Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 21

= June 21 =

Thurber question
What color were James Thurber's hair (before it went whote) and eye? I can't find it in any of his biographies. Wiwaxia (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had no luck finding color photos of him, least of all from before his hair went white, but if these drawings are accurate, his hair was dark brown or black. The second drawing linked also seems to give him brown eyes, but it's so low-res it's hard to be sure. Pais (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's mustache
Was Hitler's mustache peculiar at his time? 88.8.78.155 (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say no, based on the evidence provided by such notable figures as Charlie Chaplin (who wore it before Hitler did) and Oliver Hardy. I also have photographic evidence of a great-grandfather of mine who also wore it (and who curiously enough bore a striking resemblance to Roderick Spode as portrayed by John Turner in the 1990's BBC-series Jeeves and Wooster). --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See Toothbrush moustache. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Martin.
 * ...which mentions the theory that AH was ordered to trim his "Kaiser" moustache into a "toothbrush" during WWI to ensure a good seal under his gas mask. So, the theory goes, to British and American eyes, a toothbrush moustache equated with a comedy buffoon, but in Germany, it was the mark of a war veteren. Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Facebook App game that lets us play on a simulated stock market?
I'd like to learn how to trade stocks by playing a stock market game. Is there any app on Facebook that lets us do exactly this?

If nowhere on Facebook, what site has the best stock market simulator you could ever come across? (Please make sure it doesn't cost any real money to join. Thanks.) --65.64.190.134 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really want to learn to trade stocks, you don't want a "stock market game" or a "stock market simulation", as they will invariably not reflect the real market. Instead, just pretend you have $10,000 (or whatever amount of money you decide you want to play with).  Pick stocks.  Write down how much of each stock you're buying.  Track their values.  A spreadsheet works wonderfully for this; free options include OpenOffice and Google Docs.  Consider running several parallel money pools so that you can evaluate different strategies at the same time -- for instance, $10000 each in an index fund, a self-picked "safe" fund, a self-picked "risky" fund, a self-picked targeted fund (e.g. tech, medical, etc).  But no, you don't want a Facebook app or other "game" if you want to evaluate your real chances of making or losing money.  Just try the real market with fake money. &mdash; Lomn 15:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yahoo Finance has a free application for doing this, complete with stock picker and stock screener. It's a good place to get your feet wet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That would not be particularly realistic. Apart from trading fees, the important difference is that the price you buy or sell at is probably not going to be the price you expect, as the actual spot price can fluctuate from second to second, and sometimes your buy or sell is delayed by a long time. The OP may also want to read about the Efficient-market hypothesis although the Wikipedia article is currently more critical than it used to be. 92.23.38.244 (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although, if you are really set on some form of game, http://www.updown.com would be your best bet. Avic ennasis  @ 04:51, 20 Sivan 5771 / 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tracking trading fees and being aware of the vagaries of buying and selling delays is certainly worthwhile, but I don't think this dramatically impacts the accuracy of evaluating the real market. I think it's fair to claim that the ability to identify "buy low, sell high" scenarios is the foundation of investing, and this skill can be tested without any need to model trading fees or the like.  Day trading, however, demands a different skill set entirely, and fees and delays play a much larger (perhaps dominant?) role in that field.  I'd expect the first step in learning about day trading would be to research the average annual return of an amateur day trader versus an amateur long-term investor. &mdash; Lomn 14:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you've never done it for real then. The difference in price between what you see and what you get can be large; sometimes the trade never happens because the price difference is too great. Prices suddenly make big unexpected movements up and down. Its more or less impossible to identify what is cheap and what is dear - if you could then you'd become extremely wealthy. Trading costs mean that on average you lose money. I suggest the OP tries it for real with a small amount of money they can afford to lose. Then lesson learnt, they can move on to something more worthwhile. 2.97.218.142 (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I used to have lots of fun on Hollywood Stock Exchange, which is a stock market game based on movies, TV and actors. Basically, people would speculate on how well a movie would do at the box office, and related actors would get a boost (or loss) in value based on that. I do believe they tried to run an actual stock market game at one point, but I don't know how well it was received. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"British" as an exclusive nationality
I remember reading a column in which David Mitchell asserted a British, rather than English or Scottish, identity. That is, British instead of any regional identity, not in addition to one. Off the top of my head, he's the only (non-Northern-Irish) public figure that I associate with this position, but he can't be alone, considering the continuing viability of unionist politics. Is the "British-as-nationality" position at all widespread in Great Britain? If so, how is it distributed geographically? Also: does the UK census provide "British" as a bona-fide alternative to English/Scottish/Welsh/etc, or is it not officially recognized? L ANTZY T ALK 14:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is far from unusual for people in Britain to identify as British and not as English/Welsh/Scottish/Cornish etc. I am one of them. An opinion poll a few years ago showed 31% of people across Britain, offered the chance to define themselves as English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish or Other, or some combination, said they were British only.
 * Question 15 in the 2011 Census asked people "How would you describe your national identity?" and gave options: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, British, or Other (which respondents were asked to write in). See . Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom and British nationality law. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, whether I'm "British" or "English" (or a "sarf Lund'ner") depends on the context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Britishness. Being born in England, living in Wales, one parent born in NI of originally Scottish ancestry, most of my other ancestors originating in Wales, I usually describe myself as British except when it's more convenient to describe myself as either English or Welsh.  (And if the IRFU came calling, I'd be Irish.)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a similar issue over here on this side of "the pond"... as society becomes more and more "multi-cultural", people begin to wonder whether they should stop describing themselves with hyphenation (Irish-American, Russian-American, Anglo-American, Franco-American, African-American, etc.) and simply call themselves "American"? Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The debate on hyphens has gone on for more than a century now, I don't see it disappearing. See Hyphenated American. As per "British" nationality, there was a similar situation in SFR Yugoslavia. Around 10% of the population, often from mixed marriages, identified themselves simply as 'Yugoslav'. Also, in Britain you have a substantial number of people who are children of migrants (from Caribbean, South Asia, etc..) who might be more inclined to identify themselves as 'British' rather than 'English' (which is a more ethnic term)? --Soman (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, it is much more interesting to be a Irish-English-German-French-Belgian-Danish-Spanish-Dutch-American rather then plain old American. Googlemeister (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (I'm sorry for the lack of references.) Whilst the proportion of people answering "British" remain significant, it has declined somewhat. Scottish nationalism is at a height unreached since the 70s, and some people in England have reacted to his (as well as devolution in general) by identifying solely as English. It remains to be seen whether the normally "wavy" Scottish nationalism or the one-way-only devolution is the cause, and thus whether it will ever reverse. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out that there is only one nationality available to nationals of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: British. English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish or whatever else is a descriptor of where you were born. If you choose to identify yourself as English, there is nothing stopping you - but on official forms, your nationality is British. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between 'nationality', which is a legal concept, and 'national identity' which is (as the UK Census illustrates) a question of how you see yourself. Interestingly, the census also allows you to have a self-identified 'ethnicity'. Though this is all rather arbitrary, it does allow a little leeway for the complexities of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the (ex) Prime Minister of the UK talks about the multinational UK state here: 'We must defend the Union. It is important to remember nationality can refer to membership of a nation (which can include stateless nations such as the Kurdish nation, Cherokee nation and Basque nation, for exmaple) as well as membership of a state or a citizenship --120.16.138.2 (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There was an interesting book on the history of "Britishness" a while back by Linda Colley, called Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837. Gabbe (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

