Miscellaneous desk
< February 17	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

February 18[edit]

Chris Wallace on Fox[edit]

wikipedia reference desk is not a place for idle chat or speculation --Jayron 32 13:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How can Chris Wallace get away with being liberal on Fox without being fired? Is it because he brings reputation benefits to the network, since he is respected? Or does he know embarrassing things about top management at Fox?Rich (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who says he's a liberal, and who says Fox doesn't allow diversity of opinion in its commentators? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he’s not that liberal, he just resembles typical liberals in integrity and devotion to facts.

He's an investigative reporter, like his father was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3 questions about motor vehicle theft.[edit]

This page says that motor vehicle theft is a crime in virtually (almost) all jurisdictions of the world; where isn’t it? What’s the easiest way to steal a car; while there’s someone behind the steering wheel (what’s the crime called, then?( or not?--62.242.41.180 (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of car are you looking to steal? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spam.--5.33.0.137 (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes... manufactured by Hormel Motors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about..--62.242.41.180 (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The UK had a problem with this some years ago. As the legal definition of 'theft' was based on "taking with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it" it wasn't clear that 'stealing a car' was theft. There was a problem at the time (1990s) with joyriding, where the scrotes involved made the excuse of 'giving it back afterwards' (probably wrapped around a tree) and thus avoided theft charges. To clear up this loophole, the offence of taking without owner's consent or 'TWOCing' was created to cover this specifically. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exact rules about New Zealanders entering Australia[edit]

Request for legal advice Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My understanding (based on this) is that New Zealanders can apply for a Special Category Visa when they travel to Australia. However this requires that one fill out an Incoming passenger card, as visible here. One of the questions that must be answered is "What is your usual occupation?" My question is, can one answer "none" or "unemployed" if in fact one is unemployed? If one answers the question that way, will one still be permitted entrance to Australia? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can't provide legal advice here, you should contact the Australian High Commission if you need to know how a certain case will be treated. However as a general reminder, with arrival cards or any similar official documents in most countries it's not a matter of "can" but "must" when it comes to telling the truth. Lying on such official documents is a good way to ensure you'll get in trouble e.g. fined and probably denied entry. Precisely how the truth will be handled will depend on the specific case, country etc, but it'll often be better then lying. If there is any doubt about what the question means, you should probably indicate the uncertainty on the card and seek out and explain your confusion to customs or immigration. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not asking for legal advice, or suggesting that I would lie about anything in a case such as this (which I would consider beneath my dignity even if I thought I could get away with it, which I doubt). The question was, basically, whether a person would be admitted to Australia if he writes "unemployed" in the "What is your usual occupation" section of an Incoming passenger card - a perfectly valid inquiry which your response does not answer. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Your question as worded is exactly the sort of question which does fall under our legal advice limitation, especially since you are from New Zealand. Also you did say "can". I can't comment on what the correct answer is to this question when you are unemployed, but it's unlikely it's case of "can" do anything. If the Australians expect you to say unemployed if you are unemployed then it's not likely that you "can" do that. It's far more likely that you "must" do so. If you didn't understand this, it's precisely why you should seek guidance from actual officials, not random wikipedians. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's like asking, "would someone be sent to prison if they were guilty of murder" - a general question about a legal matter like that is not a request for legal advice. Whether the question is acceptable or not has of course nothing to do with where I'm from. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The question on which advice is sought is

What is your usual occupation?

It may be that the applicant has tried his hand at a number of jobs but is not currently engaged in any occupation. In that situation, as a matter of English usage, "none" would be a perfectly truthful answer. 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:890F:6145:E7B2:A97D (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask anything about the law at the Wikipedia reference desk?[edit]

