Humanities desk
< August 20	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 22 >

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.

August 21

Hi, Author's names and how do I authenticate them for a local author?

that is it. there are certain author's from each continent which are there that are etched into every child's mind. like H H Munroe from here. what I would like to know is how-to for these Authors. the seven eternal question that needs to be asked. why when where who whether, etc. etc. I can of course, take up a course in any language to get this thing. anything further? thank you and nice talking to you. 14.97.54.125 (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clue what you asking. Are you asking for names of popular children's authors in non-English-speaking countries? Paul B (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Does Category:Writers by language help? --ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Category:Children's literature by nationality. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H. H. Munro ("Saki") was not primarily a children's author, so I took it that the OP meant "very well known" rather than "children's author". --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though he has his fans, Saki is not widely read these days, so the choice is an odd one. The OP did say "etched into every child's mind". Paul B (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is from India, and Munro was born in Burma. It's likely that Saki and other writers with South Asian connections (such as Kipling and Orwell) are more widely used in English-language instruction in that part of the world than they are in Europe and the Americas. Deor (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow in van Gogh

I remember once hearing a theory that Vincent van Gogh's heavy absinthe drinking could have accounted for his exaggerated use of yellow in his paintings. I can't remember where I heard this, or what the facts were behind the theory. Can anyone help? 58.109.50.25 (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Vincent van Gogh's health, which notes the argument that the "yellow" is explained by digoxin. This kind of argument is common to "explain" artists' deviations from straight naturalism. It dates back to Max Nordau's Degeneration in which nearly all forms of avant-garde artistic deviationism are explained as the result of illnesses of various kinds. There are books like The World Through Blunted Sight which examine these theories with various degrees of credulity or scepticism. Paul B (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See digoxin toxicity in relation to Paul B's post above. Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A theory I heard was that he (and other artists of the period) started to use a lot of bright yellow because it was at this time that affordable bright yellow paints (using chromium compounds) first became widely available. Thus they were both exploring a new resource and providing a hopefully attractive novelty to interest potential buyers. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in 2013, it was pointed out that various pigments used by Van Gogh had proven not to be particularly stable, and had changed over time so that the color we see today was not the color seen by Van Gogh when he painted it. But I believe it was the red pigment that faded, so that what was once orange would now be yellow, and what was once purple would now be blue. - Nunh-huh 02:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal questions

Yes, I am aware of Wikipedia's policy against seeking legal advice, but I have still been wondering about some legal questions. If this goes against Wikipedia's policy, then this topic may be removed, but please leave a mark that it has been removed.

First, does it constitute insurance fraud if one insures the same thing from multiple insurance companies simultaneously, of course paying all the insurance costs? Is merely insuring it enough for insurance fraud, or is it only fraud if an accident happens and one seeks compensation from multiple companies simultaneously?

Second, suppose some paparazzi takes a nude or otherwise compromising photograph of some celebrity without consent, and publishes it in some sleazy magazine. As I understand it, the paparazzi and the magazine have committed some sort of crime or other non-suitable action, but normal people who see and buy the magazine are entirely innocent. Is this right?

Note that I have no intent of committing insurance fraud or publishing photographs without consent. This is simply for academic curiosity. JIP | Talk 20:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If these questions are answerable, we'll need to know what jurisdiction you're interested in. The second question, in particular, will be entirely dependent on local laws, and it's not possible to give an answer of remotely universal scope. Tevildo (talk)

I'm of the opinion that this is a request for legal information, and respondents could in principle direct you to references such as court cases and legal precedents. We could also link to descriptions of certain laws on the books as a source of information for you, but interpreting those laws in this space would constitute legal advice (that is, the law is information, saying how it applies to a certain case or question is advice). To me this question falls under our purview. But, we would indeed have to know your location. I suppose if anybody wanted to they could post refs for any given location, as long as they specify the jurisdiction that the refs are relevant to. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the first question, the terminology you're looking for is "concurrent coverage" and "overinsurance". (The former is where more than one policy covers the same incident; the latter is where the amount of coverage – whether from one policy or several – exceeds the real value or cost of the incident.) Overinsurance is generally seen (by insurers) as undesirable, as it creates a moral hazard.

