Humanities desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

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.

February 22

Origin of this image

Can anybody help me find the source of this image: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/kamehameha-king-of-the-sandwich-islands-dressed-in-a-news-photo/615320068?#kamehameha-king-of-the-sandwich-islands-dressed-in-a-windsor-uniform-picture-id615320068 ?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it here, in Illustrated London News, January 1844. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So copyright-wise, it is in the Public Domain now. So, neither Corbis nor Getty Images can claim copyright on slavishly copied images, Re: as established in US court. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..--Aspro (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look! It's on Wikimedia Commons! Kamehameha in council 1844 How did that happen? :-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed this would have been claimed under Sweat of the brow doctrine, which in Europe allows a company to claim copyright over public-domain works by the act of digitizing them. As Aspro suggests, the US does not recognize such copyrights, so neither does Wikipedia, and that's why it surprised me to find out that both Corbis and Getty Images are American companies. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising to me. Corbis and Getty Images slap a watermark on a lot of obviously PD images and sell it. I wonder who in their right minds will actually pay $575.00 for this.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtenay Faggot

Do we know if the Courtenay Faggot has survived and, if so, where it is? If it hasn't survived, do we know when it was lost? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acording to Historical memoirs of the town and parish of Tiverton Martin Dunsford (1836) pp. 42-43 the description comes from The Survey of Cornwall by Richard Carew who claims to have actually seen it. As Carew wrote this some time before 1602 and Google can find me no other mention of it, I wouldn't hold your breath :-) Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be much left of Hall, Lanteglos-by-Fowey, the house where Carew saw it, just a ruined chapel and a farmhouse and barns. The Mohuns are no more, and Powderham Castle, the seat of the Courtenays, was one of the ruins that Cromwell knocked about a bit. I suspect it is long lost, but it would be pleasing to know its fate. DuncanHill (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate, scam or something else?

In the late 1970s, early 1980s, when I was a kid, I'd read youth magazines. There were these advertisements for a so-called "sweepstakes". At the top, the headline would say "PRIZES OR CASH". Then some items were displayed. At the bottom, they referred an 800 number to call and ask for an operator's name. One part of the fine print said "Operators can only take names and addresses, cannot answer questions". I was too ashamed to show the advertisements to my mom. The reason, I was afraid she'd freak, assuming I'd sign up via phone, which I didn't, of course. Does anybody out there remember what I'm trying to ask about?2604:2000:7113:9D00:DDC4:6A18:4693:B935 (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are using an IP address that is based in New York City (according to one website) or in the Washington DC metropolitan area (according to another). Was this in NYC, or DC, or somewhere else? 208.95.51.115 (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I originally saw the advertisements in San Francisco. But the youth magazines are/were nationally known.2604:2000:7113:9D00:617F:9785:1132:6AE (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list at Category:American children's magazines that may spark your memory as to which magazine it was. It may help someone find the advertisement for you. --Jayron 32 14:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most reasonable way for such a company to make money is by collecting information to build a mailing list of potential youth magazine customers. The prizes would have to be real, to avoid criminal fraud, but the odds of winning them would have to be absurdly low, for such a business model to be profitable. So, if you signed up you'd probably get junk mail, but nothing else. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic doctrine on humans of other species

Does the Catholic church hold that Neanderthals and early hominids have souls?144.35.45.46 (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it holds that they were NOT human, but were some form of "soulless" animal. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for that, Stu? --Jayron 32 16:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right below. StuRat (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that you did not provide those citations. --Jayron 32 16:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a 1996 text by Pope John Paul II, there was talk of an "ontological discontinuity" in evolution that marked the leap between non-humans and humans, with only humans being able to enter into a full relationship with God [1]. The pope seems to have avoided speculating about where and when during evolution this leap would have taken place, however. But you may have some more luck searching from there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some good information for the OP. --Jayron 32 16:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely no shortage of people asking the same question, as you can see by Googling neanderthal catholic, but I haven't seen any official sources yet. Here's an interesting one that goes a bit deeper than just the Neanderthal problem. Matt Deres (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the possibility of animals like dogs or elephants or cetaceans having souls? are there Catholic theologians discussing that?144.35.45.79 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a different source from the same website I used above. That website is pretty good, I would use it to search the answers for further questions on Catholic doctrine. --Jayron 32 17:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is so, so, so unfortunate for your question that this turned out not to be real. Matt Deres (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeys younger than humans, NO evolution: http://beholy.be/bible1-4.htm "I saw the mother of Semiramis hunting the animal described by Job under the name of behemoth (Job 41 & 42 crocodile?), also tigers, lions, etc. I saw no monkeys in those early times. I saw similar hunts upon the water, upon which idolatry and numerous abominations were generally practiced. The mother was outwardly not so dissolute as Semiramis, but she possessed a diabolical nature with amazing strength and temerity." -- 109.237.140.12 (talk · contribs) (now blocked)

