite different in style and nature. Also, the Thomas Waterman Wood article is detailed, yet does not mention any involvement with Darwin. A quick search suggests that T.W.Wood was a zoologist, not a portrait painter. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and so on. Gwinva (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you must be right - it sounds like the British T. W. Wood got up to a fair bit of zoologizing as well as his art, and that would hardly go unmentioned in the article. Since we don't have an article on this T. W. Wood, I'll just add a note that it's not the same one. Richard001 (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And the American (we say) first visited Europe in 1858; hardly time to have significant contact with Darwin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

They are different people. The T.W. Wood that illustrated Darwin was a British artist. Thomas Waterman Wood was President of the National Academy of Design in New York during the 1890's and a leading painter of genre scenes. He founded the T.W. Wood Art Gallery in Montpelier, Vt. his home town and it still exists today. No connection whatsoever with the other T.W. Wood. Paul Worman N.Y., N.Y. ( I am writing his biography and catalog raisonne)

DVDs about British society[edit]

Some time next year, I (outside the anglosphere) have to teach a short course about recent British politics or social history or mores or something. (Blairism to binge drinking: I have a lot of leeway.) The students will be 19 or so and I can expect them to study, though they have little experience of real study (as opposed to rote learning) and also little appetite for extended reading. Still, their English comprehension is pretty good. Various books are available, but I fear that the course would easily become boring if based on any one book, however good: this is instead a course that cries out for video (probably with supplementary short readings).

I thought of basing it around a small number of carefully selected (feature) films, but have decided not to do this, as in any worthwhile fiction film the "content" (however scrupulous and perceptive) is likely to be sidelined -- indeed, should be sidelined -- by character, plot, etc. And of course films do last rather long, which makes scheduling difficult. (Plus I think a lot of "relevant" films are terrible: for example, while Brick Lane (which I sat through to kill time during a long flight) has a few good ingredients, it has scenes directed like shampoo commercials, and some ham acting that would be at home in a third-rate TV series.)

Even if there are no copyright issues, unfortunately I do not have the time to start building up a collection of recordings of programs that may happen to pop up on satellite TV. Are there good documentary DVD series? I really haven't a clue about this kind of thing, but f I know the titles of one or two possibilities of predigested series, I can then of course use them to google for more. Thanks. Tama1988 (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The comedy quiz Have I Got News for You Would give a good idea of events, culture and the British sense of humour. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Additionally if you contact the Open University they may be able to help. As an OU student doing social-science courses I am innudated with dvds with documentaries on, these also show late night on the BBC. I suspect they may have reservations about providing you with them for free but it might be worth contacting them, or trying to find ebay-listings with old social-science DVDs and literature (I have all my old dvds for my courses and within there are plenty of 'modern Britian' like documentaries). (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure they would enjoy the Seven Up! series. You could use it to introduce the changes that have occurred in British society since the 1960s, and ideas about class and social mobility. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Happy-Go-Lucky and The Royle Family? — Gareth Hughes (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, all. I'd never heard of Happy-Go-Lucky (though I had heard of Mike Leigh), and while I had heard of the other titles mentioned above, I haven't seen any of them.

Have I got news for you sounds to me as if enjoyment would need some degree of pre-marination in British news culture, even if just ten minutes' worth of infotainment from the telly plus a vague awareness of what are the latest obsessions of the Sun. That pre-marination won't be there. Still, if I can pick up a best-of DVD cheaply, I'll give it a look.

The Royle Family sounds as if it would need more time. If this were, say, a week-long, all-day seminar, I could show an episode every day. But it isn't. Still, if a DVD box is going cheap.....

I'l try to get hold of Happy-Go-Lucky. I think I'd enjoy it. If it also turns out to be usable in some way for my pedagogic purpose, well, that's a pleasing bonus.

Seven Up! -- yes! (It had slipped my mind.) But damn, the package (a very reasonable $90US from a certain evil online monopolist) runs 710 minutes. That's about the entire classroom time. Students do not watch videos outside class, unless perhaps they happen to star whoever's the latest heartthrob. Hmmm ... Seven Up! and thereupon fast-forward to 49 Up, perhaps? (Thinking of this makes me glad I asked this question seven months before the course starts.)

