text:
Eduard Taaffe, 11th Viscount Taaffe

Eduard Franz Joseph Graf von Taaffe, 11th Viscount Taaffe (24 February 1833 – 29 November 1895) was an Austrian statesman, who served for two terms as Minister-President of Cisleithania, leading cabinets from 1868 to 1870 and 1879 to 1893. He was a scion of the Irish Taaffe noble dynasty, who held hereditary titles from two countries: Imperial Counts (Reichsgrafen) of the Holy Roman Empire and viscounts in the Peerage of Ireland (in the United Kingdom).

Family background and early years
Taaffe was the second son of Count Louis Taaffe, 9th Viscount Taaffe (1791–1855), Austrian Minister of Justice during the Revolutions of 1848 and president of the court of appeal. His ancestor Francis Taaffe, 3rd Earl of Carlingford (1639–1704) had entered the service of the Habsburg monarchy in the 17th century; the family held large estates in Bohemia.

As a child, Eduard Taaffe was one of the chosen companions of the young Archduke Francis Joseph, who in 1848 was crowned Emperor of Austria. That connection led to a distinguished political career for Taaffe in the service of the Habsburgs. He studied law at the University of Vienna and entered public service in 1852. From 1861 he served at the Bohemian crown land government in Prague and in 1863 was appointed Landespräsident (stadtholder) in the Duchy of Salzburg. He backed the implementation of the February Patent constitution under State Minister Anton von Schmerling and in 1864 became a member of the Bohemian Diet (zemský sněm, Landtag), where he did however not excel. In 1867 the Chairmen of the Ministers' Conference Count Richard Belcredi appointed him Upper Austrian stadtholder at Linz.

By the death of his elder brother Charles (1823–1873), colonel in the Austro-Hungarian Army, Eduard Graf von Taaffe succeeded to the Irish titles. He had married Countess Irma Tsaky in 1862, by whom he left four daughters and one son, Henry.

Minister-President (first term)
During the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, Emperor Francis Joseph offered him the post of Minister of the Interior in Count Friedrich Ferdinand von Beust's cabinet. In June he became vice-president of the ministry, and at the end of the year, he entered the first ministry (Bürgerministerium) of the newly organized Austrian portion of the monarchy. For the next three years, he took a notable part in the confused political changes, and probably more than any other politician represented the wishes of the emperor.

Taaffe had entered the ministry as a German Liberal, but he soon took an intermediate position between the Liberal majority of the Bürgerministerium ("Citizen's Ministry" because it was mainly commoners) and the party which desired a federal constitution and which was strongly supported at court. From September 1868 to January 1870, after the retirement of Auersperg, he was president of the cabinet. In 1870, the government fell on the question of the revision of the constitution: Taaffe with Potocki and Johann Nepomuk Berger wished to make some concessions to the Federalists; the Liberal majority wished to preserve undiminished the authority of the Imperial Council. The two parties presented memoranda to the emperor, each defending their view and offering their resignation: after some hesitation, the emperor accepted the policy of the majority, and Taaffe and his friends resigned.

Second term
The Liberals, however, failed to form a new government, as the representatives of most of the territories refused to appear in the Imperial Council: they resigned, and in the month of April Potocki and Taaffe returned to office. The latter failed, however, in an attempt to come to an understanding with the Czechs, and in their turn, they had to make way for the Clerical and Federalist cabinet of Hohenwart. Taaffe now became governor of Tyrol, but in 1879, on the collapse of the Liberal government, he was recalled to high office. At first, he attempted to carry on the government without a change of principles, but he soon found it necessary to come to an understanding with the Feudal and Federal parties and was responsible for the conduct of the negotiations which, in the elections of the same year, gave a majority to the different groups of the National and Clerical opposition. In July he became minister president: at first, he still continued to govern with the Liberals, but this was soon made impossible, and he was obliged to turn for support to the Conservatives.

Legislation to help the working class emerged from Catholic conservatives. They turned to social reform by using Swiss and German models and intervening in state economic matters. In Germany, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck had used such policies to neutralize socialist promises. The Catholics studied the Swiss Factory Act of 1877 which limited working hours for everyone, and gave maternity benefits, and German laws that insured workers against industrial risks inherent in the workplace. These served as the basis for Austria's 1885 Trade Code Amendment.

Election reform of 1882
Count Taaffe is mostly remembered for his election reform of 1882, which reduced to 5 guilders the minimum tax base required for men over the age of 24 to vote. Before this reform, the tax base was set locally, but was usually at a considerably higher level, so that only 6% of the male population of Cisleithania had been entitled to vote. However, even after this reform, there were still four classes of voters whose vote counted differently, depending on how much tax an individual was paying.

The next election reform was enacted in 1896 by Kasimir Felix Graf Badeni, who succeeded in bringing about more radical reforms than Taaffe had achieved.

Policies on nationalities
It was Taaffe's great achievement that he persuaded the Czechs to abandon the policy of abstention and to take part in the parliament. It was on the support of them, the Poles, and the Clericals that his majority depended. His avowed intention was to unite the nationalities of Austria: Germans and Slavs were, as he said, equally integral parts of Austria; neither must be oppressed; both must unite to form an Austrian parliament. Notwithstanding the growing opposition of the German Liberals, who refused to accept the equality of the nationalities, he kept his position for thirteen years.

Late years
In 1893 he was defeated on a proposal for the revision of the franchise and resigned. He retired into private life, and died two years later at his country residence, Ellischau, in Bohemia.

Honours
• Austria-Hungary:

• * Grand Cross of the Imperial Order of Leopold, 1867; Chancellor

• * Knight of the Golden Fleece, 1878

• * Grand Cross of the Royal Hungarian Order of St. Stephen, 1887

•  Sovereign Military Order of Malta: Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour of Devotion

•  Russian Empire: Knight of St. Alexander Nevsky

•  Kingdom of Prussia:

• * Knight of the Royal Crown Order, 2nd Class with Star, 3 August 1863

• * Knight of the Black Eagle, 13 October 1892

• * Grand Cross of the Red Eagle

•  Kingdom of Italy: Grand Cross of Saints Maurice and Lazarus

• 🇧🇪 Belgium: Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold

•  Kingdom of Romania: Grand Cross of the Star of Romania

•  Persian Empire: Order of the August Portrait, in Diamonds

•  Empire of Japan: Grand Cordon of the Rising Sun

•  Kingdom of Serbia: Grand Cross of the Cross of Takovo

•  Grand Duchy of Hesse: Grand Cross of the Merit Order of Philip the Magnanimous, 5 September 1863

title: Eduard Taaffe, 11th Viscount Taaffe


text:
Evalyn Walsh McLean

Evalyn McLean ( Walsh; August 1, 1886 – April 26, 1947) was an American mining heiress and socialite, famous for reputedly being an owner of the 45 carat Hope Diamond (which was bought in 1911 for US$180,000 from Pierre Cartier), as well as another famous diamond, the 94 carat Star of the East. She also authored a memoir, Father Struck It Rich, with Boyden Sparkes.

Early life
McLean was born on August 1, 1886, in Leadville, Colorado, the daughter of Carrie Bell Reed, a former schoolteacher, and Thomas Walsh, an Irish immigrant miner and prospector. She had one sibling, a brother, Vinson Walsh (1888–1905), who died in a car accident in Newport, Rhode Island, at age 17. When she was 12 years old, her father discovered a gold mine and became a multimillionaire. The family moved to a large mansion on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C. At the age of 14, she moved to Paris for singing lessons. Instead, she lived a wild life, coloring her hair, adding rouge to her cheeks, and drinking alcohol.

The Hope Diamond
On January 28, 1911, in a deal made in the offices of The Washington Post, McLean's husband purchased the Hope Diamond for US$180,000 from Pierre Cartier of Cartier Jewelers in New York. The Hope Diamond was traditionally associated with a curse, but no tragic events befell the couple until eight years later. Due to the rumors of a curse, her friends and mother-in-law urged her to sell it back, but Cartier refused to buy it.

