text:
Commander Venus

Commander Venus was an American emo band from Omaha, Nebraska. Fronted by Conor Oberst and Tim Kasher, the band also included Todd Fink and Matt Bowen of The Faint, Ben Armstrong of Head of Femur and Robb Nansel, executive producer of the indie label Saddle Creek. Kasher subsequently went on to front the band Cursive, and Oberst later became famous as the core member of the indie folk collective Bright Eyes, and later the punk band Desaparecidos.

They recorded two albums, Do You Feel at Home? on Saddle Creek and The Uneventful Vacation, on Grass Records, which became Wind-up Records, that ultimately licensed the CD to Thick Records.

Albums

 * Do You Feel at Home? (1995; CD & LP on Saddle Creek)
 * The Uneventful Vacation (1997; CD THICK Records, LP on Saddle Creek)

Singles

 * Music Me All Over (1997; 7" split with Lux-O-Values, Norman Bailer & Weld on Saddle Creek)
 * Some Songs (1996; 7" split with Drip on Saddle Creek & Ghostmeat Records)

Compilations

 * Apollo's Salvage (1995; CD on Ghostmeat Records; features the song "Pay Per View")
 * Saddle Creek Records, A Sampler (1998; CD on Saddle Creek; featured the songs "Bent on Broken Nerves" & "Waiting for Enoch Arden")

title: Commander Venus


text:
Talk:Anchor spreadable

Contents of deletion debate:

 * Votes for deletion/Anchor spreadable

DJ Clayworth 14:57, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Anchor spreadable


text:
Bonneville (crater)

Bonneville is an impact crater on Mars. It is located within the much larger crater Gusev. Bonneville was visited by the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit in 2004, during its exploration of the floor of Gusev. Bonneville is also the final resting place of Spirit's heat shield, jettisoned during the landing procedure; the heat-shield could be seen glinting on the opposite wall when Spirit photographed the crater. The crater is 210 metres in diameter, 14 meters deep and its rim rises 6.4 metres above the surrounding terrain.

Bonneville is named after Benjamin Bonneville and Lake Bonneville, an ancient lake in Utah.

Formation and geology
The strata into which Bonneville formed is thought to be loose debris, although some of the ejecta may have originated from more competent rocks. No underlying bedrock was exposed in the crater or the numerous craterlets in Bonneville's walls. The crater is relatively pristine and in particular has not been affected by water based erosion.

It is likely that Bonneville is a secondary crater, given its low depth to diameter ratio.

title: Bonneville (crater)


text:
Clemson-class destroyer

The Clemson class was a series of 156 destroyers (6 more were cancelled and never begun) which served with the United States Navy from after World War I through World War II.

The Clemson-class ships were commissioned by the United States Navy from 1919 to 1922, built by Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company, New York Shipbuilding Corporation, William Cramp & Sons, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Norfolk Naval Shipyard and Bath Iron Works, some quite rapidly. The Clemson class was a minor redesign of the Wickes-class destroyer for greater fuel capacity and was the last pre-World War II class of flush-deck destroyers to be built for the United States. Until the Fletcher-class destroyer, the Clemsons were the most numerous class of destroyers commissioned in the United States Navy and were known colloquially as "flush-deckers”, "four-stackers" or "four-pipers".

Design evolution
As finally built, the Clemson class would be a fairly straightforward expansion of the Wickes-class destroyers. While the Wickes class had given good service there was a desire to build a class more tailored towards the anti-submarine role, and as such several design studies were completed, mainly about increasing the ships' range. These designs included a reduction in speed to between 26 - 28 kn by eliminating two boilers, freeing up displacement for depth charges and more fuel. This proposal foreshadowed the destroyer escorts of World War II. Upgrading the gun armament from 4 in to 5 in guns was also considered, but only five ships (DD-231 to DD-235) were armed with 5-inch guns. In addition, the tapered stern of the Wickes-class destroyers resulted in a large turning radius and a correction to this defect was also sought, although this was not corrected in the final design. In the end the General Board decided the 35 kn speed be retained so as to allow the Clemson class to be used as a fleet escort. The pressing need for destroyers overruled any change that would slow production compared to the proceeding Wickes class. Wing tanks for fuel oil were installed on either side of the ships to increase the operational range. This design choice meant the fuel oil would be stored above the waterline and create additional vulnerability, but the Navy felt a 4900 nmi range was worth the risk. Additional improvements included provisions for 5-inch guns to be installed at a later date, an enlarged rudder to help reduce the turn radius, and an additional 3 in anti-aircraft gun on the after deck-house.

The class resulted from a General Board recommendation for further destroyers to combat the submarine threat, culminating in a total of 267 Wickes- and Clemson-class destroyers completed. However, the design of the ships remained optimized for operation with the battleship fleet.

Armament
The main armament was the same as the Wickes class: four 4 in/50 caliber guns and twelve 21 in torpedo tubes. The Mark 8 torpedo was initially equipped, and probably remained the standard torpedo for this class, as 600 Mark 8 torpedoes were issued to the British in 1940 as part of the Destroyers for Bases Agreement.

Although the design provided for two anti-aircraft (AA) guns, most ships carried a single 3 in/23 caliber AA gun, typically on the aft deckhouse. A frequent modification was replacing the aft 4-inch gun with the 3-inch gun to make more room for the depth charge tracks. Anti-submarine (ASW) armament was added during or after construction. Typically, two depth charge tracks were provided aft, along with a Y-gun depth charge projector forward of the aft deckhouse.

Despite the provision for 5-inch guns, only seven ships were built with an increased gun armament. USS Hovey (DD-208) and USS Long (DD-209) had twin 4-inch/50 mounts for a total of eight guns, while DD 231–235 had four 5 in/51 caliber guns in place of the 4-inch guns.

In operation
As with the preceding Wickes class, the fleet found that the tapered cruiser stern, which made for a nice depth charge deployment feature, dug into the water and increased the turning radius, thus hampering anti-submarine work. While an increased rudder size helped, the answer would be in a redesigned stern, but this was not implemented. They were reported to be prone to heavy rolling in light load conditions. The flush deck gave the hull great strength but this also made the deck very wet.

Ships in class
156 Clemson-class destroyers were built, with an additional six cancelled.

History
Fourteen ships of the class were involved in the Honda Point Disaster (aka Point Pedernales) in 1923, of which seven were lost.

Many never saw wartime service, as a significant number were decommissioned in 1930 and scrapped as part of the London Naval Treaty. About 40 Clemson-class destroyers with Yarrow boilers were scrapped or otherwise disposed of in 1930–31, as these boilers wore out quickly in service. Flush-deckers in reserve were commissioned as replacements. In 1936 only some 169 of the flush deck destroyers would be left, four Caldwell class and the rest Wickes and Clemson class. In 1937 four Clemson class were converted to destroyer minelayers (hull classification symbol DM), joining several Wickes-class ships in this role.

Nineteen were transferred to the Royal Navy in 1940 as part of the Destroyers for Bases Agreement, where they became part of the Town-class destroyer. Others were upgraded or converted to high-speed transports (APD), high-speed minesweepers (DMS), destroyer minelayers (DM), or seaplane tenders (AVD) and served through World War II. Four Wickes-class DM conversions and the four Clemson-class DM conversions survived to serve in World War II.

Most ships remaining in service during World War II were rearmed with dual-purpose 3-inch/50 caliber guns to provide better anti-aircraft protection. The AVD seaplane tender conversions received two guns; the APD high-speed transport, DM minelayer, and DMS minesweeper conversions received three guns, and those retaining destroyer classification received six. Their original low-angle 4-inch/50 caliber guns (Mark 9) were transferred to Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships for anti-submarine protection. For the ships converted to minesweepers, the twelve 21-inch torpedo tubes were replaced by minesweeping gear.

USS Stewart (DD-224) was scuttled at Soerabaja on 2 March 1942, following the surrender of the Dutch East Indies to the Japanese. She was raised, repaired and recommissioned as Japanese patrol boat PB-102 by the Imperial Japanese Navy. She was surrendered to the US Navy following the end of World War II. In addition, 17 Clemson-class destroyers were lost during the war.

The wrecks of two Clemson-class destroyers remain in the San Francisco Bay area, USS Corry (DD-334) a few miles north of Mare Island Navy Yard on the Napa River, and USS Thompson (DD-305) in the southern part of the Bay, used as a bombing target in World War II.

A number of ships in the class were christened by the initial batch of women who enlisted in the Navy as Yeoman (F) in World War I. The USS Hatfield (DD-231) was sponsored by Mrs. J. Edmond Haugh (Helen Brooks) who had been a Yeoman during the Great War.

title: Clemson-class destroyer


text:
Marius von Mayenburg

Marius von Mayenburg (born 21 February 1972 in Munich) is a German playwright and dramaturg.

Education
In 1994, Mayenburg began his studies at the Hochschule der Künste in Berlin. His first play, Haarmann, was first performed at Baracke (Deutsches Theater in Berlin) in 1996. Since 1999 he is dramaturg and writer-in-residence at the Schaubühne am Lehniner Platz in Berlin.

Career
Fireface (German: Feuergesicht), written in 1997, was his breakthrough as a dramatist. The play was performed at Munich Kammerspiele the following year. Then it was played at the Kleist Theater in Frankfurt (Oder) and at the Deutsches Schauspielhaus in Hamburg. The Hamburg performance gained the most attention. His play Perplex saw its English-language premiere in April 2014 at the Sydney Theatre Company, Australia and Martyr (Märtyrer) at the Unicorn Theatre in London in October 2015. In 2016, a film adaptation of Martyrs was translated into Russian and filmed in Russia under the title The Student and was well received by international critics.

Accolades
For Fireface, Mayenburg was awarded the Kleistförderpreis für junge Dramatiker and Preis der Frankfurter Autorenstiftung.