Hello. My question is, can I ask any question at all about the law on the Wikipedia reference desk, such as whether a particular act is legal in a particular country? Or are such questions forbidden here on the grounds that they are requests for legal advice? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the question. And a standard response could be, "It depends on the laws in a particular region." So for the preceding question, your best bet is to contact the authorities or check their website for what the rules are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to ask questions about the law as long as they are carefully framed as requests for information rather than advice. In other words, if you don't want to fall foul of the no-legal-advice crew, be careful how you word your question. For example, "I live in England, I live in a rented flat and I'm thinking of changing the locks. Is that legal?" would not be allowed as a question, whereas "Is it legal to change the locks of a rented property in England?" is allowable. --Viennese Waltz 11:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it also gets complicated, because the answer could depend on the terms of the lease, not necessarily just the law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note however for that reason, questions that are unnecessarily specific will general raise concerns even if they are nominally phrased as requests for information especially since they are difficult to answer with refs. For example, if someone were to ask whether a Kiwi can move to live and work in Australia via the Special Category Visa, that would generally be answered without concerns. (It's clearly yes in some cases, as they do it all the time [1] [2]. And it's also something the visa itself should tell you anyway [3] [4].) If someone adds unemployed to the Kiwi part, it's still likely to be seen as an okay question, especially since it's probably possible to find refs about this if someone looks hard enough. (Although frankly unnecessary. It's fairly unlikely all those people moving to Australia have either found jobs before they move, or moved and then quit their job.) If someone asks what happens when a a specific form is filled out in a specific way, that raises far more concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In case there's still some confusion, a key point is that for a lot of questions dealing with legal issues, there's no definite answer for a general case. For example, unemployed Kiwis may be able to go to Australia on the SCV, but precisely under what conditions, what they need to do etc is complicated. The Australian government publishes general advice. We can link to that advice and other information on this and related issues if someone asked an appropriate question. But we can't say what will happen in a specific situation. If someone needs that, the simple solution is to seek appropriate advice e.g. from an official or someone else competent to give such advice. (There are lots of issue not touched on since no one asked an appropriate question. Q10 for example [5]. These sources also touch on a related issue for which there doesn't seem to be any guidance for SCV [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Or early I mentioned "live and work" but clearly people can also just want to visit a place. Again, I'm sure info could be found on unemployed Kiwis visiting Australia if someone looks hard enough. Although it's not like it's something that never comes up with visitor/tourist visa either. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) America has a Common Law system but I noticed Bugs talking about "the terms of the lease" in a discussion about rented residential property in England. The term "rented" would imply the existence of a tenancy. Tenants can rent from either freeholders or leaseholders. A lease is a contract between the freeholder (lessor) and lessee (leaseholder). Commercial property is more complicated (there are "head leases" and suchlike), but countries whose legal systems are based on Civil Law don't recognise leases at all. 2A00:23A8:4015:F500:890F:6145:E7B2:A97D (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the better term could be "rental agreement". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skating posture[edit]

I looked at a few howtos for the fundamentals of the sport. For ice (figure) skating, the first tutorial I saw, narrated by a pro, says the most important thing to start with is good posture. Ie, standing up straight. But the howtos for roller (inline) skating all seem to recommend bent ankles and knees & leaning forward. Intuitively, "good posture" seems like a better idea. Why the discrepancy, when ice skating and inline skating are so similar? Should I stand up straight or no? Temerarius (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Racing and figure skating are significantly different disciplines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A figure skater isn't going to be stiff as a board all through their performance. But while performing their maneuvers, they'll keep a good posture with their upper body. And, of course, bend their knees and ankles to absorb a landing, jump, etc. But to build up speed prior to a maneuver, they'll be leaning forward and using their legs as an inline skater does to build up that speed. See this image and you'll see that the figure skater's upper body remains fairly rigid while the knees and ankles are working. †dismas†|^(talk) 23:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Figure skating is to speed skating as dance is to running. They are different disciplines with different goals and different techniques. Lots of activities can be done on skates, and they don't all work the same. You wouldn't hold the same posture dancing the cha-cha as you would running a hundred meter dash. --Jayron 32 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

San Miguel Mountain[edit]

Is it true that San Miguel Mountain is located in Chula Vista, California? Google Maps and OSM show the mountain outside of Chula Vista area. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 18:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I found out is that it is located in Jamul CCD. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 18:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there is a Mt San Miguel Park within the Chula Vista boundary - which may indicate that while the summit may be outwith the community, parts of the larger mountain may well be within it. 2A00:23C5:2208:4600:4D30:7EA3:68E6:3867 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no map or GIS by offical authorities where one can look up the borders of communities? --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]