Personal life
In 1908, she married Edward "Ned" Beale McLean, the son of John Roll McLean and heir to The Washington Post and The Cincinnati Enquirer publishing fortune. They had four children, two of whom predeceased their parents:
 * Vinson Walsh McLean (1909–1919), who died aged 9, after being hit by an automobile (The maternal uncle for whom he was named had died in a car accident at age 17.)
 * John Randolph "Jock" McLean II married three times:
 * Agnes Landon Pyne Davis Bacon (née Davis), in 1941
 * Elizabeth Muhlenberg “Betty” Brooke Blake Phipps Reed (née Blake), in 1943
 * former model Mildred W. "Brownie" Brown Schrafft née Brown (July 14, 1917 – January 9, 2019), in 1953. In 1976, Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt rented Brownie McLean's Palm Beach estate, El Solano, and used it as a background for published photographs. In January 1980, she sold the mansion to Yoko Ono and John Lennon. She turned down the Hope Diamond in 1952, when offered to her by her husband, after his mother's death, due to the alleged "curse" associated with it.
 * Evalyn Washington "Evie" McLean (originally named Emily Beale McLean) (November 16, 1921–September 20, 1946), married United States Senator Robert Rice Reynolds (1884–1963), and was found dead by her mother less than five years later, at age 24. A coroner's inquest determined the cause of death to be an accidental overdose of sleeping pills.
 * Evie's daughter Mamie Spears Reynolds, was the first woman to qualify for the Daytona 500, and married Luigi "Coco" Chinetti Jr., the son of Italian race car driver and Ferrari agent Luigi Chinetti, in 1963; they divorced two years later. She later married Joseph E. Gregory, with whom she had two children.
 * Edward Beale McLean, Jr., married Ann Carroll Meem, in May 1938. Their divorce was granted in July 1943 and, in August, he married actress Gloria Hatrick, with whom he had two sons, Ronald and Michael. Ronald died, in 1969, from enemy fire, while serving in Vietnam as a first lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. McLean and Hatrick divorced in January 1948 and, that October, McLean married Manuela Mercedes "Mollie" Hudson, who had been the first wife of Alfred Gwynne Vanderbilt Jr. In August 1949, Gloria married actor James Stewart. McLean Jr. and Hudson-Vanderbilt separated in the 1960s, then divorced in 1973, after which he married a fourth time, to Patricia Dewey.

The site of the McLean home, Friendship — a sprawling country mansion built for her father-in-law by John Russell Pope and which was located on Tenleytown Road, N.W. — is now a condominium complex known as McLean Gardens. The original house was demolished in the 1940s though some of the property's garden features remain intact, as does the Georgian-style ballroom. A later residence, also known as Friendship, is located at the corner of R Street, N.W. and Wisconsin Avenue, and remains a private home. Her childhood home, a grandiose Second Empire-style mansion at 2020 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., is now the Indonesian embassy.

McLean was a friend and confidante to Alice Roosevelt Longworth and Florence Harding, the wife of Warren G. Harding, the 29th President of the United States. McLean and Harding frequented movie theaters and played bridge together and had a close relationship.

McLean and her husband made a highly publicised journey to Russia, shortly after the October Revolution, in an effort to get Ned's uncle, George Bakhmeteff, reinstated as the Russian ambassador to the US. An American diplomat, William Bullitt, had to talk McLean out of flaunting the Hope Diamond on the streets of Moscow as a symbol of the superiority of capitalism.

She was a victim of Gaston Means, a former FBI agent, murder suspect, and grifter, who claimed he had set a deal to free the Lindbergh baby for a ransom of over US$100,000, which she advanced him. Means disappeared with the money, only to resurface months later in California, and ask McLean for additional funds. Suspicious of Means' activities, she helped lead police to him; he was also wanted for various other crimes and civil actions. That ultimately led to his conviction and imprisonment on larceny charges.

Edward McLean eventually died in a mental institution in 1941.

Death and estate
On April 26, 1947, at aged 60, McLean died of pneumonia, then was buried in Rock Creek Cemetery, Washington D.C., in the Walsh family tomb, alongside her daughter. The Reverend Edmund Walsh, S.J. vice president of Georgetown University read her funeral service, which was attended by family, and close friends including United States Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy.

Upon her death, the principal of her estate and her jewelry, including the Hope Diamond, were left to her seven grandchildren, to be managed by four trustees until the five oldest grandchildren passed their 25th birthdays. The trustees were: Her sons, however, received the proceeds of the Walsh Trust, which was established by her father Thomas Walsh, who had died in 1910. She gave her son-in-law, the former United States Senator Robert Rice Reynolds, lifetime use of the McLean home, Friendship. If the home was sold by the Trustees, he was to receive the proceeds of the sale.
 * 1) Frank Murphy, United States Supreme Court Justice
 * 2) Thurman Arnold, former Assistant Attorney General
 * 3) Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, American bishop and later archbishop of the Catholic Church
 * 4) The Reverend Edmund Walsh, S.J. vice president of Georgetown University

In popular culture
Her highly promoted trip to the Russian SFSR is mentioned in a Cole Porter song, "Anything Goes", in the lines "When Missus Ned McLean (God bless her) / Can get Russian reds to "yes" her, / Then I suppose / Anything goes."

In the 1979 NBC television miniseries Backstairs at the White House, in the midst of a score-settling rant Florence Harding mentions to White House maid and hairdresser Maggie Rogers that on the traditional day that the outgoing First Lady shows the incoming one the executive mansion and how things work there, outgoing First Lady Edith Wilson effectively told her that it would not be acceptable to bring McLean along with her; no doubt in her mind because Mrs. Wilson looked down on them. Mrs. Harding had not forgiven Mrs. Wilson for the perceived slight and for that and other perceived ones, she was going to make a point of inviting McLean over to the White House.

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

title: Evalyn Walsh McLean


text:
Staged combustion cycle

The staged combustion cycle (sometimes known as topping cycle, preburner cycle, or closed cycle) is a power cycle of a bipropellant rocket engine. In the staged combustion cycle, propellant flows through multiple combustion chambers, and is thus combusted in stages. The main advantage relative to other rocket engine power cycles is high fuel efficiency, measured through specific impulse, while its main disadvantage is engineering complexity.

Typically, propellant flows through two kinds of combustion chambers; the first called and the second called. In the preburner, a small portion of propellant, usually fuel-rich, is partly combusted under non-stoichiometric conditions, and the increasing volume flow is used to drive the turbopumps that feed the engine with propellant. The gas is then injected into the main combustion chamber and combusted completely with the other propellant to produce thrust.

Tradeoffs
The main advantage is fuel efficiency due to all of the propellant flowing to the main combustion chamber, which also allows for higher thrust. The staged combustion cycle is sometimes referred to as, as opposed to the gas generator, or open cycle where a portion of propellant never reaches the main combustion chamber. The disadvantage is engineering complexity, partly a result of the preburner exhaust of hot and highly pressurized gas which, particularly when oxidizer-rich, produces extremely harsh conditions for turbines and plumbing.

History
Staged combustion (Замкнутая схема) was first proposed by Alexey Isaev in 1949. The first staged combustion engine was the S1.5400 (11D33) used in the Soviet Molniya rocket, designed by Melnikov, a former assistant to Isaev. About the same time (1959), Nikolai Kuznetsov began work on the closed cycle engine NK-9 for Korolev's orbital ICBM, GR-1. Kuznetsov later evolved that design into the NK-15 and NK-33 engines for the unsuccessful Lunar N1 rocket. The non-cryogenic N2O4/UDMH engine RD-253 using staged combustion was developed by Valentin Glushko circa 1963 for the Proton rocket.

After the abandonment of the N1, Kuznetsov was ordered to destroy the NK-33 technology, but instead he warehoused dozens of the engines. In the 1990s, Aerojet was contacted and eventually visited Kuznetsov's plant. Upon meeting initial skepticism about the high specific impulse and other specifications, Kuznetsov shipped an engine to the US for testing. Oxidizer-rich staged combustion had been considered by American engineers, but was not considered a feasible direction because of resources they assumed the design would require to make work. The Russian RD-180 engine also employs a staged-combustion rocket engine cycle. Lockheed Martin began purchasing the RD-180 in circa 2000 for the Atlas III and later, the V, rockets. The purchase contract was subsequently taken over by United Launch Alliance (ULA--the Boeing/Lockheed-Martin joint venture) after 2006, and ULA continues to fly the Atlas V with RD-180 engines as of 2022.

The first laboratory staged-combustion test engine in the West was built in Germany in 1963, by Ludwig Boelkow.

Hydrogen peroxide/kerosene powered engines may use a closed-cycle process by catalytically decomposing the peroxide to drive turbines before combustion with the kerosene in the combustion chamber proper. This gives the efficiency advantages of staged combustion, while avoiding major engineering problems.

The RS-25 Space Shuttle main engine is another example of a staged combustion engine, and the first to use liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. Its counterpart in the Soviet shuttle was the RD-0120, which had similar specific impulse, thrust, and chamber pressure, but with some differences that reduced complexity and cost at the expense of increased engine weight.

Variants
Several variants of the staged combustion cycle exist. Preburners that burn a small portion of oxidizer with a full flow of fuel are called, while preburners that burn a small portion of fuel with a full flow of oxidizer are called. The RD-180 has an oxidizer-rich preburner, while the RS-25 has two fuel-rich preburners. The SpaceX Raptor has both oxidizer-rich and fuel-rich preburners, a design called full-flow staged combustion.

Staged combustion designs can be either or. In the single-shaft design, one set of preburner and turbine drives both propellant turbopumps. Examples include the Energomash RD-180 and the Blue Origin BE-4. In the twin-shaft design, the two propellant turbopumps are driven by separate turbines, which are in turn driven by the outflow of either one or separate preburners. Examples of twin-shaft designs include the Rocketdyne RS-25, the JAXA LE-7, and Raptor. Relative to a single-shaft design, the twin-shaft design requires an additional turbine (and possibly another preburner), but allows for individual control of the two turbopumps. Hydrolox engines are typically twin-shaft designs due to greatly differing propellant densities.