Plays

 * Haarmann (1996)
 * Fräulein Danzer (1996)
 * Monsterdämmerung (1997)
 * Fireface (Feuergesicht) (1997)
 * Parasiten (1999)
 * Das kalte Kind (2002)
 * Fräulein danzer (2003)
 * Eldorado (2004)
 * Turista (2005)
 * Augenlicht (2006)
 * Der Häßliche (2007)
 * Der Hund, die Nacht und das Messer (2008)
 * Der Stein (2008)
 * Perplex (2010)
 * Märtyrer (2012)
 * Stück Plastik (2015)
 * Mars (2019)
 * Nachtland (2022)

title: Marius von Mayenburg


text:
Central Nova

Central Nova (Nova-Centre) is a federal electoral district in Nova Scotia, Canada that was represented in the House of Commons of Canada from 1968 until 1996. In 1996, Antigonish County and part of Guysborough County were placed with Pictou County in a new electoral boundaries configuration to form the electoral district of Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough. A new version of Central Nova was established in 2003 and — in conjunction with the Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough iteration — represented a significant electoral boundaries change with specific reference to Antigonish County. Between 1867 and 1997, Antigonish County was not in a riding that included Pictou County; rather, it comprised either its own electoral district (Antigonish), or part of other districts shared with Eastern Nova Scotia (Antigonish-Guysborough) and Cape Breton Island communities (Cape Breton Highlands Canso, 1968–1997). In 2013, part of Antigonish County was "placed back" with communities in the electoral district of Cape Breton Canso, a riding which had emerged in part from the former Cape Breton Highlands Canso riding in 1996. The current version of Central Nova includes Pictou County, parts of Antigonish and Guysborough Counties (including the Town of Antigonish and the Municipality of the District of St. Mary's) and extends into Halifax Regional Municipality.

Demographics
From the 2021 census

Ethnic groups:
 * White: 91.4%
 * First Nations: 1.1%
 * Black: 1.8%

Languages:
 * English: 95.4%
 * French: 1.1%
 * Dutch: 0.2%
 * Other: 3.3%

Religions:
 * Protestant: 36.5%
 * Catholic: 27.6%
 * No religious affiliation: 34.0%

Age:
 * 0 to 14 years: 13.8%
 * 15 to 64 years: 60.1%
 * 65 years and over: 26.1%
 * 85 years and over: 2.8%

Median Age:
 * 50.0

Median total income:
 * $32,000

Average total income:
 * $40,520

Median household income:
 * $66,500

Average household income:
 * $81,600

Geography
The district covers all or part of the following counties:

 * Pictou County (all)
 * Antigonish County (part)
 * Guysborough County (part)
 * Halifax County (part)

Specifically, it includes the following municipal corporations:

 * Municipality of the County of Pictou
 * The towns of New Glasgow, Stellarton, Pictou, Westville, Trenton, and Antigonish
 * Municipality of the County of Antigonish
 * Municipality of the District of St. Mary's
 * Halifax Regional Municipality (east of Jeddore Oyster Pond and Marinette).

Communities include:

 * Pictou County
 * New Glasgow
 * Stellarton
 * Westville
 * Trenton
 * Pictou
 * River John

 * Antigonish County (as part of the county portion placed in Central Nova)
 * Antigonish

 * Guysborough County (as part of the county portion placed in Central Nova)
 * Goshen
 * Sherbrooke
 * Trafalgar
 * Marie Joseph

 * Halifax County (as part of the county portion placed in Central Nova)
 * Sheet Harbour
 * Port Dufferin
 * Lake Charlotte
 * Jeddore Oyster Pond

The electoral district has an area of 8,439 km2.

Political geography
In 2008, the riding had the unusual scenario of having Green Party leader Elizabeth May run without any Liberal opposition. Thus, the race was mostly between Conservative candidate Peter MacKay and May. May's support was concentrated in the community of Antigonish. Outside this area, she won just a few pockets of support. She was nearly shut out in the New Glasgow metropolitan area, where she won just one poll. MacKay won most of the rest of the riding, and the NDP picked up three polls.

History
The district was created in 1966 from Antigonish—Guysborough (with part of Guysborough added to Central Nova, while Antigonish County and a portion of Guysborough were placed with the Cape Breton Highlands Canso riding), Colchester—Hants, and Pictou. In sum, in 1966, Central Nova consisted of Pictou County, southern Colchester County, eastern Halifax County, and western Guysborough County. In 1976, it gained some territory in Halifax County (eastern central portion), and it lost its territory in Colchester County. In 1987, it lost most of Guysborough County except for the most extreme western point, and gained all of central and central western Halifax County. In 1996, it was merged into Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, and Sackville—Eastern Shore.

The electoral district was re-created in 2003: 93.3% of the riding came from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough riding, and 6.7% came from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. In the 2004 election, Conservative Party candidate Peter MacKay, who had represented Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, was returned to the House of Commons from Central Nova. He was re-elected in the 2006 election.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May contested the seat in the 2008 federal election. In a move that startled political observers, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion announced on April 13, 2007, that his party would not contest the seat in order to give May a better chance of winning, a move that marked the first time in decades that the Liberals did not field a full slate of candidates in a general election. In return, the Greens (who also fielded a full slate in the last election) did not contest Dion's Montreal riding. After coming in second to Peter MacKay, May announced she would not run in Central Nova in the next federal election.

Its new boundaries, determined during 2012 federal electoral boundaries redistribution, have been legally defined in the 2013 representation order. The new boundaries encompass most of the pre-2012 riding as well as a portion of Nova Scotia represented in the current electoral districts of Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley and Sackville—Eastern Shore. It lost 9% of its previous territory to Cape Breton—Canso, territory that, for decades prior to this, had already been part of Cape Breton Highlands Canso. It came into effect upon the call of the 42nd Canadian federal election, which took place on 19 October 2015.

Members of Parliament
This riding has elected the following members of Parliament:

title: Central Nova


text:
Pioneer Press

The Pioneer Press publishes 32 local newspapers in the Chicago area. It is a division of Tribune Publishing, and is based in Chicago.

The community newspapers are the main source of local news in Illinois communities such as Winnetka, Highland Park, and Lake Forest.

Pioneer Press community newspapers
The following is a listing of all Pioneer Press Chicago newspapers, as of 2014:

 * Barrington Courier-Review
 * Buffalo Grove Countryside
 * Deerfield Review
 * The Doings Clarendon Hills
 * The Doings Hinsdale
 * The Doings La Grange
 * The Doings Oak Brook
 * The Doings Weekly
 * The Doings Western Springs
 * Elm Leaves
 * Evanston Review

 * Forest Leaves
 * Franklin Park Herald Journal
 * Glencoe News
 * Glenview Announcements
 * Highland Park News
 * Lake Forester
 * Lake Zurich Courier
 * Libertyville Review
 * Lincolnshire Review
 * Lincolnwood Review
 * Morton Grove Champion

 * Mundelein Review
 * Niles Herald-Spectator
 * Norridge Harwood Heights News
 * Northbrook Star
 * Oak Leaves
 * Park Ridge Herald Advocate
 * Skokie Review
 * Vernon Hills Review
 * Wilmette Life
 * Winnetka Talk

History
In 2005, Hollinger merged the 80-year-old Lerner Newspapers chain into Pioneer Press, Pioneer's first real inroads into the city of Chicago. Despite announcements by Publisher Larry Green that Pioneer intended to "grow" the Lerner Papers, over the course of the next six months, Pioneer dumped the venerable Lerner name, shut down most of its editions and laid off most of its employees. Subsequently, the Sun-Times ceased production of Skyline, the Booster and News-Star, the remaining members of the Lerner group, eliminated the jobs, and sold the titles to Oak Park-based Wednesday Journal. In 2014, the Pioneer Press newspapers were sold to the Chicago Tribune Media Group.

title: Pioneer Press


text:
Talk:Death poem

Untitled
The original of this article give the length of the poetry units as 5-7-7-5-7. I altered it to conform to the information in waka. If anyone knows that these death poems were of a different form, please change it back. DJ Clayworth 15:21, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Death poems were not restricted to just those who committed ritual suicide. Many Japanese poets and monks wrote their own death poems as waka, tanka, or haiku. Shiki, for example, wrote three haiku just before his death from tuberculosis. There are a couple of books available on Japanese death poems, so it should be too hard to fill this article out with better information. gK 18:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mishima's death poem
If someone could find an external link to Mishima's death poem, I think it'd be a great contribution.--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Translations needed
Would translations of those two poems on the right be possible, nice pictures but this is the english Wiki and thats kinda hard to read

NPOV?
"Asano Naganori, the daimyo whose suicide the 47 ronin avenged, wrote a death poem in which commentators see the immaturity and lack of character that led to him being ordered to commit seppuku in the first place." - Opinion? Original Research? Hardly NPOV, but is there a respected scholar who voiced this view or just some Otaku? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.123.197 (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional name?
I have seen the term zeppitsu (絶筆, "final brushstrokes") used as well as zetsumei-shi - is that a rare term (it's not un-heard-of, it's in Nihongo-Dict), or are they used equally? Noel (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the term jisei
Though used elsewhere (e.g. Classical Japanese Site / Jisei), the term seems to pop out from nowhere in the middle of the article. If someone knows where it originates, please quote a source and introduce the term properly in the first paragraph of the article. Sami (talk) 10:34, 18. May 2014 (EET)

