Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 May 9

Humanities desk
< May 8	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 10 >

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.

May 9

Preferring a libel

OED's entry for "libel" includes three sub-points for definition 3:

• The writing or document of the plaintiff containing his allegations and instituting a suit. [civil]
• The first plea, or the plaintiff's written declaration or charges, in a cause. [ecclesiastical]
• The form of complaint or ground of the charge on which either a civil or criminal prosecution takes place. [Scots]

Do we have anywhere that covers any of these uses, either a single article or a collection of them? Libel (disambiguation) doesn't have anything, and "libel" doesn't appear in Scots law. It's often broader than criminal charge, so we shouldn't redirect there. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Curiously, there's no link on that disambig page to Defamation. Might that be what you're looking for? Should that be added as an entry on the disambiguation page? Or am I missing the boat? Eliyohub (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, libel is a type of defamation, which some jurisdictions draw distinction from other forms. --Jayron32 15:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, defamation is entirely different: in the sense I'm seeking, a libel is the charge, not the alleged action upon which the charge is based. A random example of the usage I'm seeking is [1]. Meanwhile, libel (disambiguation) does link to defamation — the first line links to libel, which redirects there. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

What counts as "defamatory" - example being suggesting someone is homosexual

What brought this question to mind was me hearing about a celebrity (whom I will not name, due to someone being sure to cry "BLP!") apparently suing a media outlet over suggestions that he was, in fact, a closet homosexual. But my question is not particularly about the specifics of that particular case - it's a broader question about the legal issues.

NOW, I can CLEARLY see this as defamatory (or at least damaging) in three specific situations:

1. The individual is married to, or in a committed relationship with, a member of the opposite sex (obviously!). In this case, the implication is that they are being unfaithful to their partner. Something generally still frowned on in much of society (or so I presume!).

2. The individual has in the past professed anti-homosexuality beliefs (be they religion based or otherwise). In this case, the implication is that the individual is a hypocrite.

3. The individual works for an organization which will "punish" him if he is "outed" - e.g. he works for a church, and risks getting fired if the church believes that he is homosexual.

NOW: What about someone publishing such a claim ("celebrity X is secretly gay") about a celebrity who falls into neither of the above categories? (Obviously, assuming the celebrity alleges that the claim is entirely false!)

Could the publisher simply say "regardless of whether the claim that they are homosexual is true or false, in the modern world, being gay is simply no longer something derogatory or shameful"?

I suppose this feeds into the "broader question": how do you define what is or is not a "negative" or "derogatory" claim against an individual in the context of defamation law? (I'm using homosexuality as an example, as it's something that some see as absolutely repulsive, yet equally, many see it as something to be proud of, and not remotely wrong or shameful).

(NOTE:, this is purely a question about defamation law - not "privacy law".

@John M Baker: I know defamation law is not your area, but nonetheless, you have given me helpful answers on the topic in the past - so I'm pinging you just in case you have any thoughts on this. Other refdesk users PLEASE DO offer your $0.02 . @Neutrality: and @Mendaliv:, given that you both have answered legal questions for me in the past, I hope it's ok to give you a ping. Eliyohub (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• According to Defamation, the statement has to be 1) false 2) expressed to someone other than the defamed and the defamer, and 3) harmful to the reputation of the defamed person. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 15:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps somewhat, but not really - it just illustrates my point - the rub is in point 3. "Harmful to the reputation" in whose eyes? The hypothetical Reasonable person would think less of him or her? A majority of the population would? A significant minority of the population? Isolated individuals? (Even the "reasonable person test" would be challenging when it comes to issues over which different parts of society have such polarized views, I would think. But is "reasonable person" even the legal test? Or is the test something else? Eliyohub (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Harmful to the reputation in the eyes of a court of law. There is no other means to determine whether it is or is not harmful. Questions of law are settled in courts of law. --Jayron32 16:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know anything about legal decisions and precedents, but according to this 1995 newspaper article, at that time the U.S. government chose to no longer regard homosexuality as being a potentially blackmailable liability when it came to issuing security clearances... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it was part of Executive Order 12968... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Homosexuality is still illegal in many countries. See LGBT rights by country or territory. It's also widely condemned in some countries where it's legal. People who don't state the country in a country-specific post are usually American so I will guess that. Defamation#Defamation per se says: "The conception of what type of allegation may support an action for defamation per se can evolve with public policy. For example, in May 2012 an appeals court in New York, citing changes in public policy with regard to homosexuality, ruled that describing someone as gay is not defamation." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

