Humanities desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 18

By Today's Standards, What Kind of Socialist is Babeuf?

Babeuf supports the abolition of currency, but still wants to retain the existence of national borders, and I'm not sure if that would make him a Marxist or a non-Marxist socialist. I'm also not sure if Babeuf is closer to left-authoritarianism or left-libertarianism. Eougt59 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's pre-Marxist. Some would call all pre-Marxist socialists "utopian", and "Utopian socialism" appears in the infobox of his article... AnonMoos (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was regarded as the first revolutionary communist. He advocated for equality in society and the abolition of private property. However, in today’s standards, justice and equity are more important than equality. Stanleykswong (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limits to property rights of non-living items

Suppose, purely hypothetically, that Billy O'Nair has acquired a Sunflowers painting, completely legally, being the highest bidder at an auction. At a whim, he decides to destroy it. Could Mr. O'Nair face legal consequences? More generally, are there jurisdictions that to some extent protect the preservation of highly-valued and possibly irreplaceable items, even when they have not specifically been awarded some official status such as "national treasure"? Or, conversely, are there jurisdictions for which it is foreseeable – such as based on jurisprudence – that such vile abuse of one's stewardship over one's property can be exercised with impunity?

(I am aware of the fact that "highly-valued" has a subjective aspect. But so do many other commonly accepted terms used in legal contexts, such as "reasonable care", "cruel and unusual", "undue hardship", so please do not get stuck on that.) --Lambiam 14:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the jurisdiction in question (ie: the state), considers the preservation of an item to be something desirable, then why has the state not taken control over it? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a nation will intervene in auctions to prevent a cultural item leaving the country. On the other hand, Steve Wynn put his elbow through Le Rêve (Picasso) without getting thrown into a UNESCO dungeon or anything. He even wanted money back for doing it. Card Zero (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Right to Destroy Artwork says that in the UK, the owner of the work can do with it as they please, citing the destruction of Graham Sutherland's Portrait of Winston Churchill by Churchill's widow or staff. In France there are droits d’auteur (author's rights) which allows the artist to object to the destruction of his work, although in the OP's example, any copyright would have expired long since. Similar rights exist in the USA under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, the painting was destroyed within a year after its creation, some ten years before Churchill's death – although I do not see this early destruction date in the cited source. --Lambiam 05:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article "The Right to Destroy Artwork" states that The Visual Artists Rights Act includes the prohibition of destruction of artwork. A speaker in the House of Representatives is reported as having given the rationale that "society is the ultimate loser when works are modified or destroyed", which comes close to the essence of my question. However, the act only grants rights to the author, which only persist for their lifetime, so this stated rationale is not the intention of the law. --Lambiam 06:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A citation leads me to Sprankling, John G (2014). "The Right to Destroy". The International Law of Property. Oxford. WP:Library doesn't seem to be working for me right now, but the abstract hints it might be useful. Of course many jurisdictions have limitations on the use of real property and some might possibly apply before something is "designated" historic. fiveby(zero) 17:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the wplibrary link.

International law restricts the owner’s right to destroy artistic works by recognizing the artist’s right of integrity. The principal source of this limitation is the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention), which applies to all “literary and artistic works,” including architecture, paintings, photographs, and sculpture. Article 6bis sets forth the moral rights held by the creator of such a work, including the right of integrity. It provides that even after the transfer of all “economic rights” in the work, the creator retains the right “to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.”...Most states have adopted domestic laws to protect this right.
— p. 298

Adeney, Elizabeth (2006). The Moral Rights of Authors and Performers: An International and Comparative Analysis. Oxford. lists the jurisdiction and statutes but no wplibrary access. Examples given are Martin v City of Indianapolis and Felseneiland mit Sirenen (1912) (Germany). However:

The right of integrity is not based on society’s interest in safeguarding artistic property from damage, but rather on protecting the honor and reputation of the creator...Even assuming that destruction is a form of “mutilation” or “other modification,” it does not violate the right of integrity unless it also prejudices the “honor or reputation” of the creator...In practice, the right of integrity is an unwieldy tool to prevent mutilation or destruction
— pp. 299-300

You might also be interested in the "Cultural Heritage Property" section, but the conclusion in 2014 was:

International law does not currently prohibit a private owner from destroying cultural heritage property. At this juncture, it can only be called an emerging trend, not a customary norm or a general principle of law. However, given the rate at which international cultural heritage law has expanded in recent decades, it seems likely that the momentum toward restricting such destruction will continue.
— p. 302

fiveby(zero) 22:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of heritage/listing systems is to limit what owners can do with their own real estate. See List of heritage registers. On a local level (and not listed in that article) properties in the UK may be in a Conservation area, which has a similar aim. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This case may be of interest, though in the end nothing came of it. Matt Deres (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK we have the concept of a Listed building, which restricts what changes can be made to certain houses and other constructions. A famous recent case was a pub called The Crooked House, which burned down in suspicious circumstances; the owners were ordered to rebuild it in its original form. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Consistory

The article section Fandango#Condemnation_and_liberation_by_Spanish_Church mentions a Consistory as a Spanish ecclesiastical authority, but the link is to Consistorium, which was a feature of the Roman empire. Do we have a more appropriate article to link to? Possibly Papal consistory or Ecclesiastical_court#Catholic_Church Rojomoke (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rojomoke; from a quick Google and looking at sources like this and this, it seems that an ecclesiastical court is the intended meaning. Alansplodge (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So amended. Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Diamond still a featured article?

Hi. I was wondering if Diamond is still a featured article? I doubt it since it was promoted a long time ago, but please let me know. Thank You. 2605:B100:14A:9E08:514F:EF1E:75E0:8084 (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop asking. You can check this for yourself very easily. Featured articles have a gold star at the top right of the page and if you hover over it, it will say that the article is at featured status. The talk page will also explicitly say whether an article is at featured status or not. Matt Deres (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to such questions,

you will find at WP:FEATURED that featured article status persists (even if only honorary)

until an article is deleted or moved from its location (name) 130.74.58.180 (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]