If a student at the Open University could tip me off to a few of the DVD titles that were more interesting (and that don't assume too much background knowledge or much appetite for socio-econo-political theory), I'd be very grateful. I could then google for these. Tama1988 (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I did think with 7Up that the individual programmes are not too long and showing clips from them makes sense. If they like cinema heart-throbs, then perhaps an excerpt from Bend it like Beckham with Keira Knightley. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Each entry in the Seven Up series shows clips from the earlier episodes, to show how the people have changed, so you don't need to pick clips on your own. If I were going to show just two episodes to 19 year-old students, I'd show them the second and third episodes (14 & 21). Those have plenty of clips from 7Up, and some rather dramatic developments that 19 year-olds will find particularly interesting. Maybe then I'd finish up with clips from the latest entry (I haven't yet seen 49 Up) to show the subjects in mid-life. Just an idea. —Kevin Myers 14:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
For politics, the later episodes of Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain might provide a good overview. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I like the Up Series a lot but yeah, it's a big time investment. I don't think the effect would be quite as strong if you just skipped from the first to the last. I'd second the notion though that the ones of them as teens might work out the best for them, even though they aren't very contemporary any more. 49 Up would not be interesting (IMO) to someone who had not seen the others (a lot depends on knowing how the people were doing in the previous episodes—some who are up are now down, and vice versa). -- (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
How about newspapers? Many English newspapers are available in capital cities (and other large cities) worldwide, though often a day or two old and at a cost of about $4. Something like The Times would have coverage of world events from a british viewpoint, plus more domestic issues such as the current level of knife crime in the cities. Whilst a lot of the news is also covered in the newspaper's online editions, the physical newspaper also gives hints about the relative importance of the news stories to the majority of the readers, and more subtle hints to the society through the paper's layout, TV listings, advertising, etc. Astronaut (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you for the input.

I'll get hold of the Seven Up series and try to digest it myself. When I know it, I'll have a much better idea of how I might deal with it.

Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain sounds very worthwhile but it's not yet available on DVD. I'll try to remember to poll that online monopolist for it once every couple of months. (When I look now, I'm tld no but mysteriously offered Sex and the City as a substitute.)

I'd like to use newspapers, but I can't. They'd only work for people who can read them easily and for whom at least some of the wordplay would raise a smile (and the students probably aren't quite at that level), who enjoy reading (for most of them, reading in any language is an annoying chore), and who are at least moderately acquainted with the newspapers where they live (and while these kids aren't all gossip and fashion all the time, I'd be as surprised to see them voluntarily reading a newspaper as they'd be to see me reading a fashion magazine). Tama1988 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1 dollar a day[edit]

Often it's said that a huge part of humankind has to live with less than $1/day.

