Humanities desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 12 >

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.

December 11

Legal advise question

Is it a crime in Australia to impersonate people such as Elizabeth II and her son? OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you seriously title this question after a thing we are explicitly not allowed to do? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I meant it ironically, so it should be OK, right? OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not irony; that's just trolling.Dncsky (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.OsmanRF34 (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This is a perfectly legitimate question, notwithstanding Dncsky's lack of humor and Shadowjams' personal conflict with Osman. --140.180.249.194 (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supposing that Australia has freedom of speech, the mere fact of impersonating someone, such as for satirical effect, shouldn't be a problem, as the audience will know the reality. The problem in this case is the possibility that the impersonation caused harm to someone. The media are talking about the possibility of bringing criminal charges. But since the investigators are still working on finding out the full story, of the apparent suicide of the one who initially took the call, it's a wait-and-see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really big and unsupported supposition you lead off with, Bugs, given that no state of which I'm aware protects unconditional free speech (the "'fire!' in a crowded theater" test, for example). And "impersonate the (maybe) head of state" is a not-insignificant condition. Note also that the US-centric view of "freedom of speech is an explicitly protected right" is really not very applicable beyond the US; the Australian constitution has no such explicit guarantee, instead relying on preexisting tradition. — Lomn 14:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I worded it the way I did. There's a long tradition in America of making fun of politicians, and that includes mimicking them. The thing is, though, that the audience knows that it's an imitation. In the case in question, the recipient of the call didn't know, which opens the door to possible legal action of some kind. If you've got laws in Australia forbidding making fun of your politicians, that's rather sad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the original question: while I don't think this is a legal advice question as such (it seems unlikely you can take much action based on any information we provide), it's at a minimum important to note that no one here is capable of providing a good legal opinion, either. No answer of "yes", "no", or anything else should be taken as anything but unsupported personal ramblings -- mine included. Now, with that out of the way: this site purports to be a guide to the high points of Australian law regarding identity crime. Much as with the US, applicable Australian law will be a mix of federal and state laws, so "in Australia" isn't a narrow enough definition to answer the question. Also applicable but unanswered is whether QE2 can be considered a government official, as that may have bearing regarding criminal impersonation. More questions remain, and the net effect is that no one here can tell you. Likely, even your Australian lawyer can't actually tell you whether or not it's illegal until the matter is settled at trial -- because "is it a crime?" frequently comes down to "was someone convicted for it?". — Lomn 14:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a question that may have an answer is, "Is impersonating a specific royal, or pretending to be royalty, a crime in commonwealth countries?" Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that would depend on the country. Most Commonwealth countries (38 out of the 54) are independent republics that have their own head of state, their own legal systems etc. The ones that have QEII as the head of state (the 16 Commonwealth realms) are still all independent sovereign nations, with their own legal systems etc. That's part and parcel of the Statute of Westminster. What may be true in Papua New Guinea is not necessarily true in Canada, etc. The only thing, legally, that the Commonwealth realms have in common is that they share the same head of state.

But I can tell you that if impersonating a specific royal, or pretending to be royalty, is a crime in Australia, then there are a lot of people who should be getting immediate legal advice. These include Max Gillies, Gerry Connolly and others. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if it's a problem in the UK, the entire career of Jeannette Charles would be up in smoke. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Helen Mirren would have to be shackled and sent to The Tower. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also weighing back in: your proposed question is not nearly specific enough for a definitive answer. Is it "impersonating a royal" or "pretending to be royalty"? For what purpose? With the attempt to fool what people? It is possible that your question has a definite answer ("yes, in all cases" or "no, never, regardless of circumstances"), but I find that vanishingly unlikely. Consider that even "is it a crime to shoot and kill a man" does not have a 'yes' or 'no' answer. — Lomn 15:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