David Mitchell is a Protestant born in the Republic of Ireland to staunch pro-British folk (see his episode of Who Do You Think You Are? I'm sure his Britishness was drummed into him as a counter to the surrounding Irish Catholics.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Weak countries leaving the Euro - could it work at all?
I have been reading here and there that some financial specialists argue that certain countries (PIIGS minus the UK) should leave the Eurozone (ie: ditch the Euro and (re)adopt a national currency). Then the theory goes that countries would be able to seriously devalue their new currency which would make the national products and services cheaper in the international market. So goes the shiny theory, but could it work in practice? Because IMHO it wouldn't work at all:

Just imagine that you live in one of those weak countries. You hear that your government is going to follow that plan very soon. You have some average savings at the bank, and its currently in the form of Euro. So basicly your government is planning to change your savings into a new local currency which then will be devalued. In effect: they are going to devalue your savings. E.g.: Formerly your savings in Euro could buy you a car and afterwards your savings in your local currency can't buy you a car.

So how would the ppl of such countries react? IMHO as soon as they truly believe (hear it in the news) that their government is going to leave the Euro they are going to RUN (Bank run) asap to their local bank and withdraw nearly EVERYTHING they have and put it somewhere away from the hands of the state, if needed be exchanging it into a stable currency (like Swiss Franc). IF a considerable portion of the ppl do that, the banks are bound to collapse (no bank in the world has enough money to return the savings of its clients) and then the local economy is really screwed (The medicine killed the patient).

