Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 February 3

= February 3 =

UN parade with US troops from Korean conflict 1952
October 24, 1952- was there a UN parade including troops from the participating countries? If yes, any details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.251.251 (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * October 24 is United Nations Day. The Keith Highlanders Pipe Band, Seattle claim that they represented "the United Kingdom at the United Nations Day program in 1952", presumably at an event in Seattle. The town of Lubbock, Texas held a United Nations Day Dinner complete with a UN birthday cake. I also found this 1952 British newsreel clip which just says; "Remember October 24th - United Nations Day", so presumably it was commemorated in the UK as well. If you could tell us a particular location, it might make the search a bit easier. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright assertions by dead people
I've seen this sort of thing before, but the oddness of it just struck me. I've just finished reading Under the Sun, the letters of Bruce Chatwin. In the legal stuff at the front is this statement:


 * Bruce Chatwin has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.

He died in 1989, and this book of collected letters was published in 2011. How could a dead person assert any such thing? Do they mean the executors of his estate have asserted the right on his behalf? If so, why do they not say that?

It also contains many footnotes and explanatory texts about Chatwin's travels and writings and personal life, to help put the letters in context and explain the non-obvious references in them. These were written by the co-editors, his widow Elizabeth Chatwin and his biographer Nicholas Shakespeare. As were the Preface, Introduction and Acknowledgements. Do they not get to claim any part of the authorship? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As author of the letters, he still maintains copyright, despite being dead. The UK recognizes copyright for 70 years after the creator's death, not publication, and these letters would have been considered automatically copyrighted. Not sure about the footnotes etc. though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Footnotes, introductions or similar stuff on a text won't make anyone a co-author of the main work. Although they are probably protected by their own copyright, independent of the main work.
 * I am not sure that the long claim "Bruce Chatwin has asserted his right" is in any way different from the short form "© Bruce Chatwin." It seems like a standard formulation, which is probably required by law, and not the case that Bruce personally asserted that, or had to do that. Possibly, this claim is simply a moral right of an author of being considered the author. Many works are surely automatically covered and some rights can not be waived. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand the moral right concept, and that copyright survives an author's death. I'm assuming that the "Bruce Chatwin" in the sentence is not to be interpreted as the physical person - because he was cremated shortly after dying 25 years ago - but the legal entity which is the owner of the copyright, and which is very much extant until 2059.  If, in 2060 or later, someone comes up with previously unknown letters from him, they could presumably publish them as their own work and not Chatwin's.  Is that the case?  Or at least get to keep all the royalties and not have to share them with his estate?  Why would the moral right cease to exist at 70 years, or ever?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  17:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The economic rights might expire 70 years after the death of an author (other clauses and special cases apply, so this is a general rule). However, the moral rights, o be considered the author, to avoid distortion of his work, and damage to his reputation, for example, last at least the economical rights expire (also, in general also 70 years). You probably can't publish something that you found, claiming that's yours. After copyright expires, then, you can keep the royalties. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Right. So, for example, I could publish an edition of Hamlet and keep all the royalties because Shakespeare's been dead for far longer than 70 years, but it would still be fraud/misleading conduct for me to claim I wrote it myself.  Separate issues.  Thanks for the enlightenment.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Could Woody Allen be indicted?
'''The rules of WP:BLP apply to the ref desk, please observe them. Criminal accusations are defamation per se.''' μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the accusations against him are more than 20 years old. So horrible as it might be, isn't there any statute of limitation for things which are not murder? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It actually isn't unheard of that crimes besides murder, such as child sexual assault has no statute of limitations. That said, if I understand correctly, the statute of limitations in Connecticut for childhood sexual assault occuring in the 90s is likely to be "up to 30 years after the victim reaches age 18 or up to five years after the victim reports the crime, whichever is earlier" which concurs with these sources that the statute on any of the historic allegations which have flared up again likely expired 15 years ago (5 years after they were reported)  . I'm not 100% sure what happens if allegations are made that weren't reported before and obviously if any allegations are made covering activity in another state then this is all irrelevant. Either way, to emphasise the earlier point, as I understand the source and also  +, there it no statute of limitations on sexual assault commited since the amendment in 2002, by an adult (or anyone more than 2 years older) on someone under 13 years of age. (In other words, if everything but the laws were moved 10 years later, there may be no statute of limitations.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at Statute_of_limitations? ManOfTeeth (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's not clear whether sexual assault is heinous or not. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Unfortunately that paragraph is unreferenced, and in any case doesn't specifically mention any crimes other than murder. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like he could, in theory - but given what this article says, there was unsufficient evidence 20 years ago. So unless there's new evidence, it could be a problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In reference to Medeis' comment above, it's important to keep the discussion to what has already been published. On TV shows where they talk about some particular case, they often go into what could be called "abstract mode", where they talk about the various laws and such in general terms rather than zeroing in on a specific individual. As to the OP's question, "could be" can be answered, "yes, could be". That doesn't mean "will be". There's no indication of what, if anything, the legal system is going to do with these resurfaced allegations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Did any of you attempt to even research an actual law? Or do you like referring to a two sentence section in an already badly referenced article as though it were canon. Federal law has a very specific statute (generally chapter 213... there are some novel exceptions, like for art theft, that might surprise people) that addresses this, with a few exceptions scattered throughout the Code. State law varies a lot. I've seen more misunderstandings of SoL on here than any other singular topic. Shadowjams (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And did you read my answer before effectively asking if I 'attempt to research an actual law'? I posted before anyone else and didn't link to any of our articles. And I provided a direct link to what appears to be the most relevant Connecticut law, a link to an amendment which introduced one of these laws, a discussion from the Connecticut government explaining the law covering similar offences a bit (while concentrating on the situation in 1971, it does try to explain the law at the time it was written and how it changed as well), and 2 refs which quote the state attorney involved saying the the SoL expired a while ago. State law may vary a lot but discussing the situation Connecticut makes a lot of sense here.
 * I'm not sure if allegations have covered any other state, but I tailored my answer to be general, mentioning using the Connecticut example that both possibilities exist. Since as I mentioned under the law in 1992 the SoL has likely expired for the historic allegations but if similar allegations covered activity in 2002, there may very well be no SoL. (Which I thought the OP would be smart enough to recognise means it's possible that this could have been the case in some other state in ~1992 as I implied at the beginning of my post although as I also mentioned the actual laws in Connecticut are irrelevant to any other state.)
 * IANAL and never in any way indicated I was one so I also mentioned that I wasn't totally sure what would happen if new allegations surfaced which weren't really mentioned before (I didn't give an example but I thought it would be obvious there are many possibilities, e.g. if a sex act is alleged which wasn't before). Not mentioned but I thought it was obvious, my intepretation of the law could be wrong (although as I mentioned it seems to concur with the state attorney involved) and there could potentially be other provisions of Connecticut law the offences would come under which different SoL. (The links I provided to mention some additional stuff, e.g. the DNA provision which I didn't bring up since it didn't seem likely to be relevant in this case.)
 * I didn't mention federal law because I wasn't sure if the alleged offences would be covered under any provision of federal law and thought someone else would mention if they were.
 * Unlike perhaps some of my others, I don't felt my original post is particularly long, perhaps some would prefer one of two more paragraphs even though I personally feel it's fine as is. Either way you're obviously free to ignore it before replying except that you shouldn't if you're going to disparage all previous answers in a blanket fashion.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Jack Cornwell VC shell splinters
I thought that I would have a go at improving our Jack Cornwell page (we're both from Leyton), as large chunks of it are unreferenced. The "Battle of Jutland" section claims that the gun shields on Cornwell's ship, HMS Chester, were too short and many of the gun crews suffered severe leg injuries as a result. I'm struggling to find a source for this; Jutland, 1916: Death in the Grey Wastes by Peter Hart, Nigel Steel has several eye witness accounts of the carnage on the deck of HMS Chester but no mention of short gun shields. The Imperial War Museum's page says "...the forecastle received a direct hit as a result of which every member of Cornwell’s gun crew were either killed or wounded"; presumably the explosion was behind the open-backed shield. Can anybody shed any light on this? I have posted the same question on the article's talk page, but it doesn't seem to be very busy. Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail ("the open-backed gun-shields did not reach the deck to give protection") and the Boy Scouts of Western Cape ("The gun mountings were merely open backed shields and did not reach the deck. Splinters were thus able to pass under them or enter the open back when shells exploded near or behind.") both think so, but for a really definitive answer, it would seem that the Imperial War Museum is the best place to ask, seeing as they have the very gun at which he served. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that I might go with "some sources suggest" unless I can find anything published by the IWM. The open-backed shields seem to have been the main issue; the Royal Navy persisted with these until the 1960s, because they're much lighter than fully enclosed ones. Alansplodge (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wealth and Divine Reward
The world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. Most rich countries are Christian. Most Christian countries are rich. Rich Christian countries include America, European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. They are Western, Northern, and First World countries. Britain began and invented the Industrial Revolution and had the world's largest colonial empire. America is the world's only superpower, has the world's largest economy, and is a very capitalist and anti-communist country. Is this because God rewards or blesses them?