References

As long as homosexuality is illegal in a number of countries in the world, I guess I could argue in court that being outed will prevent me from ever working in a those countries, since I can no longer deny it as easily as before the outing, and if I really wanted to work in those countries, I could get arrested at any point after my arrival (example if I ever wanted to work in the oil industry in Saudi Arabia). So it is harmful for my career to out me, since you are reducing my future work opportunities. Once it is legal everywhere, I am not sure what harm a judge would accept, maybe if there are still many bigots around, and no laws against discrimination, that would still be the case that outing is harmful. Once you have laws everywhere forbidding discrimination based on sexuality, these defamation cases would be rejected, and only the question of privacy would acceptable against the specific type of outing presented by the OP.--Lgriot (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Eliyohub, I've been on vacation. My understanding is that some courts in the United States consider a false allegation of homosexuality to be defamatory per se, while others consider it to be defamatory only to the extent that resulting harm can be shown. The traditional argument for per se liability is that the allegation implies immorality, unchastity, or criminal conduct. As to the latter view, one such court reasoned that per se classifications and per se damages are not favored, and courts should use caution in applying them to imputations of homosexuality since homosexuals do not belong in a category of persons deserving of "social approbation" [sic] such as thieves, murderers, and prostitutes; and there is no empirical evidence demonstrating that homosexuals are held by society in such poor esteem as unequivocably to expose them to public hatred or contempt. One would expect a movement generally from the first to the second group of holdings, but I don't know enough about the subject to confirm that this is happening. John M Baker (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Round chests

Why are the tops of chests round? That's the kind of chests pirates store their pieces of eight in. SpinningSpark 20:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Our article on Chest (furniture) writes (unreferenced): "Domed chests with their lid shape would have thrown off water and discouraged their use as seats. This use of the chests in the 15th to 16th centuries made the chest have a longer life due to the conditions the chest avoided, such as water or using them as seats." The first purpose, to shed off water, can be found in books online as well (though I don't know how authoritative they are, e.g. Boxes & Chests: How to Make and Decorate 15 Traditional Country Projects by Alan and Gill Bridgewater, Stackpole Books, 1997, p 107, ISBN 9780811725590). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the chest is full of stuff, the domed top would have made it easier to open and close compared to a rectangular top, and easier to get past the top layer of stuff compared with a flat lid. It also would have been lighter than a flat-sided chest of the same volume, by the isoperimetric inequality. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Mostly to stop other luggage being stacked on them. Other reasons too.

There are two forms of "round top" here. One is approximately cylindrical, the other is domed in two axes. The domed sort are late and rare.

Chests are some of the oldest types of furniture. All recorded history which includes "furniture" has had some sort of chest: large, small, portable, immobile, used for storage, used for travel, even used as seating. Nearly all have flat tops.

Norse chest making used solid lids (basically flat) but these were carved - hollowed on the inside and rounded on the outside - they were probably used as seating. Medieval chests were mostly flat (and immobile) but one important group was the 'ark' (These were made by arkwrights, still a surname around today. An arkwright also used an early form of joinery, more sophisticated than carpentry, less so than later joinery). These were used for storing flour and their lids used as kneading troughs. Those lids were made of three boards between end-boards, giving a shallow "dome" rather than being flat.

The "pirate" chest is made from a rectangular base with a cylindrical lid made with staves, similar to barrel making. There are several reasons for this, mostly structural as it gives a light lid that's also very resistant to damage. It's also made from small timber - a wide flat lid as a single board would be getting hard to find by now, and also it's resistant to the effects of moisture and cracking or warping as the timber dried out. Such chests were waterproofed by coating them in oilcloth.[2]

The two-axis domed chest appears in the seventeenth century, but is mostly seen in the eighteenth. An era of public transport by stagecoach, where weatherproofing was needed and the avoidance of peasants stacking more chests on top considered useful. They were lightweight, but expensive to make and not as robust. In the later nineteenth century, modern manufacturing techniques start to make these double-curved surfaces much easier to make, using plywood techniques. They became almost popular in the US, again in an era of shared public transport, by coach and railway. By the twentieth century though, the shipping costs for dome-topped trunks had been increased specifically, because they were so awkward to stack. As a result, most people adopted the steamer trunk, a rectangular and stackable shape.

Lon Schleining (2003). Treasure Chests: The Legacy of Extraordinary Boxes. Taunton Press. ISBN 156158651X. is a good read as an overview, although a bit lightweight. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Post-1967 Israeli settlement construction in the Jerusalem area

A map of Israeli settlements in the Jerusalem area in May 2006.

What motivated Israel to build a lot of settlements in the Jerusalem area after 1967? Was it simply because a lot of Israelis wanted to live in the Jerusalem area, but with a lower cost of housing? Was there a large religious motivation behind this? Or was there some other factor behind this?