In addition to the propellant turbopumps, staged combustion engines often require smaller boost pumps to prevent both preburner backflow and turbopump cavitation. For example, the RD-180 and RS-25 use boost pumps driven by tap-off and expander cycles, as well as pressurized tanks, to incrementally increase propellant pressure prior to entering the preburner.

Full-flow staged combustion cycle
Full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) is a twin-shaft staged combustion cycle that uses both oxidizer-rich and fuel-rich preburners. The cycle allows full flow of both propellants through the turbines; hence the name. The fuel turbopump is driven by the fuel-rich preburner, and the oxidizer turbopump is driven by the oxidizer-rich preburner.

Benefits of the full-flow staged combustion cycle include turbines that run cooler and at lower pressure, due to increased mass flow, leading to a longer engine life and higher reliability. As an example, up to 25 flights were anticipated for an engine design studied by the DLR (German Aerospace Center) in the frame of the SpaceLiner project, up to 1000 flights are expected for Raptor from SpaceX. Further, the full-flow cycle eliminates the need for an interpropellant turbine seal normally required to separate oxidizer-rich gas from the fuel turbopump or fuel-rich gas from the oxidizer turbopump, thus improving reliability.

Since the use of both fuel and oxidizer preburners results in full gasification of each propellant before entering the combustion chamber, FFSC engines belong to a broader class of rocket engines called. Full gasification of components leads to faster chemical reactions in the combustion chamber, allowing a smaller combustion chamber. This in turn makes it feasible to increase the chamber pressure, which increases efficiency.

Potential disadvantages of the full-flow staged combustion cycle include increased engineering complexity of two preburners, relative to a single-shaft staged combustion cycle, as well as an increased parts count.

As of 2024, only four full-flow staged combustion rocket engines had ever progressed sufficiently to be tested on test stands; the Soviet Energomash RD-270 project in the 1960s, the US government-funded Aerojet Rocketdyne Integrated powerhead demonstration project in the mid-2000s, SpaceX's flight capable Raptor engine first test-fired in February 2019, and Stoke Space’s engine developed for its Nova vehicle in 2024.

The first flight test of a full-flow staged-combustion engine occurred on 25 July 2019 when SpaceX flew their Raptor methalox FFSC engine on the Starhopper test rocket, at their South Texas Launch Site. As of 2024, the Raptor is the only FFSC engine that has flown on a launch vehicle.

Oxidizer-rich staged combustion

 * S1.5400—First staged combustion rocket engine used on the Blok L upper stage.
 * NK-33—Soviet engine developed for the never-flown upgraded version of the N-1 launch vehicle. Later sold to Aerojet Rocketdyne and refurbished/remarketed as the AJ-26 (used on Antares block 1 launch vehicles in 2013–2014). In use on the Soyuz-2-1v.
 * P111 - liquid oxygen/kerosene demonstrator engine developed between 1956 and 1967 at Bolkow GmbH (later Astrium).
 * RD-170, RD-171, RD-180 and RD-191—a series of Soviet and Russian engines used on the Energia, Zenit, Atlas V, Angara and previously on the Atlas III launch vehicles. RD-171 (and its RD-171M successor), -180 and -191 are derivatives of RD-170.
 * RD-0124—a series of oxygen/kerosene engines used in the second stage of Soyuz-2.1b rocket as well as in upper stages of Angara series rockets.
 * YF-100—Chinese engine developed in the 2000s; used on the Long March 5, Long March 6, and Long March 7.
 * AR1—An Aerojet Rocketdyne project partially funded by the United States Air Force as a potential replacement for the RD-180 Russian engine.
 * BE-4—Blue Origin LCH4/LOX engine—using the oxygen-rich staged combustion (ORSC) cycle—used on the ULA Vulcan launch vehicle, which will replace the Atlas V and Delta IV, first launched in 2024 and also planned to be used on Blue Origin's New Glenn launch vehicle, with first flight test no earlier than 2024.
 * RD-253—Soviet engine developed in the 1960s and used on the Proton launch vehicle's first stage. Later variants include the RD-275 and RD-275M.
 * SCE-200—Indian RP-1/LOX main stage engine in development.
 * Hadley—Ursa Major Technologies LOX/kerosene booster engine under development near Denver, Colorado.
 * Rocket Factory Augsburg "Helix" LOX/kerosene engine under development which should power the RFA One near Augsburg, Germany.
 * Launcher E-2 — LOX/kerosene engine under development which should power the Launcher Light launch vehicle.

Fuel-rich staged combustion

 * RS-25—US developed LH2/LOX engine in the 1970–1980s, flown on the Space Shuttle through 2011 (with periodic upgrades), and planned for further use on the Space Launch System in 2020s.
 * RD-0120—LH2/LOX engine used on the Energia rocket.
 * LE-7—LH2/LOX engine used on the H-II rocket family.
 * KVD-1 (RD-56)—Soviet LH2/LOX upper stage engine developed for the never-flown upgraded version of the N-1 launch vehicle. Used on the GSLV Mk1.
 * CE-7.5—Indian LH2/LOX upper stage engine, used on the GSLV Mk2

Full-flow staged combustion

 * RD-270—USSR engine under development 1962–1970 for the UR-700 project; never flown.
 * Integrated powerhead demonstrator—Demonstration project for the front part of a full flow engine, with no combustion chamber or other backend subsystems. US project to develop a part of a new rocket engine technology in the early 2000s; no full engine ever built; never flown.
 * Raptor—SpaceX LCH4/LOX engine in development, first flown in 2019
 * S1E—Stoke LCH4/LOX engine in development. As of June 2024, it has not flown.

Past and present applications of staged-combustion engines

 * Space Shuttle
 * Angara (rocket family)
 * SpaceX Starship
 * H-II
 * H-IIA
 * H-IIB
 * GSLV
 * Long March 5
 * Long March 6
 * Long March 7
 * Long March 8
 * N1 (rocket)
 * Proton (rocket family)
 * Zenit (rocket family)
 * Space Launch System
 * Vulcan Centaur

Future applications of staged-combustion engines

 * New Glenn first stage with 7 BE-4 engines
 * Long March 9
 * Long March 10
 * Stoke Space Nova

title: Staged combustion cycle


text:
Talk:Joseph of Arimathea

Untitled
This page has been placed on Wikiquette alert, 4 October 2005]. - Wikipedia is unable to make a stand on whether some prophecy is or is not fulfilled, without losing a neutral point-of-view. The fulfillment of prophecy is an aspect simply of the text of the narrative, as told by the author of the Gospel, and as interpeted in the text of interpreters. Statements like "Thus is fulfilled the prophecy" of this or that, are not Wikipediable. They belong in the Christipedia. --Wetman 16:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Authenticity of Joseph of Arimathea
Reading the first paragraph we imagine that the authenticity of the character of Joseph of Arimathea is proved. There is no evidence that he existed. The mention in the 4 Gospels does not constitute a proof, and the less so in the context of the double and triple traditions. There are even voices rising to affirm that it was the Great Church that created this character to give a more honorable end to the episode of Golgotha since there is no evidence that Jesus had a funeral. It would be more prudent to write that one way or the other, all this rests only on hypotheses.

One might just write that in the absence of proof to the contrary, the majority of scholars accept by default and say by convention the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea .-- luxorion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:C9F4:7F00:845D:A51E:F0B8:E2D0 (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Think before you trivialize the work of others
Wetman, the article that you restored is hardly "neutral" or informative and references few if any sources of value. Furthermore, much more is known about Joseph of Arimathea from early Church historians than simply what is listed here.

Though I can accept, perhaps you don't like the use of tables, or the layout I've used, or perhaps the catagorizations that I have added, however before you try reverting this article again, perhaps you should read what is being added. Citing early church historians such as Tertullian, Cardinal Caesar Baronius, or Gildas may not be your personal cup of tea, but they are all original sources of information about the subject "Joseph of Arimathea" and therefore worth of citing. You are certainly welcome to check out the sources. as I have provided links to where the writings exist on-line. Writing an article so that people can check out the primary sources themselves (and come to their own conclusions) is a "neutral" point of view.

Finally, please direct your attention to Key Policy #2 and  Key Policy #4. -- WikiRat 07:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Wetman although I agree this article needs to be cleaned up (which is what I was in the process of working on when you arbitrarily reverted it back to an earlier version), I invite you to assist, or to contribute yourself. If you observe the changes I was in the process of changing you should be able to see that I was trying to flush out the material with a wider scope of references by citing early Christian historical and non-Biblical sources.  Though Joseph of Arimathea was a Biblical character, the early church fathers were quite interested in him, and their views are worthy of mention.

 * If you are going to hinder this process, by reverting back to earlier versions or disputing the contents of the existing article, I encourage you to adopt a constructivist approach; recommend positive changes, re-work content, edit for readability.  If you disagree with something contained in the article, feel free to add alternative view points or cite counter references.