Kozan Original Japanese
I tracked down the book that published the Kozan one in Japanese that was cited in the "Japanese Death Poems. Compiled by Yoel Hoffmann" book. I put the citation for it as well but I did that as a Romanized version of the book title. I have the book so I can show pictures and proof. user:thissatori — Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"eternal loneliness" that is found at the heart of Zen
"A death poem exemplifies both the "eternal loneliness" that is found at the heart of Zen and the search for a new viewpoint, a new way of looking at life and things generally, or a version of enlightenment (satori in Japanese; wu in Chinese)" - the claim that eternal loneliness is at the heart of Zen has very little scholarly support. There is a brief assertion of it in George Pattison's "Eternal Loneliness: Art and Religion in Kierkegaard and Zen" with unclear support or sourcing. This article references D.T. Suzuki's "Eternal Loneliness and Basho", however Suzuki says the concepts of "sabi", "wabi" or "shibumi" "can be regarded as specifically Japanese" not Zen. The sole connection seems to be, from the Suzuki essay, is that sabi/wabi/shibumi are features of Basho's poetry and that Basho was a lay Zen devotee. The words "loneliness" or "lonely" do not appear once in the article on Zen so it seems unlikely that this is a key feature of either goals or practice. Suggest this be removed. Thoughts? Meddlingmonk (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm going to edit out 'both the "eternal loneliness" that is found at the heart of Zen and' on this basis of the above. Meddlingmonk (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Death poem


text: User talk:145.64.134.244

title: User talk:145.64.134.244


text:
Castle-class patrol vessel

The Castle class was a class of British offshore patrol vessels of the Royal Navy. Two ships were constructed and after nearly 30 years service were sold to the Bangladesh Navy in 2010. The Bangladesh Navy upgraded these with more armaments including C-704 anti-ship missiles and sensors. These ships are now reclassified as corvettes by the Bangladesh Navy.

Design
The Castle class was designed by David K. Brown and was intended as a series of six offshore patrol vessels for the Royal Navy, designed in response to criticism of the previous Island-class patrol vessel for insufficient speed, sub-optimal sea-keeping and lack of a flight deck for rescue helicopters.

In the event, only two ships were built, HMS Leeds Castle (P258) and HMS Dumbarton Castle (P265). Both vessels were built by Hall Russell in Aberdeen, Scotland. These had significant improvements over the Island-class – they were 300 tonnes larger, more stable in heavy seas, 3 kn faster and fitted with a large flight deck capable of supporting a Sea King helicopter. For brief periods, the ships could accommodate up to 120 troops.

Their primary mission was to serve with the Fishery Protection Squadron, protecting both the fishing fleets and the oil and gas fields of the North Sea. They could also serve as minelayers, and had detergent spraying facilities on board for dispersing oil slicks.

Operations
After the Falklands War, one ship was kept long-term in the Falkland Islands as a guard ship. Leeds Castle and Dumbarton Castle rotated the role on a three-yearly basis, although the ship's crew usually did a six-month rotation.

Replacement
The Castle class was replaced in the Falklands by a unique vessel based on the River-class patrol vessel, HMS Clyde (P257), and both vessels of the class were decommissioned. Originally due to transfer to the Pakistan Maritime Security Agency in 2007, the deal fell through and both ships were sold to the Bangladesh Navy.

title: Castle-class patrol vessel


text:
Benjamin Creswick

Benjamin Creswick, RBSA (1853–1946) was an English sculptor.

Life

Benjamin Creswick was born in Sheffield, the son of a spectacle-maker. He started his working life as a knife-grinder, but took up sculpture with the encouragement of John Ruskin. In 1887 he modelled a terracotta frieze showing the processes of knife-grinding for the exterior of Cutlers' Hall, in Warwick Lane in the City of London. In the same year he made a frieze for Henry Heath's shop in Oxford Street, London, showing hat-makers at work.

Creswick worked on various projects with A.H. Mackmurdo, such as the decoration of Pownall Hall in Cheshire, and contributed to the display by Mackmurdo's Century Guild at the Inventions Exhibition in 1885, though he did not join the guild until the following year.

He spent some time in Liverpool and Manchester, before moving to Birmingham, where he was Master of Modelling and Modelled Design at the Birmingham School of Art from 1889 to 1918. He exhibited at the Royal Birmingham Society of Artists in 1914, becoming an associate, and subsequently a member, of the RBSA, and eventually its Professor of Sculpture. He was responsible for a number of architectural sculptures, which can still be seen on Birmingham buildings.

He lived at a house called Elmwood, in Jockey Road, Sutton Coldfield, then in Warwickshire.

His biography was co-written by his great-granddaughter, Annie Creswick Dawson.

Works

 * Boldmere Swimming Club memorial (1921) – now inside the swimming baths entrance of Wyndley Leisure Centre in Birmingham
 * Bust of John Ruskin (plaster now in the collection of the Royal Birmingham Society of Artists )
 * Carved figures on the choirstalls, Wallasey Memorial Unitarian Church, Merseyside
 * Terracotta frieze on the facade of Cutlers Hall, Warwick Lane, London (1887)
 * Portrait Roundel of Thomas Carlyle outside Carlyle's House, Cheyne Row, Chelsea
 * Capitals of Bachelor's Staircase columns at Beaucastle, a house built for George Baker, a former mayor of Birmingham
 * Carved stone medallion busts of authors, in the Tiled Hall at Leeds Central Library (formerly Municipal Buildings) (1884).

title: Benjamin Creswick


text:
Alfred Carlton Gilbert

Alfred Carlton Gilbert (February 15, 1884 – January 24, 1961) was an American inventor, athlete, magician, toy maker and businessman. As the founder of A. C. Gilbert Company, Gilbert was known for inventing the Erector Set and American Flyer Trains.

Early life and education
Gilbert was educated at the Tualatin Academy and attended Pacific University in nearby Forest Grove, Oregon, where he was a member of the Gamma Sigma Fraternity. He left Pacific after 1902 and transferred to Yale University, financing his education by working as a magician, and earning a degree in medicine. His thesis had the title The Genito-Urinary Phenomena of Athletes.

An accomplished athlete, he broke the world record for consecutive chin-ups (39) in 1900 and distance record for running long dive in 1902. He invented the pole vault box and set two world records in the pole vault including a record for 12′ 3″ (3.66 meters) at the Spring meet of the Irish American Athletic Club, held at Celtic Park, New York, in 1906. He tied for gold with fellow American Edward Cook at the 1908 Summer Olympics in London for pole vaulting.

Career
Choosing not to pursue a medical career, Gilbert founded Mysto Manufacturing, a manufacturer of magic sets, with his friend John Petrie, in 1907. This company later became the A. C. Gilbert Company. Gilbert developed the Erector Set, a construction toy, in 1913 (preceded by the similar Meccano set conceived by Frank Hornby in 1898 which he developed and patented as "Mechanics Made Easy" in 1901 ). His inspiration was steel construction girders used on the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad. In 1918, with the United States embroiled in World War I and the Council of National Defense considering a ban on toy production, Gilbert argued successfully against it. The press gave him the nickname "The man who saved Christmas." Gilbert had by then contributed to the war effort by becoming one of the Four Minute Men who gave short lectures to movie audiences, thus encouraging citizens to purchase war bonds.

By 1935, his company had sold more than 30 million of the Erector sets. He also added chemistry sets, microscope sets, and other educational toys to his product line, accumulating more than 150 patents during his 50-year career. In 1938, he acquired the rights to the American Flyer toy train line from W. O. Coleman and moved their production from Chicago to New Haven. At the same time, he adopted a 3/16 scale for this train line while keeping the three-rail O-gauge track then associated with Lionel, a competitor. Following World War II, O-gauge track was abandoned in favor of two-rail S-gauge track. Gilbert was lauded for his adherence to scale realism, making American Flyer trains look more real and less toylike.

Gilbert is credited with originating the concept of providing benefits for his employees, including free medical and legal advice and maternity leave. In 1915 he founded the Toy Manufacturers of America trade association and was its first president.

Frustrated that invention was an important part of American society not taught in schools, in 1941 Gilbert opened the Gilbert Hall of Science in New York City, a science and technology museum. It served the dual purpose of promoting interest in science and selling Gilbert's products.

In 1950–1951 he marketed the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Laboratory, which contained radioactive ore samples of autunite, carnotite, torbernite and uraninite.

Personal life
In 1908, he married Mary Thompson, whom he had met at Pacific University. They had three children: two girls and a boy. In the 1930s they lived in a property in Hamden, Connecticut called Maraldene which included kennels where Gilbert bred German Shepherds including one which won the Max von Stephanitz award. He also owned a nearby 600-acre estate that he called Paradise. He used it for hunting and it housed his big-game trophies. It was a venue for him to entertain clients, and guests attending the Yale Bowl.

Later years
Upon his retirement in 1954, Gilbert turned his company over to his son. The same year, he published his autobiography, titled The Man Who Lives in Paradise. After his death in 1961, the family sold its remaining shares in the A. C. Gilbert Company to Jack Wrather. It went out of business in 1967, although the Erector trademark continued to be used.

Legacy
A museum in Gilbert's birthplace of Salem, Oregon, A. C. Gilbert's Discovery Village, is named in his honor. The museum comprises several historic structures, including the house of Gilbert's uncle Andrew T. Gilbert. It opened in 1989.

The television movie The Man Who Saved Christmas is a dramatization of Christmas during the years 1917 and 1918 when America was involved in World War I. He was portrayed by Jason Alexander. The film takes several historical liberties. It debuted December 15, 2002.

Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon, has a residential hall named after him that was opened in 2009.