States vs. territories in Australia

Day-to-day, what differences are there between the powers of the state governments and the powers of the territorial governments? I get the impression from Australian governments that the states' existence can't be gotten rid of by Canberra, which could abolish all of the territories if they felt like it. However, since they're not likely to do that, what difference (if any) is there between the powers of Darwin over NT residents and the powers of Hobart over Tasmanians? I couldn't find anything at States and territories of Australia, although I admit (given the fact that it's past 2AM my time) that I could have overlooked something. Nyttend (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Parliament can overturn any territory law it deems undesirable. It's a rarely used measure, but it was used in 1997 - see Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. The Federal Parliament has no such power in relation to state laws. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Can overturn any territory law it deems undesirable" is precisely the kind of thing I was looking for. I'm getting the impression that Australian territories' relationships with Canberra is comparable to US territories' relationships with Washington, with the exception that an Australian territory elects voting members of Parliament while US territories only elect non-voting delegates; do I understand rightly? Unfortunately, the article you link doesn't have any sources for the "Overturning of the Act" section; could you perhaps find sources for that? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, Nyttend. I think this covers it nicely.

As for voting rights, all members of the Australian parliament have equal voting rights, regardless of whether they represent a state or a territory. It hasn't always been thus, though.

The now-defunct Division of Northern Territory was created in 1922. Until 1936, the member could participate in debates and take part in committee work, but could not vote at all. Between 1936 and 1959 the member was only able to veto motions to disallow laws made for the Territory. Between 1959 and 1968, the Member had limited voting rights, restricted to matters relating to the Territory alone. From 1968, the member had full voting rights.
The now-defunct Division of Australian Capital Territory was created in 1949. Between 1949 and 1966, the member could participate in debates unfettered and take part in committee work, but could only vote on matters affecting the ACT. From 1966, the member had full voting rights.

Another difference between the states and the territories is when it comes to referendums to change the Constitution. Under our system, for a proposed change to become law, it must get a majority of votes in the country overall, as well as a majority in a majority of states (i.e. at least 4). The ACT and NT votes are counted in the national total only. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean civilian war dead

In the Korean War. The article gives 1.5 million in the sidebar, but the reference for that figure doesn't actually say that. The article text only says "a large number". --149.135.146.49 (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a civil war, it was more a proxy war between China and the US/UN. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It was both of these things. Futurist110 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

((North Korean) civilian) (war dead). The war dead who were North Korean civilians. Not "civil war dead". --149.135.146.6 (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the only source I’ve found so far that separates North and South casualties. It estimates 1 million civilian deaths in the North with a note that the North Korean government has never published estimates; and it asserts that the 1 million figure is common among historians. Collateral Damage: Americans, Noncombatant Immunity, And Atrocity After ... by Sahr Conway-Lanz, CRC Press, p. 151. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fiction publishing/copyright

is it common for any novelist to get one's manuscript copyrighted before showing it to a literary agent or publisher? Won't the copyright delay or slow the process of publishing? However, most literary agents ask for first 3 chapters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.141.254 (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In most jurisdictions, copyright is automatic. You don't need to do anything to have something 'copyrighted', just as soon as you have written it, copyright applies. However in the USA, registration at the Copyright Office is required in order to receive compensation for Statutory damages. But copyright does apply even without registration, and after learning of infringement, the copyright owner has one month to register at the Copyright office if that has not been done already. Furthermore, it is not likely that book publishers will illegally publish a submitted manuscript, they'd soon go out of business, so registration prior to submitting a work for publication would not normally be considered necessary. - Lindert (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of good advice in the Writer Beware Blog published by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. (While SFWA's membership is obviously drawn from the community of SF&F writers, their advice, suggestions, and warnings are broadly applicable to most fiction publishing.) On copyright, they have (in part) this to say:

...Theft is a huge concern among new writers. Among the most frequent questions Writer Beware receives is how to guard against theft, and we get many, many anxious letters from writers who fear the agent who just asked for their manuscript is planning to steal it and sell it under someone else’s name.

Trust me–this isn’t going to happen. If your book is wonderful, an agent or editor is going to want to make money by getting it published, and it’s a whole lot more trouble to steal your manuscript and pretend someone else wrote it than just to work with you. If your book is terrible, an agent or editor isn’t going to want it at all. A good agency or publisher will not risk its reputation by stealing; a bad agency or publisher won’t steal because it has no interest in your writing, only in the fees it can extract from you....