Is that the purchase power or the nominal value after an exchange? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talkcontribs) 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is the nominal value rather than an equivilent purchasing power value. This article ( for instance shows an individual living on a dollar a day and they were getting an egg for '7 cents' - which would suggest that living on $1 a day is not the same in country X as it would be in America itself (where $1 would purchase you very little and 7 cents is not likely to get you an egg). Though I must admit my knowledge of purchasing power and nominal value is limited to a very basic understanding based on seeing the words in context numerous times. (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a substantial portion of the earth's people live on less than $1 per day calculated according to purchasing power parity (PPP), according to this source. That said, PPP is calculated using a basket of goods, and goods purchased by the very poor may be relatively cheaper than the basket as a whole. That is, while an egg may cost 7c in nominal US-dollar terms in Indonesia, it might cost 16c in PPP terms, still cheaper than the same egg in the United States. Other things to consider are that people living on less than $1 per day tend to be subsistence farmers who grow much of their own food, or town dwellers who subsist on the very cheapest foods (e.g., the cheapest legumes and grains), to make their own clothing from the cheapest cloth or fibers, and generally to substitute their own labor to make homemade products rather than buying goods that carry a substantial labor cost. Of course, they generally do without things like computers, cars, cell phones, and even bicycles. They get around mainly on foot. This helps to explain how it is possible to live on so little money, but of course these people live in profound poverty and sometimes face hunger or an inability to meet other basic needs. Marco polo (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, remember the eggs in your supermarket are probably better quality than the eggs they are buying for 7 cents (at the very least they are probably bigger). --Tango (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Not to take away from your larger point but I get excellent eggs for 12.5c an egg (well, a dozen for $1.50) in my local farmers market (New York City). --Regents Park (count the magpies) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict, which led to me accidentally removing the above comment--sorry) The $0.07 egg story was published in August 2007. $0.07/egg is $0.84/dozen. Later in the article, she buys 12 eggs for $1.00. As recently as 2007 Q2, wholesale egg prices in New York were only $0.92/doz. As recently as 2006 Q3, the wholesale price was $0.64/doz. Even with high food inflation, I can still buy eggs from a local farmer for $1.50/doz. $0.07/egg does not strike me as ridiculously cheap in 2007 for a market with (presumably) less regulatory burden. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to agree with Marco polo that many of those "living on less than $1 per day" are subsistence farmers, plus their families, of course. Huge numbers of the world's rural people actually have a negligible income in actual currency, and the "less than $1 per day" figure is surely per head and not per worker. Strawless (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I can often get good quality size 6 eggs for here in NZ for 30 for NZ$4.99 from one of my local vege shops, which amounts to ~US$3.31 or 0.11 US cents and egg. And thats includes GST of 12.5%. Without GST it would be ~NZ$4.44 or ~US$2.94 i.e. ~9.8 cents an egg. So while stuff can be quite cheap in poor countries, this doesn't seem like a great example Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The actual answer to the question of PPP vs. nominal is "both." When the World Bank and other institutions began calculating $1/day numbers, PPP was not widely used. Later, it was adopted as the convention. So, if one is looking at say, data published in 1970, the $1/day would be nominal. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

These ([8] [9]) show you don't have to be in a poor country to live on one dollar (ok here one pound) a day. (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Early Christianity[edit]

This article states, in relation to various early Christian movements:

"Many disciples didn't associate the earthly Jesus of Nazareth with a spiritual Christ. Some simply followed the Gnostic teachings of the earthly Jesus Movement while others believed in a Jesus that never actually lived in the flesh. Many Christians did not regard any writings as inspired by God."

Assuming these statements are true, which movement(s) never believed Jesus lived in the flesh, and which did not regard the scriptures as God's word? — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 13:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend the "Historical controversies" section of Christology, and also Docetism, Adoptionism, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Nestorius and others. The scriptures question is more complex, and the article is probably over-simplifying. Many early Christians were also Jews and regarded Jewish scripture as 'inspired by God'. Agreement over which post-Jesus writings were 'inspired by God' was arrived at over time. See Biblical canon. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I have studied this issue extensively. The Gnostics were much more likely not to believe in the earthly Jesus - there were varying degrees of this (e.g., Jesus didn't actually come to Earth but was a "projection" in the Platonian sense). As for the Old Testament scriptures, I don't believe the Gnostics held they were from God, although I'm not sure. There was one Gnostic sect that believed there was a true highest God (the God of Jesus), but that his wife (or was it daughter?) accidentally created a vengeful evil God, but was embarrassed so she put a sheet over him - this is Yahweh of the Old Testament. The OT scriptures were universally accepted by Jewish and mainstream Gentile Christians. The New Testament scriptures, obviously, were a lot more controversial, because it wasn't established at the time - the Judaizers wanted nothing to do with Paul, and certain books were or were not included (Epistle of Barnabas almost made the canon); to this day, there are books only accepted by certain sects (e.g., 3 Corinthians).
If you need any clarification on these issues, please feel free to ask further. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Also Docetism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Overruling the Ecumenical Councils[edit]

