Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 September 26

= September 26 =

Did China ever declare war on Germany during WWII?
As in the heading. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes on December 9, 1941 apparently.  meltBanana  03:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP agrees: "China formally joined the Allies and declared war on Germany on December 9, 1941." See Sino-German_cooperation. Gwinva (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. In that case, what is the reason China did not sign the "Statement on Atrocities" in the Moscow Declaration in 1943 (as it signed the rest of the Declaration)? I thought it was because it was not in war with Germany, but that's now proven wrong, so... any ideas? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ad fontes! Looking at the Wikisource of the Moscow Declaration, it appears that China didn't sign any of the parts focused on the European war. Maybe they felt it was none of their business? They also didn't join the European Advisory Commission that resulted. Matt's talk 06:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

UK General Election - who runs the country?
When Parliament is dissolved, there is no PM any more, no MPs any more - who runs the country, what if there's an emergency? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury § Tag ► contribs ─╢ 10:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who told you there's no PM when the Parliament is dissolved? That's not the case at all.  The PM continues in caretaker mode, but he/she's still the PM, as are all the ministers of the Crown.  The government is still running the country right up till the next government takes office, after the election; or if the incumbent government is re-elected, it simply continues.  If there's some emergency during the election period, the government still has the responsibility to address it, but, depending on the circumstances, the Leader of the Opposition might be consulted and to a degree involved in the decision making.   --  JackofOz (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the civil servants are still in power. See Yes Minister :->  Saintrain (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Parliament can be recalled pretty quickly if there is an emergency that requires legislation to deal with. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it can be recalled after it has been dissolved. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, according to our article Dissolution of the United Kingdom Parliament, MPs cease to be MPs on dissolution, so there wouldn't be any MPs to recall. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Anyone know what would happen? Would the Queen summon all the old MPs to a new parliament or something? --Tango (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think she could. I suspect that Orders in Council could be used for emergency legislation. DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 enables the government, through Orders in Council, to amend any Act of Parliament (with the exception of the Human Rights Act 1998) in an emergency situation. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Duncan/JackOz - but during a general election there's NO MPs WHATSOEVER, and thus no government, so who exercises these powers? ╟─ Treasury § Tag ► contribs ─╢ 16:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The government still exists - the Prime Minister is still the Prime Minister, other ministers retain their posts, and Privy Council membership is for life. DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There used to be circumstances in which a previously dissolved Parliament can be resummoned. The Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 provided that in the case of the demise of the Crown in between the dissolution of one Parliament and the summoning of another, the old Parliament would be recalled and sit for six months - although the new Monarch could dissolve it sooner. This provision was removed by the Representation of the People Act 1985, section 20, although the Royal website appears not to have noticed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The UK has no written constitution, so I can't say too much about the legalities there. The Australian House of Representatives, however, was modelled on the UK Parliament and the Westminster system, and we do have a Constitution that sets these matters in stone.  Ministers are appointed by the Governor-General, and they don't have to be members of the Parliament at the time (although, except for the Barton case mentioned below, they always have been).  Under s.64, a Minister who isn't a member of the Parliament at the time of their appointment must become one within 3 months, or cease to hold office.  They can became an MP or a Senator.  This provision was put in because the first Ministry, headed by Edmund Barton, was sworn in on Federation Day, 1 January 1901, but the first federal parliament wasn't elected until 29-30 March 1901.  The provision also applies during election periods.  It's true that all Members of the House of Reps cease to be MPs when the parliament is dissolved (not generally true of Senators, btw, except in the case of a double dissolution).  But Ministers from the House of Reps continue as Ministers, in a caretaker capacity but still with all their legal powers, until election day, when the re-elected ones become MPs again.  The ones who lose their seats still continue as Ministers until the new government is sworn in, despite having ceased to be MPs some time earlier.  For example, the Coalition government led by John Howard not only lost the 24 November 2007 election, but Howard was also personally defeated in his own seat of Bennelong.  He ceased to be an MP on 24 November, but he remained Prime Minister, perfectly legally, until he handed in his commission to the Governor-General on 3 December and the First Rudd Ministry was sworn in.  If ever a circumstance arose where the time between the dissolution of parliament and the swearing-in of the new government exceeded 3 months, something would have to be done.  I imagine the Ministers would forfeit their offices and then simply be re-appointed by the Governor-General.  This has never happened and is never likely to.  The thing to remember is that there's obviously a close connection between the Government and the Parliament, but they are not the same thing.  That principle also applies in the UK. --  JackofOz (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The uk does have a written constitution, it just isn't a single document. See UK constitution. ny156uk (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not universally accepted - see Disputes about the nature of the UK Constitution. To my mind, it is at most only partly written.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

