Humanities desk
< July 4	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 5

Wright-Moyeux map

I'm trying to correct an error on Wikimedia Commons. This photo supposedly shows the Wright-Moyeux map of 1599:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WrightMolyneux-ChartoftheWorld-c1599-large.jpg

However, this cannot be the case. The map shows Australia, which wouldn't be discovered for another 8 years. It calls Australia "Holandia Nova", a name which came into use in 1644. Where is this map actually from? Also, does anybody know whether the original version of the file (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/WrightMolyneux-ChartoftheWorld-c1599.jpg) shows the real Wright-Molyneux map? --Bowlhover (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this book (Discovery of Australia, 1922), a map by Hakluyt published in 1598 includes a vague squiggle of the north coast of (something), apparently seen from afar by the Victoria but never visited. It would not surprise me at all if Wright had picked up on reports and rumors of that sort and engaged in a bit of 'proactive' cartography. the book author is highly skeptical of any european having visited Australia prior to its official discovery, so... --Ludwigs2 08:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite prepared to believe that, many years before the official discovery of the continent, Portuguese ships sailed down parts of the east coast and along the southern coast for quite some distance. But the map in question shows the remainder of the coastline, the exact opposite of the parts the Portuguese may have explored. I know of no theories that claim that that much of the west and north was known anywhere as early as 1599. There's no way it's a 1599 map. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the Wright-Molyneux map (which I've just noticed is the second link provided by User:Bowlhover - sorry!) does not show Australia, apart from a short stretch which could represent part of the north-western coastline. It looks to me as though the version linked by User:Bowlhover could be a later edition, post-1600, updated to show the later discoveries around Australia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the description in the lower left read 1599? Fives and sixes look rather similar, and I don't have the technical wizardry to check. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map seems to be Joseph Moxon's reprint of Edward Wright's A Plat of all the World (London), with the date 1657.--Wetman (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'Holandia Nova' it appears to say 'Discovered A^p[?] [April?] 1644'. It's small writing, though; I might be wrong. --Joe^Talk_Work 04:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Skateboarding an artform?

After reading both articles, I'm still a bit confused to see how skateboarding is a viable form of art. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.94.53 (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that in the eye of the beholder? I sure don't think it is. It can be artful, but not an artform.--mboverload @ 09:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider: some people skateboard, doing tricks. To what end? It is not to get to work, or get home. It is not as a form of aerobic exercise. It is also not usually a "game" like basketball. Instead, teenagers do skateboard tricks to impress. Because it's cool. Sorry, but doing a performance in order to impress pretty much guarantees you are making art. And yes, that includes tight-rope walking in a circus. 84.153.200.147 (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it is nice to watch, like figure skating. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just to impress, it can be seen as a sport too, see Xgames as an example of a skateboard competition. 200.144.37.3 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or a skill.--Wetman (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those questions that falls under Classificatory disputes about art. I personally think that, like all creative play, skateboarding has the potential to be art, but that it would be setting the bar trivialisingly low to say that creative play was qualification enough. Art also signifies, but not everyone would agree with me on that. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 13:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about uploading images

Hi and thanks everybody for your help.

My query is pertaining to this person's biography on Wikipedia. I've found 2 images of this person. First one is hosted on Hindi wikipedia but there is nothing mentioned about copyright. The user who uploaded the file has got her page protected so I cant post her a message inquiring about the same.

I am not sure if the other image that I've found is really of the same person. If it is of the same person then I can get it released under CC license. Also, tell me if I should upload the first image in the article.

Thank you once again. --SanskritGuy (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the Hindi wikipedia image is not a good source since it has no copyright nor licence information. We are not in a position to know whether it is being stored and displayed in accordance with a licence or in breach of copyright. As to the second, clearly you need to ascertain whether it is the person in question. I'm not sure why you are configent you can get it released under a CC licence ... surely that would depend on the copyright holder, presumably the photographer. Do you know who the photographer is? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which penny did the Copperheads use?