 * I've looked over some of your other contributions to Wikipedia, and let me remind you that ‘’’quality’’’ of contribution is preferable to quantity of contribution. Speaking frankly, to simply meander through Wikipedia putting in clean-up tags without actually investing time, research and effort of your own to make articles better shouldn’t be construed as a contribution.  Anyone can criticize or complain.  What Wikipedia needs is people that make improvements rather than merely suggesting that they need to be done.  Please don't treat Wikipedia as a game.  Though it has rules, it is not simply a game.  WikiRat 15:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * (The first rule of the "game" I mention at my talkpage, apparently overlooked by WikiRat, is this: "Each move must increase an entry's accuracy, transparency, selective completeness and weighted balance, using vision and appropriate wit." Quite a good rule, really. Wetman 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

 * (A personal agenda of British folk Christianity is not a suitable substitute for discussing the growth of the Joseph of Arimathea legend in a responsible and encyclopedic manner. I hope other Wikipedians more tolerant than I am will come and right this capsized article once WikiRat has quite finished fooling with it. --Wetman 15:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Look, then, why doesn't WikiRat take each writer, Gildas, Jacopo da Voragine etc, and allow them each a paragraph, or more: show what each added to the Joseph of Arimathea legend. Show how it actually developed and grew. Tell how people responded to the legend. Don't leave out the miraculous parts, just because they don't seem "realistic". That way the article builds on the foundation a good many people have laid down before WikiRat arrived. --Wetman 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandals and Legitimate edits
Contrary to your claim, none of the early church writers Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Eusebius, St. Hilary of Pottiers, St. John Chrysostom, Cardinal Caesar Baronius and Hippolytus are advocates of British folk Christianity?

Likewise, any opinions expressed before 1700 AD about Joseph of Arimathea cannot be categorized as such. The reason that this article is being disputed is because someone doesn’t like the details contained therein and seems unwilling to actually privide sound reasons why those details are wrong. Fortunately, the details provided here, are part of the historical record so anyone following the dispute can go and check them out themselves. Before I began revisions, its content and tone were sketchy and restricted to Biblical references only. The article adopted a slight judgmental air regarding Joseph’s connection to legends.

What I have attempted to do in revising this article is;
 * Broaden the basis of information about Joseph of Arimathea by providing additional references to early church writers
 * Illustrated the origins of information about Joseph so that readers of the article can see the source of much of what is written about Joseph by tracing back to their earliest writers
 * Provide an overview why Joseph’s reputation has become legendary by showing its evolution from earlier church writers
 * Distinguish between what is considered legend and what was wrritten by early Christian academics
 * Provided better structure for the material by adopting an approach that looks at the nature of the source material that references knowledge about Joseph (Biblical, non-Biblical, historical)

What I have NOT done in this article is; This article is about Joseph and though there are Biblical references to him, do we then pretend that he is not listed in the Gospel of Nicodemus or subsequent work by early and medieval church writers?
 * Claimed any of the legends about Joseph of Arimathea are true despite the beliefs of early Christians

Wetman who put the original “Neutrality disputed” tag in, has reverted this article to an earlier more basic form, and has provided little reasons on this page for doing so. Nor has he provided evidence that what is claimed in this article is not so. Similarly RoyBoy has reverted this article without providing adequate reasons (or any for that matter) for its censor. Lets examine the article more closely then.

 * Apologies, my objective was not to censor; merely to stop what was a major change to an article without an "edit summary", which indicated to me vandalism. Had I been aware there was much discussion and effort being put into it, I would have steered clear. It was my mistake, but in future... especially for major edits please include a short but descriptive summary. Thanks, and again sorry. - RoyBoy 800 00:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * RoyBoy No worries. I do appreciate your recommendation re: a descriptive summary and will make that my practice in the future. WikiRat 14:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article?

 * Should this article NOT cite non-Biblical references?
 * No other wikipedia article adheres to this policy, and it would greatly diminish what is known about the man.

 * Is it unreasonable to show the historical basis for what has been written about “Joseph of Arimathea”?
 * One would think that this is exactly what Wikipedians are suppose to do when talking about historical figures (even ones around whom legends are made)

 * Does this article contain fraudulent, erroneous or biased references?
 * ''This article does not contain fraudulent references. Everywhere I cited ancient text, I provided a summary of what was said, which document it was said in, and links to other online-sites that publish copies where they exist.  For example – take the claim that early church scholars wrote that Christianity came to Britain very early, I cite Tertullian in "Adversus Judaeos".  Click on the link and search for “Gaul” and you’ll discover exactly what has been cited.  Another example – take the claim that early church historians wrote that the apostles brought Christianity to Britain themselves - Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea and father of Ecclesiastical History wrote this in Demonstratio Evangelica Bk. 3.  Again, click on the link and search for “Britain”.
 * This article likely contains erroneous facts, but no Wikipedian article that relies on primary or secondary sources is free from this problem. We trust that our references are competent.  In the case of this article, we are dealing with periods where few other sources exist and so the ones that do exist, take on a greater value.
 * This article certainly contains biased ideas, as almost all of the writers cited are early Christians writing about their beliefs as Christians. However, what it does not contain is a collection of British folk Christians authors being cited as experts. One need only check out the links provided to see what others think of them.  Therefore, what they say must be taken at face value and either argued against (using other evidence) or explained.

 * Is this article biased?
 * This article distinguished between what people wrote and legend (or what they believe). Furthermore, its cites all evidence leaving the reader to make up their own mind.

Recommendations
This article is a bit like the King Arthur article, in that, asking "did Joseph make it to Britain?", or "did he guard the Holy Grail", is really like asking "did King Arthur exist?". From what I've read in the King Arthur article, the authors have done a good job of outlining what was written about him without actually endorsing the legend, and I think the same has been done here. There are a number of possible paths we can take then.
 * We can appeal to the “masses” and find enough people willing to see the article changed by announcing a Wikiquette alert while avoiding actually engaging in an academic debate about its content.
 * This is a misuse of Wikiquette as this article is NOT being unreasonably abused by a vandal. Rather there is a disagreement between an editor willing to defend his edits academically, and another wikipedian unwilling to justify his claim of abuse.

 * We can work out a satisfactory article academically.
 * To do this you must be willing to provide evidence that shows this articles current content is not correct. I encourage you to show which claims do not follow from the references cited.  I invite you to provide counter-references that are either peers or later authorities who think the ones already cited are not correct.

BTW I did agree with your original contention that it needed work, and that it was rough and still intended to go over it a few more times. I invite you to assist me in this process if your goal is to make it better. However, I suspect that there is an agenda driving this alright, but it is one where a Wikipedian does not like what he is reading but unable to show that any of the claims made here are false or otherwise contribute to the article. (In fact I suspect that the criticism leveled against it so far is unqualified, and leveled perhaps to up ones “edit count”). Therefore, unless your willing to constructively engage in an academic discussion designed to give this article a “fairer more balanced approach” according to your understandings, I’m going to kindly ask you to stop prohibiting its evolution. -- WikiRat 23:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply

 * Look, then, why doesn't WikiRat take each writer, Gildas, Jacopo da Voragine etc, and allow them each a paragraph, or more: show what each added to the Joseph of Arimathea legend. Show how it actually developed and grew. Tell how people responded to the legend. Don't leave out the miraculous parts, just because they don't seem "realistic". That way the article builds on the foundation a good many people have laid down before WikiRat arrived. --Wetman 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The foundation of any good article should be primary sources, and you seem to be implying that their inclusion here has somehow ruined the article. Simply googling Joseph shows that whoever Joseph was, he was more than brief entry in the Bible. The first article that comes up (whose link was also cited as a reference to the subject in this article before I made a single revision) explains pretty much what was added to the article, except that in the revision here, some effort was made to flush out the ideas back to their original source (mostly early church writers), rather than simply repeat them.

Legend or not, part of Joseph’s legacy is that he is attributed the role of having been the “disciple” responsible for bringing Christianity to Britain. Although we cannot know if this ‘legend’ is true or not without further evidence, for most of eighteen hundred years, church scholars thought it to be true and wrote it down. This alone, makes it worthy of mention.

If your contention is that only the Biblical view of Joseph is worthy of the pages of Wikipedia, you should try reading the article on King Arthur, or for that matter, check out an article on any Biblical person not-considered legendary, for example check out practically any of the entries on the Saints. All of their articles cite non-Biblical references. Most of the early writers cited in this article have also been cited by Catholic Encyclopedia in other articles about other Biblical figures.

Though the Biblical narrative ends with Joseph taking Christ's body from the cross, is that all we can know about his life? If no, than what else is thought? I have been unable to find any other subsequent history of his life, than the 'legendary' trip to Britain. Therefore, this article has taken each writer in turn and repeated what written. The reader has been left to decide for themselves what they believe about Joseph, and they are certainly free to check out citations. To suggest that we merely convey the skeptical views of twentieth century scholars, or to stop his narrative at the removal of Christ's body, we would truly be doing a disservice to the development of ‘balanced’ articles, and would not accurately convey what has been written on this subject at least, from ancient times forward.