Thank you both. Your replies summarize it neatly. The article also described that the issues of the First Council of Nicaea were agreed upon by a vote! If I am not mistaken, the Roman Catholic Church has accepted the decision of this council. Does a reigning Roman Catholic pope have the authority to change this by holding a similar (albeit, much larger) vote? Today's Roman Catholic leaders are just as capable of making such decisions as the 4th century bishops. Obviously such a drastic change will never occur in the Roman Catholic church, nor would such a change go without a major schism, but I am only interested in whether such a vote is possible, or whether the rule is "What's done is done". — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
They always vote at councils. Apparently several dozen bishops tiptoed out early when the First Vatican Council was taking up the issue of papal infallibility to avoid having to vote on a topic they disagreed with. And some of the documents of the Second Vatican Council passed by relatively close votes.
Not to be glib, but the Catholic church has centuries of practice in re-examining and reinterpreting its past. Apologists will offer arguments that the church never officially held that the sun revolves around the earth, for example, but I'm pretty confident that in centuries past you could get in a lot of trouble for disputing geocentrism, and not only if your name was Galileo.
But there are various ways that the church finds its way through the world. I believe, for example, that a future council could find a way to decide to ordain women (despite attempts by recent popes to prevent that); I don't think they'll suddenly decide the Trinity doesn't exist or that transubstantiation was a misunderstanding. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


WHAT ARE THE MERITS AND DEMERITS OF ADVERTISING TO SMALL SCALE BUSINESSES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thug ngel (talkcontribs) 15:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a response, but more of a suggestion: nobody will respond to messages typed in all caps. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I know that text in "all caps" annoys many editors. I think this question is from a new editor, who is probably not used to Wikipedia.
Much has been written about the value of advertising to small business. If you have a library handy, there are books on the subject. Here are a few points to consider.
Advertising can bring new customers and increase business.
Advertising can be very expensive.
It is important (and sometimes difficult) to find out if the advertising is bringing you enough business to cover the cost of the advertising. If you know this, it is easier to decide whether to do more advertising.
Many business include discount coupons in ads. This is partly to increase interest and partly as a way of learning whether people respond to your ads.
The article Guerrilla marketing is very relevant to this question. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we can't do your homework for you. Have you done any preparation work we can help you with? (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage Locations[edit]

I havent yet decided weither I want to marry inside of a church or outside and enjoy nature. The reason is this. My fiance is pagan/Satanist and i guess i just dont have a relgion at this point in time. Well the question is that we have looked from church to church and found some gorgeous catherdrals, the only problem is that these churches and cathedrals obviously dont support our religion. I understand that if you are having a satanist paganistic wedding that you just dont have a catholic or lutheran priest perform the ceremony. So does it depend from church to church or is it a big flat out no when i ask if you can get like a judge or justic of the peace or whatever they are and have them perform the ceremony in the church. I understand if it would be a no because what kind of catholic wants to marry a satanist in the house of the lord. But are some churches open minded? I mean there isnt anything huge that makes it a satanic ceremony just the fact that we are handfasting and having our own gothic vows rather than the lighting of the candles and so on. So is this a possibility or am i better off getting married outside?

--Chaela <3 (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry to ask but i cant look up for myself. this is the only site i have access to at work and so this is how we work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaela89 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you really like the venue there's no harm in asking. You'll certainly have more luck with Unitarian Universalists than with Catholics or Evangelicals, but if the answer is no then it's as simple as that, clergy generally aren't into making scenes. You could also look into renting a party hall or a ballroom in a hotel, or enjoying nature :-) Good luck. - Lambajan 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems quite odd that a pagan/satanist would want to celebrate one of the most joyous moments of their life in a building specifically built by and for people and ideas that are at stark contrast with their own core beliefs. There are plenty of great locations everywhere that do not specifically exist for the celebration of Christianuty, and that would be great for a wedding. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if you were Christian, you may well not be able to get married in any church you feel like, particularly not the biggest, nicest cathedrals. They often require at least one of the couple to have actively worshipped at that cathedral for a time - otherwise they would too many requests (I know Durham Cathedral is like that - there is an urban legend that any graduate from the University of Durham can get married there, but it's nonsense). --Tango (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
One thing you can look around for is buildings that used to be churches but aren't any longer. My city has at least one deconsecrated church that is now rented out as an event hall, and several more disused churches that are for sale and might be rentable by an enterprising person who approached the owner. You could also try large cemeteries- the one in my city rents out wedding space in its funeral chapels. There are some Christian churches that will let non-Christians use their sanctuaries, but I don't think many pastors will let the church be used for a pagan/satanic ceremony. Except, as mentioned above, the Unitatarian Universalists. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vice-Presidential election in the U.S. Senate[edit]

If no vice-presidential candidate receives a majority in the electoral college, the U.S. Senate decides who shall be Vice President. But if there is a tie, can the current Vice-President cast the tie breaking vote?