During America's Civil War, anti-war Democrats were labeled Copperheads (politics) by the Republicans. They adopted the name and used copper pennies as badges. Which version of the penny did they use? Gobonobo ^T ^C 14:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. The common penny at the time would have been the Indian Head cent, but the article on the Copperheads implies they used pennies with Liberty on them, which would have made them earlier versions. There are quite a few candidates if that is true. My guess, based on just what would probably have been in circulation at the time, is that the 1855 cent is possibly the one in question. On the other hand, I see other sources on the web (not necessarily better ones) that say it was the Indian Head that was used. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More poking around. Things still a bit unclear. This forum discussion has a number of replicas and alleged originals, some of which are Indian Head, some of which are 1855 cents. Unsurprisingly, I guess, it seems to have been somewhat inconsistent in practice which was used. Indian Heads would have been easier, but the appeal of using Liberty was probably high as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr.98. That forum is exactly what I was looking for. It seems that the copperhead pins that Clement Vallandigham referred to during his court martial had LIBERTY inscribed on them. They were most likely the large cents#Braided Hair, or Late Dates (1835–1857). ~~Too bad we don't have pictures for those.~~ Thanks for the link to commons as well. Gobonobo ^T ^C 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Eagle pennies had been minted into the 1850s, so they were likely to be found as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, Flying Eagle pennies and the early Indian pennies were actually called nickels back when they were in use. Googlemeister (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you responding to me? If so, I'm confused about your meaning; why would a coin from the 1850s not be likely to be in circulation in the early 1860s? Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the flying eagle cents were not in circulation, but those coins were only 88% copper, so the pennies do not look like copper (they are pretty yellowish). And in those days, the flying eagle cents were called nickels (but the earlier pennies were not), so it would seem an unlikely symbol for a group using copper as their symbol. Googlemeister (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Elizabeth II

What is the relationship, if any, between Queen Elizabeth I (who was the Queen of Endland during Shakespeare's time) and Queen Elizabeth II (who is the present-day Queen of England)? Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

They have a common ancestor: Elizabeth of York (I's grandmother, II's great-great-great...etc grandmother), but Elizabeth II is not a direct descendant of Elizabeth I. See Direct_descent_from_William_I_to_Elizabeth_II#Family_tree. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Elizabeth I was the "Virgin Queen", she can't be expected to have many direct descendants. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a genetic thing. If your biological parents didn't have any children, there's a strong probability you won't have any either. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, to answer the question, the relationship between the 2 Elizabeths is "(first) cousin 14 times removed". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Liz the First was around long before cloning had been invented, else history might have been different. Back to the OP's question, Juju implied but didn't explicitly state, that every British monarch since the Norman Conquest in 1066 A.D. has been a descendant of William I, known to his buddies as "the Conqueror". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true. Every single English and British monarch has descended from William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of influential women, it's a little known fact that Queen Matilda embezzled a lot of the King's doubloons or razzbuckniks or whatever it was they were using for money then. William's last words were, "Matilda! Matilda! She took me money and ran to Venezuela!"[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda was not an influential English queen consort. Anne Boleyn, Margaret of Anjou, and Eleanor of Aquitaine were easily the most influential.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that matrilineal or patrilineal descent? One is more credible than the other. 69.120.0.81 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, all the monarchs in the last 110 years are descendants of Victoria and Albert. I don't know if Albert was a descendant of William or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert is descendant of Eleanor of England, Queen of Castile, a descendant of William, but I'm not sure if that would be the closest link. He wasn't a descendant of Sophia of Hanover though.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William I had a great aunt Emma, who was queen consort to both Æthelred the Unready and Cnut the Great, thus providing a rather tenuous link to the English throne before 1066. Edward the Confessor was William's first cousin, once removed. Alansplodge (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William I gain his throne through conquest and not by inheritance. The Anglo-Saxon throne at the time was not hereditary but elective. If the throne was hereditary it would have eventually passed to the kings of scotland instead.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have actual genetic tests, any pre-modern claims about descend from a given male are only opinion ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given its importance to continuing the royal line, I expect there was a lot of attention paid to the matter. However, if there is evidence that any of the royalty were suspected of not being descended properly, that would be interesting reading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To actually answer the question posed, Elizabeth II is the first cousin, 14 times removed, of Elizabeth I, since her 12thGreat grandfather, James V of Scotland was the first cousin of Elizabeth I. Elizabeth of York and King Henry VII are their most recent common ancestors, assuming no "Non-paternity events" in the family tree. The incidence of nonpaternity among caucasians in the UK is estimated at 1 to 2%. Royal births are carefully monitored to make sure that the little prince/princess really came from the royal wife. Fertilization of the royal ovum is not so carefully monitored. In the era of DNA testing, it would be simple to document that some heir to the throne was fathered in a non-paternity event, without quibbling over who he or she resembles. Edison (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(**ahem**) I actually provided the "first cousin, 14 times removed" answer about 38 hours ago, Edison. Your answer was somewhat more discursive, I'll give you that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed your actual answer amongst all the chit chat.Edison (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This was very helpful. I appreciate the feedback ... thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