--- WikiRat 19:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The legendary King Arthur is indeed a very good comparison. A careful look at that Wikipedia article shows a culturally literate approach that would apply here—and eventually will once more. --Wetman 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You haven't shown how this approach is NOT culturally literate, however I invite you again to contribute to this article. Find alternative histories of Joseph's life, if you can from from credible sources.  Feel free to disagree, but please don't remove that which you don't personally agree with. -- WikiRat 20:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * No competent person is going to struggle over the illiterate details of an article that begins Much of what is known about Joseph of Arimathea comes from New Testament Biblical text, however Biblical references are not the only source of knowledge we have about this Biblical figure. --Wetman 20:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Until you actually do something other than criticize your credibility as an author is limited. If it is the grammar and style you disagree with. Than the problem is simple, you can edit it for readability (doing us all a favour) and leave the content to those actually working on researching the matter.  I have no objections to you making the article more readable.  -- WikiRat 00:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that this disagreement is over style and not content. I'm removing the 'neutrality dispute tag' then. I agree with both Wetman and WikiRat that it doesn't read all that nicely, and the table has got to go, but at WikiRat's invitation Wetman should be given the chance to do the revisions because it is he that noticed. Wetman feel free to edit it for style. Anon

Re: Recommendations
''. . . I suspect that the criticism leveled against it. . . is unqualified. . . perhaps to up ones [sic] “edit count”''

This seems highly speculative.

Tripe

 * known English documents purporting to date from the 1st Century AD corroborate, and would seem to be the ultimate source of, the legends. Author Teresa Williams discusses this in detail in her article, Unravelling the Mysteries of Glastonbury This, from Messenger Magazine, presents "a distinct possibility that not only Joseph of Arimathea, but the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ lived at Glastonbury, Joseph and Mary being buried there" that is just not part of history, or theology. Even among Mormons it's on the fringe. Read what the "known English documents" actually are.
 * "Biblical text achieves two things" Biblical text does not "achieve" anything except as prooftexts, which are inherently POV. The section "Biblical text achieves two things" merely reiterates what has been more neutrally discussed, now in the form of a sermonette. Deleted.
 * "Characteristics of Joseph of Arimathea" "Proofs" in tabulated form are not encyclopedic: simply describe what the texts assert, without guaranteeing authenticity. Wikipedia is not Sunday School. Deleted.
 * "Though we know he was a disciple of Christ" We "know" nothing of the kind. Stick to the text. I have attemnpted to set the historical development in order.
 * "The Gospel of Nicodemus (not normally attributed to the the Biblical Nicodemus, rather to an anonymous writer of the third century) served as a source of additional information about Joseph for early Christian writers including writers such as Gregory of Tours." This is false. Wrong date, no connection at all with Gregory, who is using the earlier variant Acts of Pilate, a miracle-romance, not a history.
 * Glastonbury Abbey burned "a Catholic Monk allegedly left candles burning too close to the window curtains." Window curtains! or perhaps he was smoking in bed! Partly deleted.
 * At this point I began to run out of time and patience. I have restored the original neutral text at the head of the article, and added as much of the new stuff as I could, much of it unedited--Wetman 12:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't run of of steam yet. Your first revision was fairly productive. Let me comment on your Tripe;
 * "...a distinct possibility that not only Joseph of Arimathea, but the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ lived at Glastonbury, Joseph and Mary being buried there" that is just not part of history, or theology. Even among Mormons it's on the fringe. Read what the "known English documents" actually are.

That particular line is not my contribution, but some other authors, nor am I a Mormon. Personally I had not seen Teresa Williams article before. Regardless, you are showing your bias. I have cited evidence that subsequent history of Joseph which you personally label as “fringe” was common place to early Church writers. If it is fringe, it is only lately that it has been labelled as such and by a very narrow selection of modern secular scholars. If it was written for over a thousand of years, that Joseph made it to Britain, than your personal beliefs are irrelevant. Until the twentieth century, legitimate scholars and historians wrote about this history as true. Examining the beliefs of the early writers, although they were all Christians, Tertullian was not a mormon, nor was St. Hilary of Pottiers, St. John Chrysostom, Eusebius, Rabanus Maurus, Hippolytus, or Baronius yet all of these writers have written on this subject. Perhaps you, personally find this history a fringe belief, however, evidence apart from Teresa Williams article has been presented from well known, and well accepted authorities of the Church, many of whom are cited by Catholic Encyclopaedia as well as other sources. All of those cited where primary source closer in proximity to Joseph_of_Arimathea than Teresa Williams or either of us. Therefore, I don’t care how much you find it a fringe belief that Joseph may have visited Britain. Until you can provide contrary evidence that explains Jospeph's subsequent history, perhaps stating Joseph instead went to Egypt, perhaps he stayed in Jerusalem – it doesn’t matter - but simply disagreeing is not enough. Subsequent to the death of Jesus, eighteen hundred years of church writers claim he went to Britain, and the Vatican itself has supported this history as cited, therefore, as as long as the claims are backed up with ‘accepted sources’ (and early church writers are) this history has every right to stay for it completely conforms to Wikipedia’s requirements. Please appreciate that your scepticism is shared by many other twentieth century scholars, however this secular scepticism is only indicative of a marginal twentieth century trend, and is not indicative of the entire field of work that has examined Joseph critically across centuries. We do want a balance here. Unless you can provide counter-evidence this voguish trend is nothing more than opinion.
 * Biblical text achieves two things Biblical text does not "achieve" anything except as prooftexts, which are inherently POV. The section "Biblical text achieves two things" merely reiterates what has been more neutrally discussed, now in the form of a sermonette. Deleted.

I can accept, your symantic criticisms, as we each have different editorial styles, however, you are categorizing using words such as “sermonette”. Please note that the motivation for these edits was not a faith based motivation, but an academic based one. Evidence has been provided which has not been critically countered. Until it has, the evidence stands. There is nothing sermonette about this.
 * Characteristics of Joseph of Arimathea" "Proofs" in tabulated form are not encyclopaedic: simply describe what the texts assert, without guaranteeing authenticity. Wikipedia is not Sunday School. Deleted.

I agree with the comment that the table had to go, and your comment that it was not encyclopaedic, however you are being insulting here. Wikipedia is not Sunday School, however Sunday School has nothing to do with any of this and your comment is clearly designed to revoke a reaction. Objectively requires you to abate your passions.
 * Though we know he was a disciple of Christ "We know" nothing of the kind. Stick to the text. I have attempted to set the historical development in order.

Your claim is not correct. Since the Bible has been used as a reference for much of this article, let's consult the Bible. Mark 15:42 states that Joseph "waited for the Kingdom of heaven" and John 19:38 states that he "was a disciple of Jesus", though a secret one for fear of reprisal. Clearly these statements do indicate that Joseph was a disciple of Christ, and early Christians took him as such; see St. John Chrysostum’s comments. What you suggest is not supported by the evidence.
 * "The Gospel of Nicodemus (not normally attributed to the the Biblical Nicodemus, rather to an anonymous writer of the third century) served as a source of additional information about Joseph for early Christian writers including writers such as Gregory of Tours." This is false. Wrong date, no connection at all with Gregory, who is using the earlier variant Acts of Pilate, a miracle-romance, not a history.

Although there is debate about this so-called Gospel, the Wikipedia article on Acts of Pilate do say fourth century, so I’m happy to concede the date, however scholars of early Church do not treat it as a miracle-romance (they do not trivialize it), rather they treat it as an important document that influenced early thinking though it is controversial.
 * ’’Glastonbury Abbey burned “a Catholic Monk allegedly left candles burning too close to the window curtains.” Window curtains! or perhaps he was smoking in bed! Partly deleted.’’

Again this isn’t my edit, but boy are you hostile! From what I know, the Abbey did burn down, however I am not personally aware of the cause. If you have not actually verified that the Abbey’s demise was not related to candles, or the people did not believe that to be true, I would encourage you ‘’’NOT’’’ to simply edit out what you do not like. Respect the contributions of others. I have not looked into the claim as to the cause of the Abbey's demise, however I have no problem leaving it in there, as presumably the person doing the edit, had evidence for stating that.
 * At this point I began to run out of time and patience. I have restored the original neutral text at the head of the article, and added as much of the new stuff as I could, much of it unedited'

Debate about the subject itself aside, I do believe your edits had value, despite your apparent hostility. I would encourage you to continue where you left off, but leave your personal agenda of scepticism aside, unless you can justify your claims with credible evidence.

Regards. --- WikiRat 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What's this "Even among the Mormons?" I am Mormon and take exception to that. This is not Mormon doctrine. It is an interesting thing to think about "Where was Jesus for 12 years" and all, but your tone is out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.6.228 (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Further triage
I have retained as much as possible of the recent edits, but I did have to restore a reference to St John Chrysostom that wassuppressed. It's not possible individually to critique expressions like "early Roman Church writers" etc. but the assertion "the source of these details is not known by modern scholars" is just not true. Some informed comprehension of the historical sequence in which these details have been added is necessary in order to make sense of the material. --Wetman 18:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical development
It would be nice if date ranges could be assigned to all of the post-second century texts and authors that are mentioned. As this is a development, some sense of chronology would make this section easier to follow. Dates for Irenaeus need to be fixed.