Publications

 * Gilbert Mysto Magic (1919)
 * Gilbert 75 Electrical Toys and Tricks (1919)
 * Gilbert Chemical Magic (1920)
 * Gilbert Handkerchief Tricks for Boys (1920)
 * Gilbert Hydraulic and Pneumatic Engineering (1920)
 * Gilbert Knots & Splices with Rope-Tying Tricks (1920)
 * Gilbert Magnetic Fun and Facts (1920)
 * Gilbert Carpentry for Boys (1920)
 * Gilbert Weather Bureau (meteorology) for Boys (1920)
 * Experimental Glass Blowing for Boys (1920)
 * Gilbert Mineralogy for Boys (1921)
 * Gilbert Mineralogy: Fun with Minerals (1922)
 * Gilbert Coin Tricks for Boys (1938)
 * Roar of the Rails (1944)
 * Fun With Gilbert Chemistry (1946)
 * American Flyer Instruction Book (1952)
 * Gilbert Home Chemistry (1952)
 * The Man Who Lives in Paradise (1954)

title: Alfred Carlton Gilbert


text:
Woodsetts

Woodsetts is a village and civil parish in the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham in South Yorkshire, England, on the border with Nottinghamshire. It lies between the towns of Dinnington and Worksop at an elevation of around 60 metres above sea level, and has a population of 1,746 at the 2011 Census. The village originated as a medieval farming hamlet of the manor of Anston, nestled amongst the ancient woodland of which a few patches remain. The village grew rapidly in the late 19th century when a colliery was sunk at Dinnington. The village now serves as a commuter base for travellers between nearby towns.

History
Woodsetts originated as a medieval hamlet, one of a cluster of hamlets in the area. The name 'Woodsetts' comes from the middle-English word 'Wodesete', meaning a fold in the woods. The first written record of Woodsetts is in a 13th-century quitclaim (dated 1220) held at the Derbyshire Record Office (Hatfield de Rodes papers) where a bovate of land 'in the territory of Lyndrick, in Wudsetes' is mentioned. Other geographical locations mentioned nearby confirm that it is Woodsetts being referred to. The placement of the village is likely due to the source of water in the streams to the North of the village, arable farming land, and the proximity to the historic monasteries of Roche Abbey and Worksop Priory. The nearest established castles are at Worksop and Tickhill.

Woodsetts appeared in a number of medieval and tudor records. In 1771 the first map of the village was drawn, showing a cluster of buildings around Lindrick Road. At the turn of the 19th century, the population of Woodsetts was a little over 100. Originally, inhabitants attended the 12th century St John's Church at Throapham; to accommodate the growing population of the village a new church was constructed costing £1,100 (£115,470 in 2024). This church, St George's Church (Church of England) consists of a modest nave to which an apse was later added, a porch, and a south facing extension; it sits in the Province of York, and the Diocese of Sheffield. The village also has a smaller brick-built Methodist church which was constructed in 1896. The Butchers Arms is the only public house in the village, built in the 19th century and extended in the 20th century.

Most of the buildings in the village are 20th century built. Some are from the 19th century, and a few date from the 18th century or earlier. Historic England lists three buildings in the village which are of national historical value and significance.

Facilities
There is a small shopping precinct in the village, which includes a post office. The new village hall was built in 2007, it sits in the centre of the village off the recreational ground, which includes football pitches, a cricket pitch and green, cricket pavilion, and small skate park. There is also an artificial games pitch, and a children's play area. The village has its own scouts group in the Rotherham district.

There is one Junior and Infants School in the village. There are two secondary schools within a 4-mile radius, Dinnington High School and Outwood Academy Valley. There is 6th form provision at Dinnington High School, North Notts College, and Worksop College (independent). The nearest Universities are those of Sheffield.

Public transport consists of bus routes operated by stagecoach. The nearest railway station is at Shireoaks.

Nearby
To the north of Woodsetts is the smaller satellite settlement of Gildingwells. Historic places within an 8-mile radius are Roche Abbey (12th century Abbey), Tickhill Castle (12th century Castle), Worksop Priory (13th century Church), and All Saints Church, Steetley (Norman Church). The Tropical Butterfly House Conservation Park is also just outside the village.

The City of Sheffield is the closest major city. The village is about a 10-minute drive from the M1 Motorway.

Fracking applications
Rotherham Borough Council twice refused planning permission for exploration at Woodsetts with regard to shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in 2018, in March and September. A further public enquiry is to be held in June 2019.

title: Woodsetts


text:
Immirzi parameter

The Immirzi parameter (also known as the Barbero–Immirzi parameter) is a numerical coefficient appearing in loop quantum gravity (LQG), a nonperturbative theory of quantum gravity. The Immirzi parameter measures the size of the quantum of area in Planck units. As a result, its value is currently fixed by matching the semiclassical black hole entropy, as calculated by Stephen Hawking, and the counting of microstates in loop quantum gravity.

The reality conditions
The Immirzi parameter arises in the process of expressing a Lorentz connection with noncompact group SO(3,1) in terms of a complex connection with values in a compact group of rotations, either SO(3) or its double cover SU(2). Although named after Giorgio Immirzi, the possibility of including this parameter was first pointed out by Fernando Barbero. The significance of this parameter remained obscure until the spectrum of the area operator in LQG was calculated. It turns out that the area spectrum is proportional to the Immirzi parameter.

Black hole thermodynamics
In the 1970s Stephen Hawking, motivated by the analogy between the law of increasing area of black hole event horizons and the second law of thermodynamics, performed a semiclassical calculation showing that black holes are in equilibrium with thermal radiation outside them, and that black hole entropy (that is, the entropy of the black hole itself, not the entropy of the radiation in equilibrium with the black hole, which is infinite) equals

 * $$\, S=A/4\!$$ (in Planck units)

In 1997, Ashtekar, Baez, Corichi and Krasnov quantized the classical phase space of the exterior of a black hole in vacuum General Relativity. They showed that the geometry of spacetime outside a black hole is described by spin networks, some of whose edges puncture the event horizon, contributing area to it, and that the quantum geometry of the horizon can be described by a U(1) Chern–Simons theory. The appearance of the group U(1) is explained by the fact that two-dimensional geometry is described in terms of the rotation group SO(2), which is isomorphic to U(1). The relationship between area and rotations is explained by Girard's theorem relating the area of a spherical triangle to its angular excess.

By counting the number of spin-network states corresponding to an event horizon of area A, the entropy of black holes is seen to be
 * $$\, S=\gamma_0 A/4\gamma.\!$$

Here $$\gamma $$ is the Immirzi parameter and either

 * $$\gamma_0=\ln(2) / \sqrt{3}\pi$$

or

 * $$\gamma_0=\ln(3) / \sqrt{8}\pi,$$

depending on the gauge group used in loop quantum gravity. So, by choosing the Immirzi parameter to be equal to $$\,\gamma_0$$, one recovers the Bekenstein–Hawking formula.

This computation appears independent of the kind of black hole, since the given Immirzi parameter is always the same. However, Krzysztof Meissner and Marcin Domagala with Jerzy Lewandowski have corrected the assumption that only the minimal values of the spin contribute. Their result involves the logarithm of a transcendental number instead of the logarithms of integers mentioned above.

The Immirzi parameter appears in the denominator because the entropy counts the number of edges puncturing the event horizon and the Immirzi parameter is proportional to the area contributed by each puncture.

Immirzi parameter in spin foam theory
In late 2006, independent from the definition of isolated horizon theory, Ansari reported that in loop quantum gravity the eigenvalues of the area operator are symmetric by the ladder symmetry. Corresponding to each eigenvalue there are a finite number of degenerate states. One application could be if the classical null character of a horizon is disregarded in the quantum sector, in the lack of energy condition and presence of gravitational propagation the Immirzi parameter tunes to:

 * $$\ln(3) / \sqrt{8} \pi, $$

by the use of Olaf Dreyer's conjecture for identifying the evaporation of minimal area cell with the corresponding area of the highly damping quanta. This proposes a kinematical picture for defining a quantum horizon via spin foam models, however the dynamics of such a model has not yet been studied.

Scale-invariant theory
For scale-invariant dilatonic theories of gravity with standard model-type matter couplings, Charles Wang and co-workers show that their loop quantization lead to a conformal class of Ashtekar–Barbero connection variables using the Immirzi parameter as a conformal gauge parameter without a preferred value. Accordingly, a different choice of the value for the Immirzi parameter for such a theory merely singles out a conformal frame without changing the physical descriptions.

Interpretation
The parameter may be viewed as a renormalization of Newton's constant. Various speculative proposals to explain this parameter have been suggested: for example, an argument due to Olaf Dreyer based on quasinormal modes.

Another more recent interpretation is that it is the measure of the value of parity violation in quantum gravity, analogous to the theta parameter of QCD, and its positive real value is necessary for the Kodama state of loop quantum gravity. As of today (2004), no alternative calculation of this constant exists. If a second match with experiment or theory (for example, the value of Newton's force at long distance) were found requiring a different value of the Immirzi parameter, it would constitute evidence that loop quantum gravity cannot reproduce the physics of general relativity at long distances. On the other hand, the Immirzi parameter seems to be the only free parameter of vacuum LQG, and once it is fixed by matching one calculation to an "experimental" result, it could in principle be used to predict other experimental results. Unfortunately, no such alternative calculations have been made so far.

title: Immirzi parameter


text:
Gildingwells

Gildingwells is a village and civil parish in the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham in South Yorkshire, England, on the border with Nottinghamshire. It lies between Dinnington and Carlton in Lindrick at 53.36667°N, -1.16667°W, and at an elevation of around 60 metres above sea level. It has a population of 115, increasing to 226 at the 2011 Census but now including Letwell.

Situated on a rural crossroads, Gildingwells is little more than a collection of farms. Education and shopping needs are fulfilled by the nearby settlements of Dinnington and Woodsetts.

title: Gildingwells


text:
Rolling Thunder (organization)

Rolling Thunder is a United States advocacy group that seeks to bring full accountability for prisoners of war (POWs) and missing in action (MIA) service members of all U.S. wars. The group's first demonstration was in 1988. It was incorporated in 1995, and has more than 90 chapters throughout the US, as well as overseas.