Judging by this passage from the Twelth Amendment, I would say no:

"and a majority of the whole number [of senators] shall be necessary to a choice."

But does anyone think the current V.P. can, and why? (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this, that clause "essentially prohibits the sitting Vice President from casting a tie-breaking vote in the case of an evenly divided chamber." -- (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
If there is a tie, wouldn't the Senate just continue voting until someone has a majority? Sounds like a prime opportunity for behind the scenes deal making to sway a vote: "campaign contributions," jobs for friends/relatives, porkbarrel projects for the Senator's state, or good old fashioned blackmail. There is often a wishy-washy fence sitter who will change parties. Edison (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
That "wishy-washy fence sitter" becomes converted to a "kingmaker" (or, in this case, "vice-king maker"). (Which is not to suggest that your VPs are kings of vice - well, not necessarily.) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a princemaker? :-) --Anon, 22:24 UTC, September 12, 2008.

Presidential/Vice-Presidential Elections decided in the U.S. Senate[edit]

I'm sorry but part of the process of presidential elections being decided in the Senate doesn't seem clear to me. If no presidential candidate gains a majority in the electoral college, the election is decided in the House of Representatives. But is it the outgoing House that decides or the newly-elected House?

I can't quite figure out when it would take place in the electoral cycle. (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this should clarify both of your questions? It has to be the still-sitting (outgoing) House, I believe, since the new House members wouldn't have started their term yet. The House (not the Senate) is in charge of determining the President. The Senate is in charge of the Vice President. Not to be mixed up. -- (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The incoming house decides the new president in the case that nobody gets more than 50% of the electoral college vote. This is not a problem because the electoral college votes relatively late, and the outgoing president simply sits in office until the new one is chosen (see United States presidential election, 1800). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, OK. -- (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The missing fact from these answers is that the incoming Congress comes in on Jan 3 (see Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution), leaving 17 days of overlap between the new Congress and the old Presidency. During those 17 days the official electoral-vote-counting session is held. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question[edit]

For the record, an item titled "Follow-up question" was deleted. Reasons follow. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox question but a more concise follow-up question for the original question posted here (Original post)
Despite the above statement, IMO this is a "soapbox question". In fact, no real question is asked.
Also, if this table was published in some reliable source, the source should be stated. If not so published, the table ought not to be here. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Furthermore, the IP address 71.100.xxxx has a long history of soapboxing and trolling on this page. This question should be deleted. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
If you guys were not so trigger happy maybe you would have clicked on the link to the source.
Hey if you do not want people to pin down the truth about the candidates so they can be an informed voter then why should I care. But then I keep forgetting how many of you are from England and have no need of information which might help you decide which candidate represents your own point of view best. Had you not deleted the link to the source then it may have helped others to learn more about the candidates by how they compare. But then I realize you do not care about others either. --- (above unsigned post was by )
Regardless of your intentions, this reference desk is not the right place to serve as host for your project. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Not all users, in particular myself, believe their impression of a candidate should remain tainted by everything except relevant fact and my "project" if any is merely to seek assistance in verifying relevant fact which the Wikipedia reference desk apparently does not want me or anyone else to do in preference to duping us, a sad, sad thing I must conclude. (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Antireligion and atheism[edit]