Gospel of Nicodemus
Would this not be better placed right after Historical development? As stated in a couple of places, the two titles for this work should be mentioned and a date better than medieval should be specified. The real date is vague, but narrowing it down to half a millenium or so would help with context. Bonus points will be given if the brief introduction is compatible with the linked reference.

test
Life of Mary Magdalene that Joseph of Arimathea was sent to Britain, and he goes on to detail who travelled with him as far as France, claiming that he was accompanied by;

the two Bethany sisters, Mary of Bethany and Martha of Bethany, Lazarus (who was raised from the dead), St. Eutropius Saint Eutropius, St. Salome, St. Cleon Saint Cleon, St. Saturnius, St. Mary Magdalen, Marcella (the maid of the Bethany sisters), St. Maxium Saint Maxium or Maximin Saint Maximin, St. Martial Saint Martial, and St. Trophimus Saint Trophimus or Restitutus Saint Restitutus. Michel BUZE 14:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus' uncle
I was always taught he was Jesus' uncle by way of Joesph. I may just have missed it but there appears to be no mention of that here except at the end where it says the CE thinks it's unlikely he was Mary's uncle. The Secretary of Funk 11:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting. WHo taught you this? Also, does anyone have any idea where the idea that Joseph had tin mining links in England and was Mary's Uncle come from? ThePeg 00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I've searched far and wide for the source of the claim that Joseph was a great-uncle of Jesus. Some authors specifically say that Joseph was a younger brother of the father of Mary, and some cite "the Talmud" without further specifying (of course the Talmud never mentions him, and this is probably a misplaced reference to Mary being a daughter of Heli). Basically, anyone who mentions the claim fails to cite a source, or simply cites an equally unreliable modern source. The one reference I could trace actually referred to Perceval rather than Jesus, so perhaps confusion there is the origin.

 * The Cave of Treasures says that Cleopas was a brother of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (though its extensive genealogy of Mary includes none of them). The Coptic infancy gospel says Mary's father Joachim was also named Cleopas (maybe from taking the gospel's "Mary of Clopas" to mean the Virgin Mary was a daughter of Clopas"). It is remotely possible that someone combined these two facts to make Joseph an uncle of Mary. I think, though, that the Perceval/Jesus confusion is the more likely explanation.

 * --SlothMcCarty (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"simplified"
The following information has recently been deleted in the interests of "simplification": "...a member of the Sanhedrin (which is the way bouleutes, literally "senator", is interpreted in and ). " Perhaps the interpretation of bouleutes can be explained in a simpler way, so that the simplest of readers and editors can understand. There is also a Simple English Wikipedia... --Wetman 05:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * It just struck me as too wordy when I read it. It didn't add anything to my understanding of Joseph. And phrases set in parentheses are there for a reason...they're not as important. If you really think it should be there, go ahead and stick it back in. Carl.bunderson 05:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The opening now simply says this figure was "a member of the Sanhedrin". This bald assertion has been rendered baseless by deleting "(which is the way bouleutes, literally "senator", is interpreted in and )." Readers from less authoritarian backgrounds might be enlightened to know that bouleutes is the word that's being interpreted in this fashion, and be able to judge for themselves whether Sanhedrin is intended. Please edit the text for improved clarity, so that it does add to your understanding of Joseph of Arimathea, and return it to the article. Thank you. --Wetman 08:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I just put it back in for lack of a better alternative. Carl.bunderson 16:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think so. --Wetman 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Maelgwn's "lost" Historia de Rebus Brittannicis [sic]
I have removed for now the assertion that a sixth century Historia de Rebus Brittannicis was lost when Glastonbury burned. I'd be delighted to have a reference to this alleged "work". The "author" sounds like a doublet of the legendary king Maelgwn Hir ap Cadwallon, no?  --Wetman 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian mythology?
User:Str1977 has methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology removing them. This article was one of those removed.Perhaps not in the interests of the non-indoctrinated Wikipedia reader? I have no opinion in this particular case myself. --Wetman 09:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * What would be in the interests of the impartial Wikipedia readers, would be not to indoctrinate them by putting subjective judgements like "mythology" on subjects that only one pov, group, or school of thought considers "mythology", since historically such groups have often labelled one another's beliefs and views "mythology" as an attack form of propaganda. Neutrality means presenting only facts as facts, and opinions must be cited.  Categories can't.  As for this article, I saw the argument that this is somehow different and not a judgement, because the subject is connected with the Grail.  That would be a good argument for the Grail article, but even if the Grail were mythological, this is an article about a personage whom not everyone agrees was mythical, and who many think was historical, so the label here seems kind of borderline inappropriate to me. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * If Joseph of Arimathea was a major figure in the Grail legends (as a large part of the article substantiates) and if the Grail legends are properly considered Christian mythology (as that article states), then I'd say that the Category:Christian mythology would be appropriate. Stephen C. Carlson 15:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. And I expand on my agreement in my reply to Codex, below.  Sean Lotz   talk  22:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * In reply to User:Codex Sinaiticus above.
 * Full disclosure:
 * I am a priest in the Celtic Catholic Church.
 * The story of St. Joseph bringing the Holy Grail to Britain is foundational to our self-understanding as Celtic Catholics. Every seminarian learns about it at the beginning of the course of study, using such texts as The Coming of the Saints and The Ancient Secret. Although no one understanding of the story is required, and people pass through this course with different view points, it is understood by all to be in some way of great importance to the history of our own Church.
 * Personally, I believe in St. Joseph as a historical figure, and in my heart I am certain enough that he took our Lord Jesus, his nephew, to Glastonbury and that he returned later with various saints, including the Blessed Virgin Mary.
 * OK, that should be enough to tell where I am coming from in that matter.
 * Please understand, first, that the word myth' is not the same as non-historical. Although many stories labeled myth are certainly non-historical, and do not really even pretend to be, the word is used commonly by scholars of mythology today to indicated more than that. It indicates a story which is indicative of a greater truth, a poetic, narrative expression of a truth, a story which becomes larger than life because its point is not just the historicity but the meaning which a community reads out of and places into the story.
 * At any rate, the category is not a judgment. Categories are not commentaries about articles, but collections of related material. If I were wanting to explore what WP had to say about "Christian mythology," I would certainly expect to find, in the list of pertinent articles, something about St. Joseph, the Grail, and others.
 * St. Joseph is an integral part of the Holy Grail cycle of stories, which cycle as a whole is certainly a part of what could be called "Christian mythology."
 * The article belongs in the category "Christian mythology" because "mythology" is commonly used in a way which definitely includes everything connected with the Grail story, and because it is necessary in order for the WP cataloging methodology called categories to work effectively at providing guidance to readers looking for certain information.
 *  Sean Lotz   talk  22:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Something I forgot to include:
 * If mythology could be used only in the sense of "non-historical," then I would not be entirely comfortable having this article included in the category.  Sean Lotz   talk   23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I have heard very similar arguments before, and by the way I am not concerned with what you may believe privately. These arguments all say, 'mythology' has this other meaning beside unhistorical, that can even include historical events.  However, it was easily demonstrated at the time this was discussed before, that the vast majority of uses of the word 'mythology' in Wikipedia articles, use it in the common understanding of "not historical", and in fact where it is clearly being used in contrast to, or in opposition, to "historical", eg, in language such as "mythological, as opposed to historical"... The clear purpose of the word as used on wikipedia is to impart that something is not historical, a word used to label things that scholars do not believe really happened.  I would just like to note that this discussion was over a year ago, and since then, wikipedia has continued to use "mythology" frequently, in its common everyman understanding of "not historical, outside of historical", and rarely ever have I seen it used in the obscure sense that these apologetic arguments insist that it really means something somehow different from this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I am glad, Codex, that you don't care what I believe privately. It indicates to me that we share a view about what an editor of an encyclopedia should be about. But I have noticed, as I am sure you have, too, that many folk around here write, edit, and argue based on their private undisclosed beliefs, rather than what is logical, relevant, and helpful. I like to make discolsures when it appears I might be doing that myself, so others can judge how dispassionate (or otherwise) I am being.  Sean Lotz   talk  10:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, "mythology" is either used improperly as a label, as Codex suspects, or it is used properly as dealing with deities and other supernatural beings. This is not the case here. We have a Christian Saint with whom a lot of legends are associated. But no mythology. As for the Grail article, I indeed wonder whether it should be dubbed "Christian mythology" but in any case, this article cannot serve as a basis for this categorisation of another article. Str1977 (smile back) 02:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Queezbo has reverted with the edit summary "rev. It belongs in the "Christian Mythology" category at least because of its relation to the Grail, which figures prominently in that category. It is a category, not a judgment". As I said above, this is not about the judgement issue but about a proper definition of mythology. Now, I have this suggestion to make: Joseph is a Saint, that is clear, and he is categorized as such. He also figures prominently in the Grail legend, which can be considered Christian. Why not include the category Saints and Grail as subcategories of Christian mythology. This is a compromise I could accept. Str1977 (smile back) 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would not argue against your suggested compromise. I'm not a big fan of it because I don't generally like sub-categories, and especially not little bitty ones, least of all ones with only one article. The librarian and taxonimist in me rebels. But other than that, I'm OK with it. If this compromise would make you content and make me at least not perturbed, I would be glad for it and relieved. My only insistance in this, really, is that if a person where reading up on the subject of "Christian mythology," we would be remiss not to include this article in the list. I would feel we were cheating the person out of something he or she should be able to expect.
 * And, I just realised, several other saints could be included in the sub-cat. St. Christopher and St. George, for example. And don't anybody say I am libeling two of my favorite saints by suggesting their inclusion as "mythology." See my disclaimers above. Maybe my problem is that, with the way my brain works, I have no problem thinking of something as historical and mythological at the same time. Maybe that makes me some sort of freak.  Sean Lotz   talk   10:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Making "Grail" a subcat of mythology should be sufficient. I can't see any compelling reason to make "Saints" a subcat of mythology. Even if there are myths about some saints, it still seems more like one party's categorization, than a neutral one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm re-reading the 'compromise' suggested by Str, and it makes even less sense to me now. A single category called "Saints and Grail"? The article is already in the "Holy Grail" category, and I just checked that this is already a subcat of Christian mythology.  So problem seems already solved. There is no need to put Christian mythology here because it would be a redundant supercat to "Holy Grail". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Legends
Don't you think the mention of Diodorus should have a warning on the accuracy of his historical statements? Should we include the French legend: French Wikipedia Les Saintes Maries. Have you come across: LEWIS, Henry Ardern. ''Christ in Cornwall? 2nd edition, with new and fuller notes and appendices. And Glastonbury the holy land of Britain.''  W. H. Smith & Son: Glastonbury, 1946. === Vernon White (talk)  19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The legend of the Marys is already mentioned. I'll check out your other suggestions later today.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Followed the links in the "Joseph and Britain" section
The gist of most of the quotes from the Church fathers is: Christ rules everywhere, including such far off places as India and Britain-- and even in places we haven't heard of yet. That is a far different meaning than saying that, for instance, Tertullian "says" that Christianity has reached Britain. I have the feeling that this section is full of deliberate misquotes.