I strongly urge you to read the rest of that column, as well as spend a bit of time poking around the rest of that site. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.149.10 (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

telling the right kinds of lies

I have a theory that in my personal acquiantanceship an inveteretate liar who tells the right kinds of lies about his background is almost as good as if he actually had that background: i.e. that I should give him credit for the right kinds of lies, i.e. that would actually be great if it were true.

Is there a name for my theory? Note: I am specifically asking as contrasted with inveterate liars who tell the "wrong" lies, i.e. stuff that doesn't help even if it were true.

The theory, then, is that having the knowledge and initiative to make the lie is almost as good as actually having that background. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me a little of Walter Mitty. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it, as far as references go. What would the theory be called that this is a positive trait? (e.g. for a potential employee to have, for example.) Or have I come up with the theory myself? Note: I would be on the receiving end of these lies, as an employer, so it truly is a theory that this is a positive correlation with other future performance! --91.120.48.242 (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the lies don't have to be as extravagent as your example or anything like that... --91.120.48.242 (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically about lying about one's background, but I think you would likely enjoy the nice essay "On Bullshit." Written by a philosopher, much effort is made to describe a consistent theory. One key difference between bullshitting and lying is that bullshit (as defined for the purpose of the essay) need not be false, but it often happens to be untrue. From our article `Frankfurt concedes that "the bullshitter is faking things", but that "this does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong"'. Basically, I think you'd agree with the author's conclusion that a good bullshitter is often a very smart and capable person (in your case, perhaps a good employee). I am unaware of freely available copies online, but it is well worth the cost to own, especially the nice pocket-sized hardback here [1] :) SemanticMantis (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ability to "bend the truth", without actually lying, is quite valuable, being used by politicians, salesmen, advertising companies, etc. The same is true of interpersonal relationships: "No, you're not fat, you're pleasingly plump, and if you'll get off my lap, I'd like to give you a hug" (said as he is turning purple from the load). However, these people learn not to say anything which can be proven false, as that can, and does, get them in trouble (like if he told someone else he thought she was fat, then denied it when asked). StuRat (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

raconteur. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland - loyalist violence and the police

I appreciate that things aren't always logical in N. Irish political violence, but it's puzzled me that the loyalist violence in the last few days seems to have been aimed in part at the police. I would have understood why republican extremists would target the police, as they're representative of a system they don't want, but surely loyalists would support the police force? Further reading appreciated, especially if it's easy to consume! --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People who like to cause violence generally don't like those people whose job it is to stop violence. --Jayron32 12:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PSNI was set up by an independent commission and is now supported and jointly controlled by all the major political parties in Northern Ireland. About 30% of its officers are Catholic. I don't think it should be surprising that extremists on both sides might have problems with it. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the abolition of its predecessor, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was bitterly opposed by many Loyalists, and some mainland politicians on the right, Norman Tebbit for one; but police reform was a keystone of Northern Ireland peace process. It should be noted however, that Loyalist mobs seemed to be equally willing to throw bricks at the RUC when it suited them. Dweller is not the only one who is puzzled as to why those professing so loudly to be loyal to the Crown, have so little regard for the authority of the Crown. Alansplodge (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourcing

Hi,

I would like to ask you a question about outsourcing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsourcing). I am not sure whether I got correctly the divison of outsourcing. So is it right, that BPO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_outsourcing) is subdivision of Outsourcing and that LPO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_outsourcing), ITO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology_outsourcing) or KPO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_process_outsourcing) are another subdivisions of BPO? Meaning that there is Outsourcing- then BPO is subdivision of it- then KPO, LPO or ITO are another subdivisions of BPO?

THank you very much! 213.220.246.32 (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda and its gun policy

I was amazed to read List of rampage killers and look at the African section and see how many of the mass murders took place in Uganda. Is there any article regarding this issue? Keeeith (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in our article on the history of Uganda. Modern Uganda has been in a near-constant state of political unrest and upheaval and, as such, formulating and enforcing something the average first worlder would recognize as a "gun policy" isn't in the cards. — Lomn 15:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You could start with reading about the History of Uganda. And look again at the cases listed, because they do not per se indicate any issues about gun policy in that country. The 1950 case, occurring under British rule of course, was a series of knifings. The 1983 incident was in the aftermath of the defeat of Idi Amin and during the Uganda Bush War. The two 1994 incidents were perpetrated by a soldier and a police constable. Recent figures for gun deaths and injuries are http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/uganda, and Uganda seems to have a greater number of gun deaths than the UK, but fewer than the USA. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both!Keeeith (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Radzymin (1920) - Content defaced by a malicious editor.