Their main annual event occurs on the Sunday before Memorial Day, in Columbus Ohio at the National Veteran's Memorial and Museum. Columbus is the new home for Rolling Thunder (Ohio/Midwest) beginning in 2020. Previously the event took place in Washington DC in which members make a slow motorcycle ride, called the "First Amendment Demonstration Run" or "Ride for Freedom," on a dedicated, closed-off, pre-set route through Washington D.C., leaving the Pentagon parking lot at noon, crossing the Memorial Bridge, and ending at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial ("the Wall"). During the Rolling Thunder weekend, members and supporters spend time at the Thunder Alley (the official vendor site for the event ), visit significant areas of Washington D.C., particularly the numerous memorials, and hear speeches given by members, supporters, military officials and politicians. In 2019 it was announced that the ride for that year would be the final time. On Sept. 19, National POW-MIA Recognition Day, AMVETS announced it will replace the demonstration ride in Washington with an event to be called "Rolling to Remember," on the same day and place with the same mission Rolling Thunder had used, adding suicide prevention as an additional issue.

History
In 1987 Rolling Thunder made its first ride to the Vietnam War Memorial.

Ray Manzo, a former United States Marine Corps Corporal, U.S. Army Sergeant Major John Holland (Ret.), Marine First Sergeant Walt Sides (Ret.) and Sergeant Ted Sampley (Ret.) are the four men that are credited with starting Rolling Thunder before its incorporation in 1995.

In 1987, Manzo visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., talked with fellow veterans, and first learned that American servicemen had been abandoned in Southeast Asia at the end of the Vietnam War. This was counter to his Marine Corps training to leave no man behind, and he became consumed with the idea that he must do something to bring attention to this issue. Manzo attended a POW/MIA vigil sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club when the idea came to him to host a motorcycle rally in the nation's capital to show the country and the world that U.S. prisoners of war and missing in action (POW/MIA) still mattered to their fellow servicemen and the country for which they sacrificed their freedom.

Manzo drafted a letter for a call to action and began mailing it to motorcycling publications. He enlisted fellow veterans from the Washington D.C. area to help him through the red tape of requirements. Sgt. Major John Holland was experienced in government legislation and included 1st Sgt. Walt Sides, and Washington activist Sgt. Ted Sampley also joined them. These were the founders of Rolling Thunder. Ted Sampley's colleague, Bob Schmitt, coined the phrase "Rolling Thunder". While staring at the Memorial Bridge and envisioning Manzo's dream, he said, "It will be like the sound of rolling thunder coming across the bridge."

On Memorial Day 1988, Cpl. Manzo recruited 2,500 men and women to attend Rolling Thunder I.

Rolling Thunder Run to the Wall
The First Amendment Demonstration Run, formerly Rolling Thunder Run to the Wall, was a motorcycle rally sponsored by the Rolling Thunder organization. The ride began on Sunday at the Pentagon after a "blessing of the bikes" at the National Cathedral on Friday and associated events end on Monday.

Beginning in 1987 and continuing through 2019, Rolling Thunder conducted the Run to the Wall on the Sunday of Memorial Day Weekend to show their continued support for the efforts to find lost service men and women of past conflicts. In May 2001 the estimated number of motorcycles involved in this rally was 200,000. The event drew an estimated 350,000 motorcyclists in May 2008, and 500,000 in 2018. The rally was canceled in 2019.

Chapters
Rolling Thunder has 88 chapters covering 29 states all of which are governed by the same constitution and bylaws. Many of Rolling Thunder's members are veterans and own motorcycles; however, neither is a requirement for membership. All Members of this organization must be willing to help fight the prisoner of war missing in action issue, which still exists. To help protect future veterans from becoming POW-MIA's and to help veterans in need from all wars.

Rolling Thunder also allows for the formation of new chapters worldwide. All chapters of Rolling Thunder have their own president and board members and are accountable for fund raising proceeds and tax information. New chapters must have a minimum of 20 members including the president and board members.

Charities
Rolling Thunder has expanded its operations to include Rolling Thunder Charities as of 2007, a class 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. This part of the organization adheres to the same laws that govern its parent corporation. Rolling Thunder Charities was designed to help members as well as U.S. Military troops and their families that are in need of financial help. Rolling Thunder Charities sells Rolling Thunder memorabilia and conducts other fundraising activities.

Legislation
Rolling Thunder was influential in the passing of the Missing Service Personnel Act of 1993. The bill states that a service member cannot be listed as killed in action (KIA) without substantial evidence. In 1995 Rolling Thunder Inc. won approval from the United States Government for a POW/MIA postage stamp to be put in circulation and the organization continues to work with the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on new bills for the return of, and information about, servicemen and women. Rolling Thunder co-authored the 2006 Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act.

Criticism
The Economist said the organization "was founded...to advance a specific crackpot belief: that successive Republican and Democratic administrations have concealed evidence that American captives are being held alive in South-East Asia."

title: Rolling Thunder (organization)


text:
Beaver Kill

The Beaver Kill, sometimes written as the Beaverkill or Beaverkill River, is a tributary of the East Branch Delaware River, a main tributary of the Delaware River, approximately 44 mi long, in the U.S. state of New York. The kill drains a 300 sqmi area of the Catskill Mountains and has long been celebrated as one of the most famous trout streams in the United States. Its preservation helped establish many of the basic conservation principles of rivers in the United States.

The river has been popular as a trout stream since the early 19th century, when it became one of the first resort destinations in the United States. The subsequent depletion of the brook trout population by the 1850s led to an early conservation movement to preserve the river, including the introduction of hatcheries for brown trout. Its popularity as a trout stream arises in part from the many cold springs and deep pools in the upper river that keep the water at an even cold temperature. The fly fishing industry is centered on Roscoe, home to several fly-shops and bed and breakfasts catering to fishermen from around the world. More local fly fishing history and information can be found at the Catskill Fly Fishing Center and Museum located in Livingston Manor.

Course
The Beaver Kill rises in western Ulster County, beginning at an elevation of 2760 ft just south of the col between Graham and Doubletop mountains, two of the Catskill High Peaks in the Town of Hardenburgh. It descends gently from here, first on private land belonging to the descendants of Jay Gould, then into the Big Indian-Beaverkill Range Wilderness Area, part of the Forest Preserve in the Catskill Park. Shortly after entering state land, it receives its first tributary, an unnamed stream that flows down steeply from the southeast slopes of Doubletop.

At its first crossing, the Neversink-Hardenburgh Trail, the stream turns west and enters a different state-owned parcel, the Balsam Lake Mountain Wild Forest, paralleling the trail for two miles (3 km) to the Quaker Clearing trailhead at the end of Beaverkill Road. Here it turns southwest again and parallels the road through the minimally developed valley, widening slightly as it does, and receiving from the north tributaries such as Alder Creek. It gradually moves to a more westerly direction until just short of the Delaware County line it turns southwest again and parallels it just past the small hamlet of Lew Beach where it enters Sullivan County. Here it keeps the same course. The covered Beaverkill Bridge crosses it at the Beaverkill State Campground, a popular fishing spot. After briefly bending into Delaware County it reaches the only significant settlement along its length, the hamlet of Roscoe, where its largest tributary, Willowemoc Creek, joins it from the east at the Junction Pool, the Beaver Kill's best-known fishing hole. The confluence also marks the point where the Beaver Kill becomes part of the Blue Line, the boundary of the Catskill Park.

It also starts to parallel another road, the NY 17 expressway slowly being converted into Interstate 86. Widening and turning westward again, it soon enters Delaware County and the Town of Colchester for good, passing the small hamlet of Cooks Falls shortly afterwards. The river and the highway remain close, intersecting several times. At the Hancock town line, the Blue Line leaves the river.

For its last few miles, it bends northward slightly, staying alongside Route 17. At the hamlet of East Branch, it drains into the East Branch, approximately 10 mi northeast of where it joins the West Branch to form the Delaware's main stem.

Tributaries
Right Gulf of Mexico Brook Black Brook Beecher Brook Scudder Brook Alder Creek Upper Beech Hill Brook Mary Smith Brook Berry Brook Spring Brook Horse Brook Roaring Brook Russell Brook Crystal Brook Horton Brook Spooner Brook Twadell Brook

Left Shin Creek Voorhees Brook Jersey Brook Willowemoc Creek Abe Wood Brook Cook Brook Whirling Eddy Brook Roaring Brook Trout Brook

History
The combination of its remoteness and contentious disputes over land titles in the Catskills stemming from the Hardenburgh Patent kept the Beaver Kill area unsettled and undeveloped well into the 19th century. Only loggers and trappers visited the area, on a road built in 1815. They told others of the river's clear waters and ample supply of trout, which Washington Irving wrote of in 1819, noting that its isolation kept it out of easy reach of city dwellers attracted to the new sport of angling. Later in the century the valley's first significant industry adversely affected the water quality the trout depended on. Tanneries opened up, harvesting tannin from the bark of the extensive Eastern Hemlock stands on the mountain slopes. There were eventually eight in the valley, their effluents clouding the river and making it less attractive to trout. Charcoal makers also released acids into the river, further affecting its quality. The industries were prosperous enough to sustain the settlements of Beaverkill, where the oldest extant bridge over the river was constructed in 1865, and Shin Creek (today Lew Beach).

Those industries faded away due to changes in technology and depletion of forest resources in the 1880s. That same decade, New York created the Forest Preserve, by which state landholdings in the Adirondacks and Catskills were to be kept forever wild. This shift to conservation helped the region sustain a new tourism economy, as rail connections, and later the automobile, brought dry-fly fishermen to the valley. Many of the new sport's early publicizers, like Theodore Gordon, wrote about the trout of the Beaver Kill, particularly the Junction Pool, rich in fish because the trout could not decide which river to swim up, and the waters from there down to the East Branch. The new attention caused different problems. Overfishing led conservationists and private clubs to buy large sections of the river's banks all the way up to almost its headwaters. The state built Beaverkill campground in the 1920s, one of its first in the Catskill Park, to concentrate angler impact in one area.