Many types of insurance policy include now include clauses to deal with this type of situation, specifically restricting their payouts to otherwise-uninsured losses, or specifying how the liability will be apportioned between multiple carriers. (Unsurprisingly, when large claims are involved this is an area that often results in protracted and costly legal battles between insurers who would prefer to shift as much burden to their competitors as possible.) I can't speak to specific (il)legality of deliberate overinsurance, and as Tevildo notes this is almost certainly a jurisdiction-dependent situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Culpable Fraud obviously occurs if the insured collects money from both insurers by representing to both of them his loss as being uncompensated. Merely reporting the loss-causing event to multiple insurers can be defended by arguing that the intent was to seek dialog about possible settlement, that simultaneity of the reports gives a Plausible deniability of intention at that time to pursue either claim unjustly in the presence of the other claim, possibly upheld by a Chinese wall stance in an organisation, and that an obligation to report losses is inherent or explicit in the insurance terms. It is likely however that a court would regard filling and signing of two different Insurance claim forms for one loss event as Prima facie evidence of attempted fraud. The OP's second question about "normal people buying sleazy magazines" uses too tendentious language for anyone here to rule who is "entirely innocent". Mere ownership of restricted literature has been, and is, prosecuted in some societies. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the good points above, I will note that the basic claim "Second, suppose some paparazzi takes a nude or otherwise compromising photograph of some celebrity without consent, and publishes it in some sleazy magazine. As I understand it, the paparazzi and the magazine have committed some sort of crime or other non-suitable action" is itself unsound. This will depend on the jurisdiction and the circumstances. For example, in some jurisdictions if the celebrity was in a public place and so was the photographer, there may be no crime or otherwise anything legally actionable by either the photographer or magazine. (Non-suitable action is undefined, but I presume we're talking about some sort of legally actionable "non-suitable action" since moral ones make little sense in this context.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(From the tone of question 2, I'm assuming that we're to assume that taking the photo is illegal in and of itself, although as Nil Einne points out, that might not be the case.) It's not directly applicable to the situation, but Possession of stolen goods is a crime in a number of jurisdictions. That is, although you didn't steal it yourself, obtaining something with knowledge that it was illegally obtained is a crime in and of itself. (Usually there's exceptions for unknowingly purchasing stolen goods, but that goes down to mens rea/strict liability differences, and how the law is written in a particular jurisdiction.) While the photos are not stolen goods per se, one could easily imagine that the law somewhere has been written such that if you obtain a copy of a photograph with the reasonable knowledge that it has been illegally produced, that you could be in violation of some law yourself. Again, highly dependent on jurisdiction. - Related but again not directly relevant, there was a recent announcement by Scotland Yard that downloading and viewing the James Foley beheading video could be considered a breach of the UK's anti-terror law [1], though those laws probably wouldn't apply to nude celebrities. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the second question: Obviously, in most jurisdictions, mere possession of acquisition of child pornography is itself a serious criminal offence. As to illegally taken images of adults? I would think that disseminating such material (e.g. "sharing" it on social media) may in certain situations be a civil offence, or potentially even a criminal one. A classical practical example of the laws in question would be the 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy. In that case, it was suggested that a regular citizen merely sharing or discussing the suppressed material on social media may be committing contempt of court.

As to mere possession of such material without any attempt at dissemination, e.g. the topless photos of Kate Middleton or other "illicit" celebrity images, I'm not sure. In theory, possession of such material may be a breach of intellectual property law, and thus subject to civil or criminal penalties. In practice, the issue is unlikely to often arise, as the celebrity in question likely has no motive to pursue such individuals and force them to return or destroy the material, or punish them for possessing it. Any attempt to do so would likely backfire badly - see Streisand effect. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you're thinking of this from the POV of a country with relatively high protections of freedom of speech and limited levels of enforced censorship. (Although I'd also note that Obscenity laws vary widely even among such countries and in a number of them possession of a number of things besides child porngraphy is criminalised even if enforcement may be less common.)

Yet as others have indicated, not all jurisdictions are like that. In some jurisdictions, possession of a topless photo of a female adult, let alone nude may be risky, particullar if it's somewhat risqué (which could happen from a candid photo), even if not something you may personally consider pornographic. Heck you may not even need topless. And to the other side the OPs scenario was loose enough that it could include a depiction of sex (which to avoid confusion, could be involved even if taken in a public place and happening in a public place).

Then of course, there are other risks. E.g. Possessing a compromising photo of the king, queen, crown prince or regent in Thailand may be risky.

Of course the earlier example isn't unique to celebrities and the later example only to certain ones. And also, in such a scenario it may not be that likely it will be published locally (although I think it could happen, particularly with the later example or in a underground fashion). Also the OP's scenario didn't seem to clearly specify that the magazine would be kept in the place of purchase, and not taken elsewhere or that it was necessarily a local publication rather than one which may have been imported perhaps illegally*. Either way, IMO it highlights why earlier answers were much more cautious.

Note that under the OPs scenario i.e. where the material you are in possession of was produced with permission of the copyright holder of the photograph, intellectual properties issues probably aren't going to arise often. I won't say they never will, since countries give different levels of protection to how people can control their images, and some of these may lead to intellectual property issues even if the photograph was taken by someone else who has given permission for publication. And depending on the precise scenario, there may be other intellectual property issues, e.g. for the house the photograph was taken at. There is also the possibility *unauthorised importation could be a factor.

OTOH, if we're going to include such scenarios, I wouldn't e.g. assume you're protected by other factors, if in possession of a photograph of a celebrity having sex with an animal in the number of places where possession may be criminal.)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]