UK newspaper

What is the most comprehensive and unbaised UK newspaper? I need one that I can downloada reader from to read on my laptop with wifi. Also where would I be able to download the reader/gadget thing Thanks, 76.229.149.185 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which you feel to be "unbiased" is rather a matter of your own political alignment - none are free of a given political orientation, although in fairness the broadsheets tend to be less obviously partisan than, say the Express or the Daily Mail. The Times is somewhat right of (the British) centre, the Daily Telegraph probably a bit righter still. The Independent is a bit left of centre, The Guardian a bit lefter still. But they're all well written pretty comprehensive works of professional journalist of good standing and (bar the columnists, whose job is often to be antagonistic) the readerships of each could read the others without deflagrating. Each varies by what, and how, they distribute electronically. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I get both the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph, if possible. That way, they sort of cancel out :) Plus, you're not paying any money to Rupert Murdoch. But more seriously, any of the broadsheets will be okay as long as you know what their bias is and watch for it. The Guardian has an annoying tendency to report science and statistics without much of a feel for them: it almost seems like all their subeditors have dyscalculia. Seriously, they throw numbers and graphs around as if it doesn't matter what they actually are: I've seen them print the same graph 4 times on a single page without noticing, giving figures that are out by orders of magnitude, and even scattering numbers in an article without defining what they relate to. If that bothers you, avoid it. Out of all of them, the Telegraph seems to fit most actual news in. If you're reading the paper for news, and not opinions, I'd go with that and watch for a right-wing bias. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph also has the best cryptic crossword, so when you're tired of reading front page news about Tiger Woods getting a few scratches in a wee car accident, you can do something actually worthwhile and complete the cryptic. Maedin\^talk 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph has two cryptic crosswords now - the "ordinary" one, which is generally regarded as being at the easier end of the broadsheet spectrum, and the fairly-recently-introduced "Telegraph Toughie", which does what it says on the tin, though still being accessible to the average solver. As to whether either of these is "the best" - YMMV or ^{[citation needed]}. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think The Times would be you're best bet - unless their new paywall becomes a problem. I agree with the above, but I think The Telegraph is just too right-wing to be considered "unbiased". It's Tory in a retired-Colonel-from-Tunbridge-Wells sort of way. I would like to echo the sentiments of Finlay - as long as you know the bias, most people can zone it out. I have, at some point, regularly read all of them- so I am not passing dispersions on their news content. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help identifying a figure in the Bible

"In the first place, I'm sort of an atheist. I like Jesus and all, but I don't care too much for most of the other stuff in the Bible. Take the Disciples, for instance. They annoy the hell out of me, if you want to know the truth. They were all right after Jesus was dead and all, but while He was alive, they were about as much use to Him as a hole in the head. All they did was keep letting Him down. I like almost anybody in the Bible better than the Disciples. If you want to know the truth, the guy I like best in the Bible, next to Jesus, was that lunatic and all, that lived in the tombs and kept cutting himself with stones. I like him ten times as much as the Disciples, that poor bastard." -Holden Caulfield, The Catcher in the Rye

Bold my emphasis. Does this passage relate to an actual figure in the bible, and if so, who? ^Avic _ennasis @ 19:59, 23 Tamuz 5770 / 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, he's the man in Gadarenes, living amongst the tombs, possessed by spirits. Our article on Legion (demon) is dire, but this is the demon(s) referred to. When Jesus "cast out" the spirits, the passage reads, "Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked." Accounts of the story in the books of Luke and Matthew don't include the cutting with stones, but the account in Mark does. Pretty sure he's never named, but the happy ending is that he returned home, "clothed and in his right mind". Read all about it (KJV is best) here, starts at verse 1: [2] Maedin\^talk 20:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most influential women in history