In the years after World War II, the river faced the prospect of being dammed by New York City for its water supply, along with the Willowemoc. The fly-fishing community opposed this strongly, and eventually when test borings showed that the bedrock in those valleys could not support the necessary dams, the city relented. It chose to acquire land along both branches of the Delaware and build Cannonsville and Pepacton reservoirs instead.

Anglers later protested the construction of the Quickway, the expressway section of Route 17, along the river. Their efforts resulted in some slight rerouting, and a section near Cooks Falls where the two roadways were stacked on each other in a narrow passage between state Forest Preserve land and the river. It does not appear to have had, by itself, the adverse impact on runoff and stream flows that was originally feared, although both have increased since the highway's construction.

Beaverkill River fly fishing photography

 * Recent Beaverkill Pictures/photographs

title: Beaver Kill


text: Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA

title: Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA


text:
Talk:Faith and rationality

Untitled
Not sure what the point of this article is or what it's doing in an encyclopedia but I'll leave it in deference to Larry as founder of Wikipedia.

Natural Theology
The article states: "Natural theology holds that faith and rationality are compatible, so that evidence and reason ultimately lead to belief in the objects of faith." Evidence and reason ultimately leading to believe in the "objects" of faith is completely different from faith and rationality being compatible. Indeed, natural theology states that one need not have mere faith in, for example, the existence of God, but rather one can infer, through empirical observation of the natural world, that God exists. Again, this is absolutely not identical to the thesis that faith and rationality are compatible. Thus, this section needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.27.138 (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup
OK, I'm taking first swack at this. I'll make sure the current content remains available in the page history.--FeloniousMonk 21:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

generally good
great edits for the most part ... why was "faith as unparsimonious" deleted? Ungtss 13:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

also, regarding solipsism ... is it fair to describe these views as solipsism? solipsism holds that only the self exists and everything is a function of the mind -- but classical foundationalism holds that while many things cannot be proven, many other beliefs may be reasonably held by other means, including faith. shall we distinguish here? Ungtss 16:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The article now is starting to read like a litany of apologetics, not an encyclopedia article. "Faith as unparsimonious" was deleted because the rule of parsimony is not central to the rationalist objections to faith being rational and so is seldom made.
 * "A is A" and a solipsism is a solipsism. Identifying it as such is no more inappropriate than saying that rationality precludes the supernatural. It does not need to be attributed as a POV; the elench that it is self-evident is a matter deductive logic, not a POV. FeloniousMonk 17:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the argument is not solipsism. "Solipsism is the metaphysical belief that only oneself exists, and that "existence" just means being a part of one's own mental states — all objects, people, etc, that one experiences are merely parts of one's own mind."  Classical foundationalism does not hold that opinion.  it holds the opinion that faith underlies all knowledge because reason depends on faith, so that we can know things other than the fact that we exist, despite the fact that we can't prove them.  you are misdefining solipsism and misapplying it here.  Ungtss 17:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * <<"Faith as unparsimonious" was deleted because the rule of parsimony is not central to the rationalist objections to faith being rational and so is seldom made.>>
 * i beg to differ. have a look at God of the gaps, Ockham's razor and religion for a start.  Ungtss 17:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Definition of faith
The definition of faith given in the article is very narrow and unsatisfactory. There are two general approaches to the notion of faith within religious thought: cognitive and non-cognitive. The relationship between faith and rationality is very different in each of these approaches to faith, so the distinctions are crucial. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cognitive: faith is sometimes regarded as being a kind of belief (either lacking the justification necessary for knowledge, or with an object that isn't understood), sometimes as being a cognitive state distinct from either belief or knowledge.
 * Non-cognitive: faith is either a way of seeing the world or a way of living one's life. In both cases, the appeal is to faith as trust.

 * SS keeps reverting part of the summary from this:
 * "Faith is generally defined either as belief not grounded in evidence and reason or as belief in what cannot be understood, while rationality is belief grounded in logic and/or material evidence."
 * to this:
 * "Faith is generally defined as belief beyond or surpassing physical evidence or secular reasoning, while rationality is belief based on logic and/or material evidence."
 * His latest edit summary was: "restore neutral and accurate intro". Could he (or anyone else) explain what's PoV or inaccurate about the version from which he's reverting?  Could he have the courtesy of placing his reasons here?  I wrote the previous explanatory comment over a month ago, and he's simply ignored it. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps he was trying to employ irony... Anyway, his definition is grossly inaccurate, and as such, I'll revert it on sight. FeloniousMonk 16:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
This article needs to be cleaned up to meet Wiki's nPOV.  As it reads, it heavily favors rationality and (sometimes subtly) puts down faith.--Jason Gastrich 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for putting this back up. I never launched a personal attack, though.  --Jason Gastrich 19:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed you have. And I've reverted your attempt to hide the evidence. FeloniousMonk 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Jason, you need to stop . Do not delete the comments of others from talk pages. FeloniousMonk 20:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I will stop, but I deleted the things above because they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Furthermore, they may tarnish someone's objectivity in the matter. You do want people to come and be objective, yes? --Jason Gastrich 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * First, there needs to be consistency in the verbiage to indicate rationality is opposed to religious faith. That's what this article seems to be about; which leads into my second point.
 * It needs to be made known and discussed how even rationality assumes or believes certain things by faith. For instance, the person who rejects faith and embraces rationality doesn't test a chair before he/she sits on it. They believe it will keep them from falling. More examples such as these can be cited to show their faith in non-religious things.--Jason Gastrich 20:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Since this is a neutrality discussion, we need to put the neutrality discussion tag on the main page of this article. --Jason Gastrich 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * This NPOV dispute is specious, completely without merit. Its motivation is transparent. The last person to substantially rework this article was neither I nor Markkbilbo, but Mel Etitis, who is an Oxford philosophy professor. I think we can trust his opinion and contributions to be fair, neutral and informed. The NPOV objection here reeks of sour grapes. FeloniousMonk 20:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Let's not concern ourselves with smells and appeals to authority. Let's concern ourselves with the issue at hand. With all due respect to everyone involved (even the Philosophy professor), this entry can be improved.--Jason Gastrich 20:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * That's one opinion. The motives for raising the NPOV issue are central to whether it is well-founded and objective, responsible editors will judge for themselves. FeloniousMonk 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * That is also a misapplication of "appeal to authority." I suggest reading Appeal to authority. They have a very good example in the article concerning Linus Pauling who made claims outside his field. Appealing to him as an authority on the medicinal efficacy of vitamen C does amount to an "appeal to authority" fallacy. Appealing to expertise within a field is not an "appeal to authority" fallacy.Mark K. Bilbo 22:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no need for an NPOV tag as the article currently stands.--SarekOfVulcan 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither do I. Is there anyone else here who does see the need? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look necessary here. Mark K. Bilbo 22:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Nope, its a one-person crusade as it stands. I suggest WP:CON applies. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response: Faith and rationality
I have to admit that I endorse Sarek's view. There is nothing objectionable in there. Like other user said it seems a pretty balanced statement of the subject.

Don't put the neutrality dispute tag on the page, you may have your discussion about the things that are POV also on talk page. Bonaparte  talk  15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

misplacement of "only"
This sentence "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it only rejects any belief based on faith alone. " was not clear, because the "only" modified "rejects." It could have been reworded: "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it rejects only any belief based on faith alone. " but now it reads awkwardly. So I did my best fix. You could fix it to: "Rationalism makes no statement either way regarding the existence of God or the validity or value of religion; it rejects any belief based only on faith. " If you like that. But "only rejects" would contrast "to reject" with other possibilities, such as "to refute".

But, by the way, I think the section is a muddle anyway, because I do not see a clear discussion of belief based on faith and observation. The dichotomy that is implied is not sustainable. In a highly polarized world, one group claims to put faith ahead of rationalism, but ends up using rational arguments. The opponents might claim they are not accepting anything on faith, but they have faith in their senses and reasoning power. Anyway, the set of beliefs supported by faith alone is extremely small, because even those people who proudly proclaim their faith have documents (bible, Koran, or whatever) and often tales of miracles to back them up. Carrionluggage 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Rationalism
"Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma or religious teaching." This is not true, see the article on rationalism. Srnec 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

cleanup
I've done a little cleanup, corrected some spelling errors. Still a lot to be done. Also, the title should be Faith and Reason. Rick Norwood 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Foundations of Rationality
First I'd like to say that I think the article is pretty good currently.

The section "Faith as underlying rationality" notes that even a die-hard rationalist has to rely on basic assumptions somewhere, denoted here as "properly basic." This is a theological term, however this problem has been thoroughly discussed secularly, and there are a lot of other (and perhaps more common) terms for this idea, e.g. "axioms", "fundamental assumptions", "metaphysics", etc. I think I would like to see some these other terms mentioned.

I also note that the apparent "undermining" of rationalism by underpinnings of faith is a very Western concern. Cf. Daoism which, among other things, seems to admit right from the start that we can't really be certain of anything, and that all classifications and conceptual distinctions placed upon our raw sensory input are artificial anyway. Daoism further suggests that while it might be good to be aware of this artificiality, on a day-to-day basis there's no need to worry too much about it. (This means we shouldn't take God too seriously either.) I find this philosophical position relevant because it is in some sense a distinct approach that avoids the conflict entirely. --Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Societal/Religious Context
Would it be appropriate to note somewhere that the staunch promotion of "faith" as a valid mode of belief is closely associated with those who hold religious convictions? This seems to me to be of major importance in understanding the history and dynamics of the debate. --Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of the posts above, which are very interesting, are unsigned. Please register with wikipedia and then sign your posts with four tildes. At that point, I would like to see you work on this article. I think you have a contribution to make. Rick Norwood 17:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me, forgot to sign, now remedied. Any comments on things you would like to me do with this article? --Jonathanstray 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not specifically, but your comments suggest you have some good ideas. Rick Norwood 12:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the introduction define faith in terms of the absence of reason?
I tried to define faith in terms that would reflect the beliefs of the faithful: faith is belief influenced by authority, revelation, or inspiration. Two other editors evidently believe that faith should be defined in negative terms. The introduction currently reads:

"Faith and rationality are two modes of belief that are seen to exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is belief grounded in reason or evidence. By contrast, faith is generally defined as belief not grounded solely in reason or evidence, but also in what cannot be known."