U.K. LOTTO
I just bought a £4.50 ticket for the Euro millions prize of £100 million. What are my chances of winning?? Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Our article Euromillions contains odds of winning. I imagine these are by line, so it depends how many lines you get for 4.50 in the UK. Fribbler (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3 lines (it says each line costs £1.50). Assuming the £100 million prize is the 5+2 right, he'll have 3 in 76,275,360.  Hmm, we don't seem to have an article covering some representative probabilities of various things which we could relate this to (probability of being killed by dogs/terrorists/sneezing etc.). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The key detail is Euromillions. It says 50% of the revenue goes to prizes, that means on average you will lose half your money. In a game of roulette (on a UK table), betting on a single number will, on average, result in you losing only 2.7% of your money. Roulette offers far better odds that the lottery (as do other casino games) - take your £4.50 to a casino, you'll do much better. --Tango (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "On average you will lose half your money" may be true but does not address the question of the chance of winning. I note also that the original poster did not mention whether they were interested in the chance of winning the top prize or winning any prize.  Finlay's answer presumably relates to the top prize.  --Anonymous, 00:25 UTC, September 27, 2008.
 * The chance of winning the top prize is so small that you may as well assume it's 0 - the expected prize money is a more useful number. --Tango (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Useful for what purpose? Lotto tickets are for entertainment. Rounding off your chance of winning the jackpot to 0 is not entertaining at all and therefore not useful. Personally, I enjoy comparing lotto tickets to The Sentry Risk Table. APL (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you view it as a source for entertainment, rather than to make money, then you're right, and that's a much better attitude to have. --Tango (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're using lotto tickets for entertainment you need to find cheaper entertainment. Hookers pay off immediately (usually within 2 minutes) instead of in monthly payments over 30 years. --mboverload @  22:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Pedant alert) The UK and Euro lotteries both pay out their top prizes instantly, there are no monthly installment options. Nanonic (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that I'd be very very wary of a prostitute who would agree to "pay off" for less than the cost of a lottery ticket. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, and you might get free sarnies and soft drinks into the bargain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Free" drinks? Ain't nothing really "free" in casinos. You get a "free" $2 drink while losing $50. Last time I was in Vegas, I really didn't gamble but tried to just cadge drinks, and I got maybe one $2 drink every half hour or so at most—not very impressive, even if I wasn't giving the casino any money. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or if you're not into casinos, go to the dogs. Before they close all the others. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Death penalty in Madagascar
I am trying to determine if the death penalty is still in use in Madagascar. According to the Wikipedia article, it has not been in use since 1959-60; however, this BBC story says several were sentenced to death. However, I have been unable to find any followup on this story: whether the executions took place, if they were commuted, or if the status is still in limbo. Please help if you know any updates. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's an item here that discusses the case. It refers to a campaigner who has a Facebook page about it, and who is said to explain the situation thus:
 * "Madagascar is one of the nations that signed the pact to abolish death penalty (instituted in 1958 in Madagascar) so even though death penalty has not been removed from the constitution yet, all the 53 death penalty sentences pronounced to this day have all been effectively “transformed” into life sentences." There's a link in the article to the Facebook page in question.  Ka renjc 21:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)