Who are considered to have been the most influential women in history? People always talk about Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon; but what about the females? Off hand, I would say Catherine the Great, Queen Isabella I of Spain, Elizabeth I.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get you started. [3] Others will have their own opinions. --mboverload @ 21:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with most of the listings, however, Anne Boleyn should have been in the top 30.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Influential in what area? Marie Curie, Amelia Earhart, Joan of Ark, Madonna, Jenna Jameson, Bettie Page, Juliette Gordon Low, and Mother Teresa would make my list. Of course, again, it depends on what you deem as "influential" and how specialized you want to get. Dismas|^(talk) 00:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitochondrial Eve. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think Mitochondrial Eve's mother was more influential. TastyCakes (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how you define "history"; surely someone so far back would fall under the classification of "prehistoric". Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how you define "influence". What did mitochondrial Eve really do? Not a whole lot, as far as we know. Someone has to be mitochondrial Eve—it doesn't mean the particular person had any particular effect on how history turned out (prehistoric or not). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term "influential" makes it impossible to feel good about giving any answer; if the 3 men you cite were extraordinarily influential, then what if their characters and personalities were shaped by their mothers? Were the mothers not then equally influential, albeit indirectly? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason people focus on the men. For most of history it was very hard for a woman to get into politics or war or science, so there are going to be more famous men in history than famous women, regardless of how many women may have been smart enough to be famous. But to answer your question, Elizabeth I was the most influential woman in the West, although there may be a really important one in East Asia that I've never heard of. If you count indirect influence, Mary (mother of Jesus) wins for convincing everyone that she was a virgin and that her son therefore had superpowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.50.170 (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Mary actually tried to convince anyone of either of those things. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As others pointed out, it's hard to define what "influential" means. But if you count Mary the Carpenter's Wife, surely Helen of Troy counts, too. Mythologically, her face launched a thousand ships, and realistically that myth has certainly contributed to forming a unified Greek ("Helenic" (!)) identity, with all the historical consequences of that. And we still call a beautiful women "HoT" after her initials! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more in the political sense rather than religious or scientific, such as Isabella I, Elizabeth I, rather than Marie Curie or the Virgin Mary. Joan of Arc was a mixture of religious and political. I am interesting in knowing who are the female equivalents of historical block figures such as Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Martin Luther, Saladin, etc. Mary, Queen of Scots is another example. Lucrezia Borgia could also be listed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one useful distinction is between active influence (women that shaped history to their will, at least a bit), and passive influence (women who had no important active role, but whose presence still affected history). Mary Jacobson and Helen of Troy are both examples of the second class. Liz-I and Eleanor of Aquitaine are examples of the first class. What about the mother of Genghis Khan? Another example (politically) is Marie Antoinette. Had she not said J’achetai de la brioche, the French revolution might have started later, or not at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you count mothers, do you also count the wives of Henry VIII for the impact of them not bearing children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.139.74 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Let them eat cake. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we can move on from the Euro-centric, I’d nominate (in no particular order) Empress Dowager Cixi, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Indira Ghandi, and even Benazir Bhutto, Sheikh Hasina and Agathe Uwilingiyimana for their roles in breaking down political barriers. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if modern-day prime ministers can claim the same kind of importance as Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great—note that nobody mentioned Margaret Thatcher in the lists above. I don't think that Cixi is in the same league either, she just kept the status quo going for a few extra years before her Dynasty fell for no fault of her own. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the truth

The truth is that the most influential women in history are, to use your list, Alexander the Great's mom, Julius Caesar's mom, Napoleon's mom, etc. 84.153.230.67 (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliakim?

Hello everyone, I am new to the web site and I am learning how it works but at this moment I need help.

I recevied this post: Eliakim; Who is this biblical figure? What is his role in the end of time?

(the one who posted wrote this about it) A certain prophet claims that Eliakim not Jesus will be the one who will open the 7 seals. I have been researching this and was hoping somebody could shed some light on this. Daniel spoke of this and the prophet claims that Eliakim has been mistaken for Jesus and this among other details are errant in doctrine because satan deliberately altered some phrasing in some key scriptures that has caused some false teaching. He believes that the only bible that should be used is the authorized King James version. He believes that every translation after that has been altered.

(This is what I have found thus far) Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator or Eliakim son of Josiah king, whose name was changed or the priest—Eliakim or Eliakim the father of Azor who is in the blood line of JESUS in Matthew or Eliakim the son of Meleain in the blood line of JESUS in the book of Luke......