Certainly, this is a definition of faith that would appear totally alien to anyone who has faith -- they would say, rather, that by faith the truth can be known. Also, the claim that faith is generally defined in negative rather than positive terms is unsupported by any reference.

I'm going to restore a positive definition of faith, and ask that other writers remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on such subjects, and add a reference. Rick Norwood 13:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Rick, thanks for your comments. I support your effort to find a more "positive" view of faith. However, I reverted yours because using Martin Luther as an authority on faith, is like using Copernicus as an authority on planetary motion. That is to say, both made their contributions, which were significant and ground-breaking, but after 300 or 400 years, their ideas are no longer taken as part of the current debate.  Here's what I cut out:
 * Faith is grounded in authority, inspiration, or revelation. [ref] Martin Luther, Martin Luther, Selections from his Writings, edited by John Dillenberger, Anchor, 1958, ISBN 0385098766, ISBN-13 978-0385098762, page 23, "Faith, however, is something that God effects in us." [/ref]

 * I do try to stick to attributable statements; the lead, however, should be a summary of such statements. What remains, then, is to figure out what counts as neutral. So to your point, the way to do that is to include something that puts faith in more "positive" terms. When I inserted the word solely, it was so that "faith" could be defined in a positivist but neutral way....

 * But trying to do that for the purposes of the article is tricky, since the focus of this article is on the demarcation problem between faith and rationality. It seems very natural and constructive to define one in terms of the other. If we dont't define one in terms of the other, it becomes difficult to have any sort of discussion about how to distinguish one and the other.

 * I would propose we work on putting the contrast to reason in "positive" terms:
 * Faith and rationality are two modes of belief that are seen to exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is belief grounded in reason or evidence. By contrast, faith is generally defined as belief not grounded solely in reason or evidence, but also .... [positive terms here]

 * --Otheus 18:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The trouble with your definition of faith is that it is not how faith is, in fact, defined in the context of the debate over faith and reason. Checking the old Webster's Seventh, which happens to be close at hand, it says, "1a: alliegence or duty to a person, b: fidelity to one's promises, 2a(1): firm belief and trust in and loyalty to God, (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

 * You have shifted the definition of faith from definition 2a to definition 2b, which decides the debate between faith and reason by definition,
 * I respond to this below... --Otheus 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * and you have repeatedly used reverting to have it stay that way.

 * Rick, on this point, you are confusing me with someone else. I reverted the edit that you reverted, which was mine. I am not working in tandem with anyone else here. Otheus 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 * That is not how Wikipedia works. Neutrality requires that faith be defined in the way the faithful define faith.
 * I'm specifically not addressing this comment, and to the best of my knowledge, neither does Wikipedia address it. --Otheus 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The Martin Luther definition is a good one, because it is the definition used by millions of faithful Christians. I could easily produce a dozen more references, from a variety of faiths, all saying the same thing. Rick Norwood 12:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Rick, this is not an article on faith per se. Luther's depiction is also a fine one -- if you are a Christian, or at any rate, a theist -- but it's not a definition; it depicts faith as something which God creates, but not what it actually is. Webster's definitions do describe what faith is, but each definition in a different context.  The context for this article is a philosophical and epistemological one; more specifically, it's about to what extent these branches of philosophy encroach or complement not only religious belief, but other forms of faith, such as whether or not to expect the Sun to rise tomorrow. After Luther, came 400 years of other highly acclaimed thinkers, such as Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, David Hume, Kierkegaard, most of whom believed firmly in a Creator, and all of whom wrote extensively and had a profound impact on the topic of faith and reason.

 * As such, Webster's definition 2b(1) is a starting point for a definition, but it is flawed since one does not require proof to behave rationally. This naturally begs the question: are faith and rationality distinct concepts, overlapping concepts, tangential concepts, or arbitrary concepts? That is the problem addressed by these 400+ years of philosophy. That is what this topic hopes to introduce to the reader.

 * Perhaps, as a believer, you are familiar with the works of famed Christian author Francis Schaeffer (if not, maybe one of his books will ring a bell. Francis wrote well on the topic at hand, and he is perhaps most famous for his attempt to resolve it. Schaeffer discusses is "evidentialism" and "presuppositionalism", concepts analogous to "rationality" and "faith". One of Schaeffer's "pupils", James Sire, wrote an excellent, approachable, clear book explaining (and promoting) Schaeffer's apologetic in an epistemological context. I point all this out to you in hopes you won't think this article is about "secularism versus religion" or "us versus them". It is far more subtle than that. I also strongly recommend you seek out one of their books from, for instance, your Church's library. --Otheus 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 * You err in your assumption that I am a believer. I am not in any way a religious person.  I do have faith in reason.
 * Indeed I did err! Instead of making excuses for myself, I hope you will merely accept my apology.--Otheus 22:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm a mathematician, and I understand the difference between presenting an argument fairly, and trying to settle an argument by definition, which is unfair. I've also read a good bit of philosophy, though perhaps not as much as you have.

 * Yeah, but as a mathematician, you've done a whole lot more defining and proving than I ever will. --Otheus 22:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 * And I know that the debate between faith and reason is a debate between the belief that revelation is correct and the belief that only reason and evidence lead to correct belief. You want to settle this argument at the outset by defining faith as "against reason" (which, clearly, makes the next part -- the three viewpoints listed -- irrelevant, since you have already ruled out the third viewpoint.  My only interest here is in seeing a good, fair, referenced article. Rick Norwood 12:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 * You are right again. I did not want to settle the argument at the outset, but the text at the time did result in the implication that left no place for Natural Theology. I made these very subtle changes, and I would like your feedback on them. --Otheus 22:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest rewrite
I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this. The new version is certainly an improvement. But it still gives a negative definition of faith as the absence of reason and evidence. Why do you object to a positive definition, faith as belief in revelation. As best I can tell, people who talk about "faith" in this sense usually mean a direct revelation by God to man, often using the authority of some "holy" book. Some claims personal inspiration, as in the case of many New Age beliefs. I thought my "revelation, inspiration, or authority" covered the ground fairly well. What do you object to in that formulation? Rick Norwood 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Additions to "Faith as underlying rationality" section

 * "This view holds that all chains of logical reasoning are either circular reasoning, and thus invalid or else they are rooted in a first principle, axiom, self-evident truth or statement of faith/dogma, all of which are, this view claims, things of the same type. Therefore, faith underlies all rationality. Rationality is dependent on faith for its coherence. Under this view, there is no way to comprehensively prove that we are actually seeing what we appear to be seeing, that what we remember actually happened, or that the laws of logic and mathematics are actually real. Instead, all beliefs depend for their coherence on faith in our senses, memory and reason. The foundations of rationalism cannot be proven by external evidence, without indulging in circular reasoning, since one must be rational already in order to consider evidence. The real difference, under this view, between someone who says they rely on faith and someone who says they rely solely upon evidence is simply the object of their faith, not whether they have faith in anything or not."

I'm just clarifying this. (Forgot to login) It didn't have a source before, so to require a clarifying edit to have a source when the original passage didn't have a source seems inconsistent to me. I might be able to dig up a source, but if the original can stand without one, this can stand without one. If the original cannot, it shouldn't be here either.

This passage is, I might add, dealing with first principles. What do you want the sources to do? Show that someone, somewhere actually holds or has held this view? If so, any random Wikipedia editor is just as valid a source as any source writer who tries to explain the idea. I, myself, could be a valid source if not for the fact that I'm already editing. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Natural versus Supernatural
I must admit that I'm alittle surprised at the hijacking of this subject. It would seem that either each and every religion should be able to contribute sections to this article AND manipulate the definitions outside their "expertise" OR we must all realize that not much of this article is actually definition.

I should state for the record that I was raised christian and am now atheist. Make of it what you will, but from where I stand, this article shouldn't be about the details of any one religion. I also don't put much "faith" in the argument from special knowledge.

May I be allowed to advocate the following for the opening statement?

"Rationality is a framework to investigate the natural world, based upon the premises that (1) only the natural world exists, (2) that humanity has the capacity to understand it, and (3) that we can determine physical laws of the natural world.

Faith is an arbitrary framework to support supernatural claims based upon the premises that (1) both the natural and supernatural exist, (2) that we do not have the capacity to fully understand them unaided, and (3) that we may determine some natural laws, but that we must rely upon inspiration, authority or traditional knowledge in order to understand the natural and the supernatural."