In any event, even after following the links in this section, I couldn't find the Chrysostom quote, nor Hilary, nor Hypolytus.

Am I missing something? These aren't "legendary accounts" (i.e. these sources and quotes don't themselves tell legendary accounts), but rather quotes used by people (probably improperly, and perhaps including the author of this section) to construct their *own* legendary accounts. In other words, the tone of this section should be that "the following quotes from the church fathers are often cherry picked to suggest Joseph's journey to Britain." This section needs to be reframed, or it includes original research.

 * That might be so. About a year and a half ago this article was substantially altered and expanded to include that contentious information. It sounds like the quotes were cherry-picked to make a case for British Israelism. If some are wrong, please do correct or remove them.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Joseph of Arimathea = Jesus' Father?
See The God-Kings of Europe, pp. 28 ff., for the claim that Joseph of Arimathea was the father of Jesus. Eroica (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Britain or Britio?
See Ian Wilson's The Blood and the Shroud (Chapter 12) for the theory that Joseph of Arimathea brought the shroud of Christ to Britio Edessenorum (the citadel of Edessa), which was mistranslated by early copyists as Britannia. Eroica (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Latin
I think the Latin pedigree quoted from John of Glastonbury in the "Holy Grail" section needs an English translation, including the names of the intermediate generations. If it were just a footnote, that might be one thing, but a passage in the main text should be fully translated. It might look a little unwieldy, but clarity is more important than elegance. Loganberry (Talk) 22:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, the Latin should be dropped into a footnote.--Wetman (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial Description of Joseph
Only Matthew's Gospel states that Joseph of Arimathea was the owner of the tomb so I think it misleading to say that the 'Gospels' provide this information. Mark's Gospel puts more emphasis on Joseph providing the cloth on "Preparation Day" and this aspect seems more consistant through the Gospels - he wrapped up the body and placed it in a tomb.

Jas.C.Brooke (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If "Gospel of Matthew" is more accurate than "the gospels", edit it.--Wetman (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I too was immediately struck by the same issue as soon as I started reading. Why has the text not been corrected? Cheers, Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.132.222 (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Josephus - Vulgate
Dougweller, for your information the reference I gave is the Vulgate Cycle, which is the original book that contains this information. What better reference are you looking for than the original? The problem is that there are only 20 copies of the entire Vulgate in the UK, so it is not easy to locate. The more populist book is easier to locate, and contains the relevant quotes.

The reference you gave to "The development of Arthurian Romance" does not mention Josephus (son of Joseph), according to Google Books, so you cannot use this as a source. And the reference in the "Josephus of Arimathea" Wiki page is wrong, as far as i am aware. Are you saying that if I make up a reference this will be ok, but if I give you are real one you will delete my addition? You take the reference to the Lancelot-Grail by Norris as being correct, but you have not checked, have you? And I know you have not checked, because the volume is huge, and they did not give a page number. Disranter (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 * No, you are right about Josephus. And we can't reference our own articles. You are being rather insulting here. I haven't taken any references as correct, but the Ellis reference I know is not a reliable source. If you have access to the Vulgate Cycle, you can reference it directly, but not through Ellis. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Insulting? How? You are being a bit sensitive here. The reference is not 'through Ellis', this is simply an alternate source if you cannot afford to purchase the Vulgate Cycle (5 volumes costing about $450). You do want Wiki readers to be able to reference sources, I hope? Your fame is spreading though the blogsphere as an opponent of historical research, and there are many who are not impressed. Disranter (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Calm down. The "King Jesus" book is not usable, nor is the link to the Wikipedia article Josephus of Arimathea. Are you saying that the Vulgate Cycle itself suggests that Josephus of Arimathea may have been confused with the historical Josephus? If so we will need to word it differently. We will also need a full citation for the edition of the Vulgate you're using. I have a copy the the Norris J. Lacy translation, so I can check that, though I'm afraid it won't be terribly easy for me to get to just now.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Josephus, the son, is mentioned in the article anyway. As is the Vulgate Cycle, see Lancelot-Grail. Meanwhile, the personal attack is very interesting. It appears as though the purpose of the edit may be to mention Ellis. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote is:

''Joseph of Arimathaea was in Jerusalem with his wife and a son named Josephus; not the one that scripture relies upon so often as a witness, but another one who was no less lettered. It was this Josephus who brought his father’s lineage across the sea to Britain, which is now called England''.

The Josephus that scripture relies upon as a witness is Flavius Josephus, so the Vulgate Cycle is quite clear in its meaning. And Ellis is being mentioned here, because he highlighted this topic, and it is only a common courtesy, in my opinion, to acknowledge the person who dredged up this information. And it is interesting. The volume is this: http://www.books-express.co.uk/author/2338208/Norris-J-Lacey.html

Except the one from my library was called 'The Old French Vulgate', not the 'Lancelot Grail'.

Disranter (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 * And we already have the information in the article, which says ". In the Lancelot-Grail Cycle, a vast Arthurian composition that took much from Boron, it is not Joseph but his son Josephus who is considered the primary holy man of Britain." There is no reason to mention Ellis as he is late to the party as Cuchullain added it in 2006. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The above editor is a sockpuppet, and one sock identified himself as Ralph Ellis

copied from ANI:
 * ✅ the following are socks of one another:
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety
 * checked byUser:Tiptoety

Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Didn't see all that coming. Ah well, I guess it's settled: Ellis stays out.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Cresswell
I'm not convinced that he meets our criteria for a reliable source at WP:RS - he's a journalist and publicist - see and this view may not be significant enough to include. The paragraph it respondes to is uncited, which is also a problem. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's chaff, all of it. Best to axe it all.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with both statements. Cresswell is certainly not a WP:RS source, as someone also commented elsewhere on Marriage at Cana. Amanita caesarea, you are getting double reverted on this again, also on Talk:Marriage at Cana stop and discuss before reverting. Actually on Marriage at Cana he even admits that the references are shaky, but says they need to be there. This is wasting time for everyone. I issued a warning to Amanita caesarea. This must stop. History2007 (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

First appearance of the Joseph legend
I'm not saying it's not in the 12th-century Vita of Mary Magdalene, but (a) it may postdate the monkish insertions into William; (b) absolutely none of the sources in that paragraph so much as mentions Joseph except (c) the source about a 15th -century copy of Pseudo-Rabanus's text which pointedly denies denies that Joseph is mentioned in its account. Despite its "sourcing", therefore, the entire paragraph is unsourced and removed here for future reinclusion when someone finds a that mentions Joseph's connection to the text. Commented out below: <!--The first literary connection of Joseph of Arimathea with Britain occurs in the late-twelfth-century Life of Mary Magdalene, in one manuscript attributed to Rabanus Maurus (AD 766–856), Archbishop of Mainz; despite this, the earliest manuscripts date from the late 12th century. In addition, one of the earliest copies of the Pseudo-Maurus text is one housed in the Bodleian Library of Oxford University. Robert de Boron's Joseph d'Arimathie, connecting Joseph with the Holy Grail (see below) was written around the same time. The vita states that Joseph of Arimathea was sent to Britain, and he goes on to detail who travelled with him as far as France, claiming that he was accompanied by "the two Bethany sisters, Mary and Martha, Lazarus (who was raised from the dead), St. Eutropius, St. Salome, St. Cleon, St. Saturnius, St. Mary Magdalen, St. Maxium or Maximin, St. Martial, and St. Trophimus or Restitutus." Pseudo-Maurus describes their voyage to Britain:

The route described follows that of a supposed Phoenician trade route to Britain, as described by Diodorus Siculus.--> — Llywelyn II   05:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Joseph of Arimathea - diff. Hafspajen (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for clarifying this. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sanhedron dissent
Added the fact that (Luke 23:50-51) says that he not only sat on trial, but "...had not consented to their decision and action...". Snori (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Joseph of Arimathea


text: User talk:141.158.180.237

title: User talk:141.158.180.237


text:
NYAS

NYAS may stand for:

 * The New York Academy of Sciences
 * National Youth Advocacy Service, a UK charity providing socio-legal services
 * New York Auto Show

title: NYAS


text:
Coca-Cola FEMSA

Coca-Cola FEMSA, S.A.B. de C.V., known as Coca-Cola FEMSA or KOF, is a Mexican multinational beverage company headquartered in Mexico City, Mexico. It is a subsidiary of FEMSA which owns 47.8% of its stock, with 27.8% held by wholly owned subsidiaries of The Coca-Cola Company and the remaining 25% listed publicly on the Mexican Stock Exchange (since 1993) and the New York Stock Exchange (since 1998). It is the largest franchise Coca-Cola bottler in the world, the company has operations in Latin America, although its largest and most profitable market is in Mexico.

History
Coca-Cola FEMSA began as a joint venture with The Coca-Cola Company in 1991 with FEMSA initially owning 51% of the stock. It started expanding its international operations in 2003 when it acquired Panamerican Beverages (Panamco), another Mexican Coca-Cola bottler with operations in Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil. It later acquired additional bottling companies in Brazil (its second largest market) as well as the main Coca-Cola bottler in the Philippines in 2013, until 2018 when the company was then renamed to Coca-Cola Beverages Philippines.

In 2007, Coca-Cola FEMSA acquired Jugos del Valle in a joint venture with The Coca-Cola Company. In June 2008, Coca-Cola FEMSA acquired Refrigerantes Minas Gerais.

In 2011, the company merged Grupo Tampico and Corporación Los Angeles. Later that same year, Coca-Cola FEMSA acquired Grupo Industrias Lacteas, parent company of Estrella Azul, in a joint venture with The Coca-Cola Company.

Coca-Cola FEMSA merged beverage operations with Grupo Fomento Queretano in 2012. In 2013, the company merged more bottling operations with Grupo Yoli as well as acquiring Brazilian companies Companhia Fluminense de Refrigerantes and Industria Brasileira de Bebidas.

In 2015, Coca-Cola FEMSA opened two $500 million bottling plants in Itabirito, Brazil, and Tocancipa, Colombia. The company completed its $1 billion acquisition of VONPAR in Brazil in 2016. Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola FEMSA also bought the AdeS brand from Unilever in a joint venture that same year.

In 2018, Coca-Cola FEMSA acquired Guatemalan bottlers ABASA and Los Volcanes as well as MONRESA in Uruguay.

title: Coca-Cola FEMSA


text:
National Youth Advocacy Service

The National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS) is a UK children's charity which offers socio-legal advocacy services to children and young people up to the age of 25, parents, carers and associated professionals. NYAS can be appointed by a Court under Family Procedure Rules to represent the child as a Guardian ad Litem in exceptional circumstances.

title: National Youth Advocacy Service


text:
Into the West (film)

Into the West is a 1992 Irish magical realist film about Irish Travellers written by Jim Sheridan and David Keating, directed by Mike Newell, and stars Gabriel Byrne and Ellen Barkin.

Plot
Into the West is a film about two young boys, Tito (Conroy) and Ossie (Fitzgerald), whose father "Papa" Reilly (Byrne) was "King of Irish Travellers" until his wife, Mary, died during Ossie's birth. The boys' grandfather (David Kelly) is an old story-telling Traveller, who regales the children with Irish folk-tales and legends. When he is followed by a beautiful white horse called Tír na nÓg (meaning "Land of Eternal Youth" in Irish), from the sea to Dublin, where the boys and their father have now settled down in a grim tower block in Ballymun, the boys are overwhelmed with joy and dreams of becoming cowboys. The horse is stolen from them by corrupt Gardai and is sold as a racehorse. They see Tír na nÓg on TV, and they begin their adventure to get their mystical horse back. They escape the poverty of a north Dublin council estate, and ride "Into the West". Papa Reilly is arrested, and beaten by the corrupt Gardaí, until he is released on the orders of the superintendent. He then returns to his halting site, where he is shown no welcome. His friend Kathleen takes him in and from there they go to track the boys. Meanwhile the boys find shelter using traditional traveller methods and move further west as "cowboys". As they travel, they find the Gardai, helicopters and dog packs tracking them. Tír na nÓg always seems to find a way to avoid them. The horse takes them to their mother's grave, where Ossie finds out his mother died giving birth to him. The net closes in on the boys, forcing them to flee to the beach, where they find Papa Reilly, Kathleen and the Barrel maker. The Gardai catch Papa Reilly and the Barrel maker in nets, and Tír na nÓg gallops into the sea, with Ossie still on his back. Papa Reilly breaks free and goes into the sea, where he brings out a lifeless Ossie. After receiving CPR, Ossie comes round. The superintendent calls off the hunt for the boys. After that, Papa Reilly finally burns his Barrel Wagon, and puts his Wife's memory to rest. The boys see Tír na nÓg's image in the flames, and smile.

Cast

 * Gabriel Byrne as Papa Reilly
 * Ellen Barkin as Kathleen
 * Ciarán Fitzgerald as Ossie
 * Rúaidhrí Conroy as Tito (credited as Ruaidhrí Conroy)
 * David Kelly as Grandfather
 * Johnny Murphy as Tracker
 * Colm Meaney as Barreller
 * John Kavanagh as Hartnett
 * Brendan Gleeson as Inspector Bolger
 * Jim Norton as Superintendent O'Mara
 * Anita Reeves as Mrs. Murphy
 * Ray McBride as Mr. Murphy
 * Dave Duffy as Morrissey
 * Stuart Dannell-Foran as Conor Murphy (credited as Stuart Dannell)
 * Becca Hollinshead as Birdy Murphy

Production
Into the West was co-financed by U.S. independent film company Miramax and film-sales outlet Majestic Films International. The script was written by Jim Sheridan, who did not intend to write simply for children, although the film mainly follows two young children on the run with their beautiful, magical white horse. Other themes targeted to adults, are also present: grief, the clash of cultures with differing values, and the use of the police by the rich and powerful to enforce property rights in their favour. Sheridan wrote the script five years before he directed My Left Foot.

Gabriel Byrne said it was one of the best scripts he ever read, and described it at the time as Jim Sheridan's best work to date. Byrne was committed to the work, and commented: Apart from it being a story about Travellers, and the relationship between a father and his two sons, it really was in a way about Ireland. Ellen Barkin said that from the first reading she thought it an extraordinary piece of film writing.

The film's most memorable scenes, such as the horse in the cinema and the beans exploding, were shot in the small town of Portarlington in County Laois.

Release
In the U.S., Into the West was the first release from the Miramax Family Films label.

Reception
The film has received a mostly positive critical reception. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a score of 77% based on reviews from 13 critics.

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times said the "kids will probably love this movie, but adults will get a lot more out of it". Variety Staff said that "Into the West is a likable but modest pic", and that "a major asset throughout is Patrick Doyle's rich, Gaelic-flavoured scoring that carries the movie's emotional line and fairy tale atmosphere". Desson Howe of The Washington Post said that the film is "a charming children's crusade – a rewarding journey for all ages". Rita Kempley of the Washington Post said that "the movie is alternately grim and lyrical", and "though long on ambiance and short on story, it may appeal to the spiritually inclined – and to oater lovers".

Box office
Into the West was the fourth highest-grossing film in Ireland for the year with a gross of £748,080.

Awards

 * 1993: Roxanne T. Mueller Audience Choice Award for Best Film at the Cleveland International Film Festival – Mike Newell.
 * 1993: Starboy Award at the Oulu International Children's Film Festival – Mike Newell.
 * 1994: Golden Calf for Best European Film at the Netherlands Film Festival – Mike Newell.
 * 1994: Young Artist Award for Outstanding Family Foreign Film at the Young Artist Awards – Mike Newell.
 * 1994: Young Artist Award for Outstanding Youth Actor in a Family Film at the Young Artist Awards – Rúaidhrí Conroy & Ciarán Fitzgerald.

Home video releases
Into the West was released on VHS and LaserDisc format in the US by Touchstone Home Video in 1994. The DVD was released in the US on 4 February 2003 by Miramax Home Entertainment with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen.

The VHS was released in Ireland and the UK on 21 September 1993 by Entertainment in Video. It was released on DVD in Ireland and the UK on 17 December 2001 by Entertainment in Video and again on 15 September 2003 by Cinema Club. As of 2020, it is being broadcast on the Criterion Channel in the USA and Canada.

title: Into the West (film)