I'm afraid I don't see any link to the doctrine of the Catholic Church in your response. It doesn't meaningfully help the OP to merely link to a Bible verse and then give your own personal interpretation of said verse. --Jayron 32 17:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plain as table. Earlier human cannot descent from later animal. -- 109.237.140.12 (talk · contribs) (now blocked)

Whatever that quote is, it certainly isn't from the Bible. It seems to be the mystical visions of a nun Anne Catherine Emmerich though their authenticity is doubtful and they certainly are not to be taken as a statement of catholic doctrine. Wymspen (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the King Gibberish version. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Catholic Church even believe there were such creatures as Neanderthals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do. Why would you think they wouldn't? --Jayron 32 01:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When confronted with skulls obviously different from modern humans, some explanation is needed. If it's just one of two you can claim they were deformed humans, but as the numbers pile up, some other explanation is needed. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Catholic Church and evolution and Pope Francis on evolution. Most mainstream non-American Christian denominations seem to have no problem with evolution. DuncanHill (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most American ones don't either. Remember that loudness =/= most. --Jayron 32 18:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly depends how you define "most". A majority (70%-80%) of American Christians belong to a denomination that supports the teaching of evolution, per Level of support for evolution#Support for evolution by religious bodies, but interestingly only a minority of American churchgoers actually believe in it. The splintery nature of fundamentalist churches means that there are lots of tiny denominations that vehemently reject it. Smurrayinchester 08:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Independent Baptist, one of the most fundamental denominations in the United States and while some people I know do reject evolution, I will tell you, the Bible says God created the world in seven days, and I believe that to be true, but it does not say how he created the world in seven days. I am open minded to ideas for how God created us, but the idea that God could not have created us through other species isn't really scriptural, and in fact, the Bible says that God created Eve through Adam, which debunks a lot of the "there's no way I descended from a monkey" arguments. That's not to say I endorse the theory of evolution, but I'm not closed minded to it. That said, Roman Catholics are not nearly as adherent to Biblical literalism as my denomination, and other denominations which infamously oppose evolution. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are two different creation stories within the first couple of chapters of Genesis. In one, man is created last. In the other, man is created first. You can tell where one story separates from the other by the fact that Elohim is the word for God in the first story, and YHWH is the word for God in the second story. The first story, except for the time line, is not that far removed from scientific theory about the creation of the universe and life on earth. The second story is the Adam and Eve story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to leave that at there's a lot of disagreements on the interpretation scripture, hence the existence of different denominations in the first place, hence the reason for the question of whether or not Catholics believe in neanderthals or evolution. I could preach an entire sermon on how science and the Bible and fundamentalism are not as incompatible with science as people (Christians and non-Christians alike) think, but that's an entirely different rabbit hole for another day, since that would take us entirely off-topic. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many various degrees of degeneracy as a consequence of sin. An example of going from single perfect to many degenerated: http://beholy.be/bible1-4.htm#1.1.7 -- 109.237.140.12 (talk · contribs) (now blocked)

Again, the OP never asked a question about sin, and you've provided no meaningful information about Catholic Church doctrine. Please stop derailing the discussion. --Jayron 32 17:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Gardner has an interesting brief discussion of the implications of Catholic doctrines as of 1950 near the end of Chapter 13 of his 1957 book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, not mentioning Neanderthals specifically in that context, but concluding that one likely implication is that the first humans with souls were born of parents who did not have souls, which he finds "odd" but not "illogical". (Of course, according to some views of scientific species classification, the first member of homo sapiens would be born to parents who were not homo sapiens -- I think Dawkins discusses this somewhere). AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "soul" with "consciousness", and you have an equally odd but probably true statement. MChesterMC (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]