I'm sorry, but I'm not citing anyone's work... at least not intentionally. Also, sorry, I'm new at this! StephenTBrooke (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi and welcome Stephen. You are correct that perspectives from every religion should be welcomed into this article. That they are absent now is not necessarily bias on anyone's part; nobody may have contributed that material yet. If you have some to contribute please let us know.
 * I'm not sure what you mean about "not much of this article is actually definition", because wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so it should not be all definition. The lede should begin with a definition of the subject under discussion, and then the rest of the article should be verifiable claims on the subject made by notable figures, properly attributed to them.
 * Your proposed edits seem to me to violate our neutral point of view policy. It sounds like you are concerned that the article as it stands may do so as well, and I'd like to hear more details about where you think there is bias in the article. We cannot exclude religious points of view, but they must be properly attributed to their believers and not stated in the article's own voice; but likewise, we cannot disclaim their claims in the article's own voice either.
 * A more specific concerns with your proposed edit is that it conflates rationalism with naturalism. It could be argued (and I would) that naturalism is the only rational ontology, but that would be a contentious point and conflate separate issues. Faith and rationality are epistemological issues: rationality says you should believe only what you have good reasons to believe, and faith says you should believe some things you had no reasons to believe. Neither say anything about what kinds of things exist, and there have been plenty who have attempted to investigate supernatural matters by rational means (at least attempted; their success on the other hand is another matter). --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi there!
 * "The basic differences between rationality and religious faith are the existance of the supernatural and the knowability of reality.
 * Rationality is a framework for investigating the natural world, while religious faith is a framework for supporting claims of a supernatural world."
 * My definition here has no neutral-point-of-view issues, however the article, as written, has many NPOV issues. As an example, somehow the article is written about religious faith when the article title says "faith". Since religious faith is a type of faith, then the title of this article demands more generalization, more synthesis, and not more specificity.
 * Religious faith supports unprovable claims of a supernatural world - unprovable by definition, unprovable via natural investigation. Religious faiths are frameworks to support claims of a supernatural world: each measurably different framework connotes a different faith.
 * The minutiae of each and every religious faith, how they view rationalism, and what specific supernatural claims they make as opposed to those supernatural claims that other religious faiths make is prima facia irrelevant in this article, since all religions make supernatural claims: that's why we call them religions and not science.
 * This article is not titled "a listing of how all religious faiths view rationality," it is titled "faith and rationality."
 * My "hijacking" reference concerns the introduction where rationality is compared with faith and whether rationality is equivalent to belief or is a type of belief, as opposed to knowledge being rooted in the natural world and religious faith rooted in the supernatural. The intro uses the word rationality, which is an investigative framework, as if it were synonymous with the word knowledge - the actual target.
 * This "belief is the basis of knowledge", or "rationality is a type of belief" is what is termed a "wedge" argument and is unproven supposition. An argument is not a definition. The article is supposed to start with a definition, not religious arguments. Every other Wikipedia article begins with definition.
 * Using such wedge arguments, modern religious faith writers can pretend that faith and rationality are equivalent routes to knowledge in philosophical and epistemological domains. The reason they are different words, is because they have different meanings: rationality and faith are not equivalent.
 * Belief is not the basis of knowledge, and knowledge is not a kind of belief, since knowledge requires proof and belief does not.
 * StephenTBrooke (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi again Stephen. FYI I've cleaned up the indentation and line breaks on your comments so they flow better in the talk page structure; please observe this usual formatting for wiki talk pages in the future.
 * Re-reading your initial suggestion again, the only actual NPOV-concern I see is the word "arbitrary", which (though I'd actually be the first to argue that faith is necessarily arbitrary) has somewhat pejorative connotations. I think my earlier objection would be better phrased as "original research". While I actually agree quite strongly that there is a connection between the ontological question of naturalism and the epistemological issue of rationalism, I am not familiar attestations of that connection in notable literature, and I am familiar with attestations to the contrary (hence my link to natural theology, the attempt to investigate certain supernatural matters by rational means). My point being, while there may be a relationship of reason:faith::natural::supernatural (and if there are notable sources discussing it, maybe we should include them), reason and faith are not defined in terms of the natural and the supernatural and so we cannot give the definition of them as such.
 * I'm also not sure that your concern about the broader common uses of "faith" are warranted, as the article is clearly about rationality vs faith in the sense it is used in religious discourse, and not rationality vs trust or hope or something. I am curious what you would suggest to broaden the article to cover rationality and its relationship to faith in that broader sense, however.
 * Regarding the current lede and its use of the word "belief", I believe you are mistaken about its meaning, and the relationship between knowledge, belief, reason, etc; and I don't believe anybody is trying to make a wedge argument here (though certainly some people try to make the argument you're concerned about elsewhere, painting rationality and science as "just another religion"). From our own article on belief, linked from that very lede, "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." If, after a rational investigation of a proposition, you determine that that proposition is true, then you believe that proposition. Despite the common error (noted in the article itself, in fact) of conflating "belief" with "faith", belief is not necessarily in defiance of reason; rationalism is the proposition that beliefs should only be formed on the basis of good reasons. Knowledge, in turn, was for the longest time defined as "justified true belief", and so is a subset of belief; though that exact definition has in more recent decades shown some cracks, but even by any alternative proposal, if you know something, then necessarily, you believe it. That doesn't make belief sufficient for knowledge, which seems to be your concern, but nobody is claiming that here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi again!
 * Sorry about the indents - I'll try to figure out how to do that!
 * I must admit, I'm having a devil of a time (pun intended!) finding quotables that aren't in obscure religious texts WRT the supernatural. And there are many texts that refer to the supernatural. So how do you find one that isn't obscure? The Pope doesn't talk about it.
 * Personally, I'm beginning to think that the supernatural realm was invented and populated with things for which there is no proof, by the very people who stand to benefit by not having to answer questions: organized religions. So at the point in time that humanity was starting to demand proof, every un-provable tenet of organized religion was protected.
 * What I had in mind about faith and rationality, was that the article would more properly be about how to deal with arguments from authority and arguments from special knowledge, and developing tests for reasonableness when dealing with people. Many people I've had to deal with demand my faith - without proof - using such arguments, and it's only reasonableness tests that allow me to initially determine whether my faith in them could be misplaced. Essentially the article could be about using rationality to determine with whom or what to place a person's faith.
 * I understand why you think I'm confused about the terms in the article, but I have seen many intellectual arguments that begin by nullifying the difference between knowledge and belief, then conflate the epistemological concept of belief, with the philosophical concept of religious faith. And I see that happening here. Even your definition: "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true", leaves out the fact that the difference between belief and knowledge is proof. Belief is about not having proof. One is said to believe or accept a proposition on faith, when a proposition is unproven. If a proposition is proven, then it is accepted as knowledge.
 * Isn't that the corollary to "knowledge is a form of belief", that belief should therefore be at least as valid as knowledge? The corollary implies that there are things at least as valid as knowledge, other things that are also a subset of belief. That is an example of the quintessential "wedge" argument. Belief and faith are then interchanged in order to promote the wedge and confuse the issues, gaining credibility for unproven supposition against proven knowledge.
 * Also, the reason I used the term "arbitrary" in the definition I provided, is because there are so many religious faiths - since there is no requirement for proof of supernatural or religious claims, a set of such claims need only be internally consistent, although not logically consistent, or rationally grounded, in order to be popular. Since there is no requirement for proof of religious claims, let alone rigorous testing, then the only test of a set of religious claims is popularity. If the only test of religious faith is popularity then that means the set of religious claims is arbitrary.
 * BTW - I have to say - it feels great to debate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenTBrooke (talk • contribs) 05:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Stephen. Looks like you got the indentation down right.
 * I too love to debate, however as enjoyable as it is we must resist because Wikipedia is not a forum. As such I must try to gloss quickly over over a lot of the things you've said as they do not pertain directly to improvements to the article, which is difficult for me because I actually agree with you extensively. I will get that part out of the way first here:
 * With regards to belief, knowledge, proof, faith, etc, it sounds like you're still equating belief with faith. Faith is a subset of belief just as knowledge is a subset of belief: one is belief without proof, the other is belief with proof. That doesn't make beliefs without proof no different from beliefs with proof, any more than rodents and humans both being mammals makes humans no different from rodents. Equating knowledge with faith would allow a wedge argument; equating knowledge with belief (insinuating that the distinction of proof is irrelevant) would too. But calling humans a form of mammal is not equating humans with mammals, and calling knowledge a form of belief is not equating knowledge with belief.
 * I think it would be cool to have something about arguments from authority and such as you discuss in here, if there are notable reliable sources discussing that, and so long as it doesn't end up sounding like a how-to which it sounds like you may be leaning toward. I will be interested to see what you can find in that regard, along with what you can find on the relation between naturalism and rationalism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction - Catholic Church?
This article is not specific to Catholicism - can we remove the reference to the Catholic Church in the intro and put it somewhere later in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.204.217 (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"Biblical View"?
The section "Biblical View" argues:  "The word 'faith' as used in the Bible is very specifically defined, and very different from the modern English usage of the word, such that there is little difference between faith and rationality. Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1 as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.." The Bible uses the word 'faith' simply to refer to the things that we believe due to indirect evidence, as opposed to direct observation. There is therefore no conflict between biblical faith and rationality. [12]"

I basically don't see how this could be called "the biblical view" (Shouldnt it be Pauls view?) and the source [12] points to Jehovahs Witness literature; hardly an unbiased source. I don't think the use of "we" is accidental either.

I propose the section is re-titled "The WTBS view" or even better removed and or replaced by something from a proper source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:878:200:1043:3D49:7EF2:37E4:C25E (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I removed the section as poorly sourced. — goethean 15:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Excess scripture quoting
Removed recent addition of Islamic quotes along with excess block quotes from Catholicism and bible quotes. Seems the concepts can likely be presented or summarized without the excessive long quotes. Vsmith (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Faith and rationality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.truthinspire.com/reason-and-faith/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031101170000/http://www.thomist.org:80/journal/1999/991aMars.htm to http://www.thomist.org/journal/1999/991aMars.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it correct to describe faith and rationality as ideologies?
I think this statement in the introduction may need support, and or clarification. I read quite a bit in topics of philosophy and have never heard of either faith or rationality refered to as an ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.96.44 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed this issue and have editied it before reading this, but I agree it was problematic to describe both as equal "ideologies" without more context or basis... — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"Faith in Science" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Faith in Science and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Faith and rationality