Community has anyone ever heard of this and if you have can you give more details so I can contiue to search this out? Thank you --VMallory1 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the Book of Revelation, the seals are opened by a figure called "the Lamb." While he isn't specifically named as Jesus, it's a reasonable assumption given the Christian context of the book. The Authorized King James Version Bible is very important in literary and religious history, but it is far from the best translation available- most Bible colleges, except those directly affiliated with the King James Only movement, don't permit King James as a text in Bible classes because it is not as accurate a translation of the available texts, and also because important manuscripts have been discovered since it was written. For what it's worth, anecdotally, when I was in Bible college the professors were recommending the New Revised Standard Version as the translation which best communicated the Hebrew, and Greek of the "originals" (bear in mind that when talking about the Bible, there are no "original" texts available, only copies, many of which vary from each other in some degree. That in itself becomes a very interesting area of study). If your friend thinks that the King James version of the Bible is the only one that should be read, and that all other bibles have been rewritten by Satan, then he belongs to a very fringe group of people in Christian thinking, and you do not need to accept his beliefs as your own unless you are interesting in joining him in that particular fringe group. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my answer: Wikipedia does have an article on Eliakim. It isn't very long, but it includes a list of all the appearances of Eliakim in the Bible, so that you can review them for yourself and decide whether a writer of the early Christian church would more likely have been referring to Jesus or Eliakim when writing about "The Lamb." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can Raul Castro be a Roman Catholic?

I was astonished to see that Raul Castro is a practicing Roman Catholic. Communism is an inherently atheist doctrine, which seems to preclude being a Catholic. I understand that Catholicism is important, historically and currently, in Cuba, but this is beyond my understanding. How can Raul claim to be both communist and Catholic? How can a priest legally provide him with the Eucharist? 69.120.0.81 (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that you had to be atheist to be a communist. Can you support this position? --mboverload @ 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner may be interested in the articles on Communism and religion and Christian communism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links above notwithstanding, there was a Decree against Communism issued by the Pope in 1949 which (among other things) resulted in Fidel Castro's excommunication. Staecker (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first Communist Society was the first Christians, holding all in common. The Monastic Monk could well fit this discription. However, the method as a society did not work. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A major difference between this and modern Communism is that the modern movement is based on Marx's philosophies, which included the rejection of religion. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why do you think that Raul Castro is a Catholic? I'd like to note that our article listed his religion as "None (Atheist)" until edit [4] and no source has been given for the change... Also, it looks like the user in question has already been warned for something similar ([5]) and has even been blocked for 48 hours ([6]). If no reliable sources support the claim that Raul Castro is a practicing Catholic (I would be surprised if there were any), then that edit would have to be reverted. Feel free to do it yourself it you only saw this claim here in Wikipedia. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believers in the "Social Gospel" promulgated the writings of Karl Marx while purporting to be Christians. In the 1960's through 1990's many purportedly devout Christians were 'fellow travelers" of the communists, demonstrating for "justice," defined as a Marxist world. Edison (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, there is no reason that a communist country cannot also have Catholic inhabitants. Cuba is not the Soviet Union (which was also not entirely atheist anyway). Our Roman Catholicism in Cuba article is pretty crappy, but see Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Cristóbal de la Habana, for example. In fact, just a few days ago, there was a celebration for Elian Gonzalez that took place in a church ([7]). (I don't know if there was a Mass involved or what, but still, it was in a church.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible: "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no... we're not practicing theology here. Communism, at least the Russian variety, has an antagonistic relationship with organized religion. Of course, if you're wanting to control some land, that's been little reason to stop you, in most cases. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the old "Jesus was a communist!" theory. In practice, many small and/or isolated groups have worked for the common good for survival reasons. That could be called "communalism". "Communism" is a type of economic system developed (so to speak) rather recently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer, communism is not a monolithic system. Things that are permissible for one communist government can be forbidden by another. Googlemeister (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the original Marxist and Leninist formulations, the philosophy of materialism was very important to their overall theory of Communism as a "science" of history. However it is also possible to just see Communism as an economic and political theory that just doesn't have much to say on whether religion/theology is true or not. (And as others have pointed out, plenty of religious people have seen the general Communist messages as being fairly compatible. To add to the links above, see Liberation theology as well.) There's no inherent reason Christianity and Communism have to be at ends, even if the historical generation of Communism in the late-19th and early-20th century pitted the two against each other. Now it's quite possible that one might actually find Roman Catholicism at ends with Communism, in the sense that a truly Communist state might not be compatible with the centralized power of the Church (or, on a practical level, might not want to compete for power). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digressive query. Mr.98, you twice used the expression "at ends" where I would have expected to see "at odds". Is the former in general use somewhere, or is it an idiolectual derivation from "odds and ends"? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motive/reason for living in common with a common purse is different in both cases. The Christian did it because of a mutual belief in Jesus. The modern Communist did it as an alternative to Capitilism and a rejection of a belief in God. Hence, the ends, the reason, the purpose, is different in both cases. (Mr. 98 used the term "at ends" in a different sense, but still a valid concept and term). MacOfJesus (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice fresh opiate of the masses, anyone? DOR (HK) (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]