I want to know what is the difference between Antireligion and atheism? Does this indicate that it is possible for a person that he believes in the existence of god, but does not support organized religion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable distinction to me. — Lomn 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There is also the opposite unusual combination, not believing in the existence of gods but thinking that the fact that others do is a good thing. Believing in gods and thinking that organised religion is a positive thing are or two different axis, and all four combinations are possible. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Living in the UK, I wouldn't say that was an unusual combination. On the contrary, here it seems to be pretty much the default position. - (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Did you consider reading our articles Antireligion and atheism, which you linked to twice? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the both articles. But none of them explicitly mention the difference except the article Antireligion which mentions "Antireligion is distinct from atheism, although many antireligionists are also atheists." My confusion is in this statement. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"Antireligion is ... distinct from antitheism, which is opposition to belief in deities rather than opposition to religion itself." DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The William Blake example is a good way to see the difference. Blake was obsessed with god and spirituality but despised organized religion. He was antireligion but definitely no atheist. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you RegentsPark. This clarification makes sense. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You could also imagine an antireligious agnostic pretty easily. -- (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Agnostic could go with all four combinations. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson sometimes had violently anticlerical moods, but was not an atheist in any meaningful sense... AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln was also someone who believed in God, but did not like religion. Saukkomies 22:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

damaged steel from the Pentagon[edit]

I saw this small article on CNN. It was about damaged steel that was removed from the Pentagon following the attack on September 11, 2001. The source said the steel is going to be used in building the USS Arlington as part of a memorial to the victims who perished in the Pentagon attack. Is that true? What materials may be used in building the USS Somerset as a memorial to the victims who perished aboard United Airlines Flight 93? (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

USS Somerset: Metal from a crane that stood near Shanksville - -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
USS New York: Steel from the Twin Towers - -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
USS Arlington: Hmm, this says fragments of the Pentagon will be displayed on Arlington, not (unlike the above two) that they'll actually be used in her construction. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
CNN's story (circa yesterday) is here. They first say the steel "will be used to build", but later says "The metal eventually will be encased in plastic and built into the USS Arlington as a memorial", which is rather different from the other two (where significant amounts of metal seem to be used) and rather stretches "used to build" a bit. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm also interested in buying some mementoes that would commemorate the above three vessels. Where would I be able to find the mementoes? (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You can buy clothing and other memorabilia from the USS New York website. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Will any recycled steel be used in the building of the USS Arlington? (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir Charles Russell QC MP[edit]

MP for where please? Drawn by Spy. Kittybrewster 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazon finds "Banquet to Sir Charles Russell, Q.C., M.P. on Tuesday, November 23rd, 1886: Speech by Sir Charles Russell and list of those present. Sir Horace Davey, Q.C. in the chair "(here). Perhaps it's Charles Russell, Baron Russell of Killowen (who was both a QC and an MP). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
But maybe not. I guess the picture you're referring to is this one, which says of its subject "Sir Charles Russell, 1st Bt (1863-1928), Solicitor. Sitter in 2 portraits." (and was made in 1907, after that bloke died). It's not his son, who was called Frank nor his grandson (Charles), not yet born. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, there's hunners of Russell Baronets; is our man is Sir Charles Russell, solicitor, 1st Baronet (1863-1928) [of Littleworth Corner]? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

::::He's the solicitor who briefed Carson in the Oscar Wilde libel case, refused to act for Casement, subsequently an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate, sat on the London County Council, and has an entry in the ODNB. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And is the son of Russell of Killowen. DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's a QC, MP, then its surely Russell of Killowen, who was twice caricatured by Spy.
    But then he was a GCMG, not a baronet. The 1863-1928 chap is the solicitor I struck above, Kitty - do you have a link to the Spy pic? DuncanHill (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Only List of Vanity Fair caricatures which seems inaccurate. I didnt manage to confirm 1st baronet was a QC; He was a KCVO because he solicitored for the monarch and started the firm of his name. He dspm. Kittybrewster 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, the first baronet (1863-1928) was a QC, but not an MP - his father was a QC and an MP (and later a law lord), but not doesn't seem to have been a baronet! DuncanHill (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason why a baronet couldn't also be a GCMG. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
True but the 1st baronet was KCVO not GCMG and was a solicitor not a QC. Kittybrewster 11:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Sir Charles Russell, 3rd Bt (1826-1883) is a possible one? Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

:::It is a Charles Russell born in 1833, we don't have an article on him Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is Lord Killowen Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)