The article entitle, "Battle of Radzymin (1920)" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Radzymin_(1920) )appears to have malicious content at the end of the first paragraph. I am not an editor. Please take a look at it in order to remove the incorrect and offensive last sentence. As of this request, the last sentence of the first paragraph reads, "the biggest hero of the war was a badass nigga named Dean Rose. He had this to say after many victories, "tits are nice." these words, spoken by a true Russian hero. Fun fact: he had a 15 inch schlong."

The rest of the article appears correct, so it is likely that just this sentence needs to be removed.

Thanks.

AMA

Looks like it's been removed. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Thank you. -AMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.12 (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing it to our attention, AMA. Actually, you are an editor: Wikipedia is the Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If you find vandalism, you are welcome to correct it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturning territorial laws

In another thread Jack of Oz says of Australia, "The Federal Parliament can overturn any territory law it deems undesirable." How about in the US? Can Congress overturn a territorial law? Is the answer different depending on whether the territory has its own constitution (e.g., Puerto Rico) as opposed to only an Organic Act of Congress (e.g., the U.S. Virgin Islands)? Duoduoduo (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't answer your final question, but Congress repealed or modified various laws of the Michigan Territory in 1836, and that's why Ohio ended up with Toledo, thereby losing the Toledo War. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Toledo War, I can't find where it says that Congress repealed or modified various laws of the Michigan Territory -- can you be more specific? All I see is that Congress refused to admit Michigan as a state until it backed down. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer for Puerto Rico can be found in the Constitution of Puerto Rico, which directly recognizes the right of Congress to supercede Puerto Rican law. The U.S. constitution's territorial clause also has been interpreted to mean that Congress and the Federal Government has supreme and total sovereignty overy all territories of the U.S. The difference between incorporated territories and unincorporated territories is whether or not the constitution applies automatically to those territories, or whether it doesn't. Incorporated territories are considered both subject to and part of the U.S. and thus the residents thereof are granted a greater level of constitutional rights. Most of the current 50 states began life as one of these "incorporated" territories. Unincorporated territories, such as Puerto Rico, are subject to but not part of the United States, and thus are granted only those constitutional rights allowed it by Congress. --Jayron32 01:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find in the article Constitution of Puerto Rico, which is somewhat sketchy, or in the Puerto Rican constitution itself, where it directly recognizes the right of Congress to supercede Puerto Rican law. Could you point me to the spot? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Puerto Rican constitution, it recognizes the supremacy of the "Federal Constitution", which itself grants Congress the ultimate authority in territories (which are not states), per the territorial clause. Though I think you answer your own question below. --Jayron32 04:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with what Jayron says, but only want to clarify that the legal status of states is very different from that of territories, incorporated or not. I'm unfamiliar with constitutional law making a distinction between incorporated or unincorporated, but absent some basic constitutional concerns, most territorial decisions are based on actions of Congress (and maybe some treaties), and can be modified as such. Shadowjams (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following in a document by the Congressional Research Service:

Although the constitution of 1952 provides for self-government by Puerto Ricans, Congress ceded none of its own plenary authority over the islands. From time to time Congress has reasserted that authority by enacting legislation pertinent to local matters. For example, Congress amended FRA [Federal Relations Act] provisions dealing with local urban development and slum clearance authority.

I think this answers my question as regards unincorporated territories. As for incorporated territories, of which none at the present time are inhabited, my question remains. Does incorporation, aside from guaranteeing all constitutional rights in perpetuity, also restrict the extent to which Congress can intervene in local matters? References, please. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your instincts are right about that. I'm not motivated enough to give you cites right now, but I strongly suspect that congress can do what it wants with territories, incorporated or otherwise. The only constitutional kink in that gear I can think of is treaty based. Shadowjams (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]