Any thoughts on this? Indeed, I've noticed that a huge part (possibly a majority) of the post-1967 Israeli settlement in the West Bank took place in the Jerusalem area. Futurist110 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It's true that a lot of Israelis living beyond the 1949 Green Line reside in areas just a small distance beyond the Green Line, mainly because potential uncertainty about future status keeps housing prices down there. Many of those people rarely see an Arab (their neighborhoods have easier access to pre-1967 Israel than to the rest of the West Bank), and don't really think of themselves as "settlers" in the usual sense. However, in the Jerusalem area, the Israeli government established Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem as part of a conscious plan to try to make the annexation of east Jerusalem irreversible -- i.e. to make any attempt to return to the 1949-1967 status quo, which was extremely unsatisfactory to Israel (many synagogues in the traditional Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem had been destroyed, Jews were not permitted to travel to Jerusalem holy sites, Israel was not given the access to the Mount Scopus / Hebrew University enclave which had been promised in the armistice agreement etc.) effectively impossible. AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that certainly makes sense. Indeed, it really does look like Israel placed a much higher value on Judaizing Jerusalem and its suburbs (such as Ma'ale Adummim, Givat Ze'ev, and Gush Etzion) than it placed on Judaizing the rest of the West Bank due to Jerusalem's political and religious importance to Israel. It this regard, it has certainly succeeded to a large extent--though not to the point that a Palestinian capital in the Arab-majority neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would be impossible. Futurist110 (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is the correct book title?

I've recently created a catalogue for my personal library, in part because it's grown so large that I've paid good money for a book I forgot I already had.

One thing that struck me was that it's not always a simple matter to decide the actual formal title of a book. The title can appear on:

• the spine
• the front cover
• the blurb inside the front cover
• the flyleaf (is that what it's called? usually the very first page; a blank page except for the title)
• the title page
• sometimes there's a second flyleaf
• miscellaneous other "front matter"
• at the head of left-hand pages (whereas, chapter names would go at the head of right-hand pages)
• the blurb inside the back cover
• the back cover.

It's rare for the name to appear in all these places in the one book, but I've found examples of all of them. Trouble is, the name can vary from place to place in the same book.

As well, books (particularly non-fiction) sometimes have sub-titles, but the sub-titles tend to appear in only some of the places where the title is given, which leads me to wonder about the status of the sub-titles.

So, is there any iron-clad rule that tells a reader which variant of the title is the one to trust? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Not that I've ever found. I tend to go with the title on the title page for my catalogue (I too have sometimes bought books I already had). DuncanHill (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the RDA standard, used by libraries, is to use the title page. I know the folks in our cataloguing department, who work one floor below me, always use the title page when creating or correcting MaRCs. If you're not sure what to do, you can always check the book at WorldCat, which (among other things) supports searching by ISBNs. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

WorldCat reproduces the errors made by the contributing libraries. MaRC's are not error free, and I've seen three different ISBN's on a single volume. DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A major problem (at least with ebooks) is libraries relying on autogenerated vendor MaRCs (without cleaning them up) and setting WorldCat holdings, rather than merely making them visible locally. Judging by the words of my cataloguing colleagues, this is responsible for a huge share of errors for ebooks in particular. Meanwhile, it's quite common to include multiple ISBNs in a single volume (and in a MaRC), for the sake of those searching by ISBN — for example, a title page may list the ISBN for that edition, for another binding (e.g. paper versus cloth), and for electronic, and also the publisher may include both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. (Lately, I've been running a project at work that sometimes involves searching for six ISBNs simultaneously, thus catching three different editions with both sizes of ISBNs.) My point in mentioning them is that you can search that way as well; you're not restricted to searching by title when you're not quite sure what the title is. And finally, if you decide to use WorldCat and find several entries, do like many cataloguers and use the entry with the largest number of holdings. In particular, you'll often find one or two entries with one holding institution (particularly ones in non-anglophone countries) and one with dozens of holdings. Go with the latter. Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

When I said three different ISBN's on a single volume, I didn't mean the ones used to shew hard/soft back, etc, I meant one facing the title page, another on the back cover, and a third on the dustjacket, only one of which was a valid ISBN. WorldCat errors are by no means confined to ebooks in my experience. My point was that library catalogues are not error-free and cannot be relied upon as reliable sources for a book's title. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

So, since we don't have a clue how to follow the standards that we set, who are the authorities? Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(ec)Nor of course can they be relied upon for an author's name. WorldCat has entries for an author called "Alfred Lestie Rowe", who has never existed. The books ascribed to him were all written by A. L. Rowse. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Jack, just for your edification, your fourth bulleted item is technically called the half-title or bastard title (or the fourth and sixth items are called the bastard title and half-title, respectively). It's always been my understanding that the "official" title of a book is the one printed on the title page. All the other instances you cite may feature a shortened or otherwise altered title. Deor (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Jack, I know this has been marked "resolved", but I still want to submit my 2 cents. Lewis Carroll was a genius at this stuff. See Haddocks' Eyes. Four titles for one song, and no contradiction. The article that on links to, Use–mention distinction, may also be relevant. Eliyohub (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)