Great Time (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See Webber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You've already asked this question, multiple times. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Baseball Bugs. I just thought you might like to know that you've just written, "You've already asked this question, multiple times."  I hope you find my observation helpful!  212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wealth and Divine Reward (cont.)
About my last question, I didn't ask exactly the same question. The last question I asked was, "Why?". The next question I asked was, "Is this because God rewards or blesses them?". See. It's different.

Great Time (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

America, Australia and Secular Republics
Is America a secular republic? Is Australia a secular republic?

Great Time (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Read America and Australia and report back. I'd love to know.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The USA is certainly secular. There are occasional minor encroachments of religion, like inserting "under God" into the pledge of allegiance, but there's a huge difference between that and a theocracy. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Australia most definitely is not. Whether or not it's secular depends on your definition, but it's not a republic for sure.  Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops: There is an obscure animal called a crowned republic.  Our article gives Australia as one example.   --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PS @Beland below: Australia´s head of state is, of course, QEII.  She is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (17.1% of the population).  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Great_Time -- The United States is a secular republic, modified by Ceremonial Deism, granting tax-exempt status to religious bodies (without discrimination by denomination), and declaring Christmas to be an official federal holiday. It's up to you to decide whether this meets your definition of "secular" or not... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither have a state religion, which is a good metric. -- Beland (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey, we also have the article secular state which goes into a bit more depth worldwide. -- Beland (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)