WHAT I find strange is that no 'financial specialist defending a ditching of the Euro' explained how this fear-reaction could/would be avoided. I know that emergency laws could be passed that temporally forbid the withdrawing of savings. But we are living in a world with ATM's everywhere. How would the people pay their bills if they are suddenly unable to withdraw their own money? To cut things short: would/could the plan work at all? Is there any article about this issue? Does any financial specialist explain this detail? Flamarande (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC) PS: IMHO the only countries which could leave the Euro without this reaction are the stronger ones exactly because they wouldn't devalue their new currency.


 * What do you mean by "PIIGS minus the UK"? PIIGS doesn't include the UK, it stands for Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And, of course, the UK is not and has never been in the Eurozone. *Furtively checks wallet - Yep! Still using Pounds.* {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.203 (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the article clearly mentions that PIIGGS also includes the UK (Great-Britain). I just forgot the extra G (the UK isn't in the Eurozone anyway...). Flamarande (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article mentions that a few commentators added the UK to the list while all the UK banks were going bust in 2009. There are no real fears about the UK defaulting on its debt or needing to be bailed out any more. --Tango (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, there have been plenty of times when countries have devalued their currencies in times of financial stress, and when most people in the country believed it would happen. In that instance, some people might try to switch their (pounds in 1967) for another currency, and then switch back after. Except they don't. There was no bank run in 1967 (not significantly, at least, I don't know exactly). I suppose because for most people, the car also devalues - or at least everyday domestic purchases do, it doesn't make much difference. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the cases you are talking about, people converting their money to another currency would, itself, cause the devaluation. That means you need to be one of the first to do it to get any benefit. This case is very different because if the conversion is done before Greece leaves the Euro, there will be no devaluation caused by it - you're just converting Euros in a Greek bank account to Euros in a German, or whatever, bank (or, you could buy another currency, but even that wouldn't cause much devaluation because Greece is only a very small part of the Eurozone). --Tango (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If moving your money out would make things worse, that would make people more likely to do it, one would have thought. Consider the many bank runs caused by the failure of banks due to liquidity problems, both recently and after the Wall Street Crash. People withdrawing their money made it worse, but that only encouraged people to do so. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and I'm not sure they did do it. It's self-limiting, though. Only a certain amount of capital can flee the country before the exchange rate drops to the point that there is no point doing it any more. In the case of a country leaving the Euro, there is no limit to how much capital can flee. --Tango (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If Greece defaults then the contagion will probably spread but not all for the same reason. Greece, Portugal, perhaps Spain and Italy would come under pressure. However, the biggest of the bankrollers, Germany may also leave the currency if the pressure from its electorate boils into a froth at bailing out spendthrift economies and there is a real debate going on there. Germany is going to stump up €123 billion as it's share of the Greek crisis. Greece is being asked to reduce its deficit from 14% to around 4% in just 4 years and that is without the weapon of devaluing its currency to make itself more competitive. Remember where this bail-out money is going; its going to banks and bond holders to pay back the interest it owes to these institutions. None of these vast sums are going to develop the Greek economy and the likelihood is that once this latest tranch has gone and no growth in the economy then a default may be its only option because it's probably unlikely that Germany's population would allow its government to put good money after bad. That being the case then the Greek government at some point would probably exit the Euro overnight to provent a bank run and argue its case with the rest of the EU after. The UK not being in the Euro has certainly been helpful to it, but look at the debt it has but the important think is its control it has over its own currency. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A year ago, Nouriel Roubini argued that the best option for Greece was an orderly default. Most economists agree that some kind of default is inevitable, and the longer it is delayed, the worse its consequences, since, as Greece's debt pile grows bigger, the more harmful its default would be.  The way to have an "orderly default" would be to declare a bank holiday (shut down the banks) and to declare that when the banks reopen, euro balances will be revalued at a rate of x drachmas per euro.  Meanwhile, some kind of settlement would be negotiated with creditors that would involve a promise to repay 100-y euros for every 100 euros owed, or to repay z drachmas for every 100 euros owed.  A disorderly default would involve a bank run and/or a Greek repudiation of the debt or unilateral declaration that it will repay only n% of the debt.  However, what isn't clear are the consequences of a Greek default or even partial default.  Within Greece, the results would include further austerity, as the government would no longer be able to obtain external credit to fund a deficit.  However, the austerity could be counterbalanced by greatly increased competitiveness and export (or tourism) earnings due to devaluation.  Outside of Greece, a Greek default would make financial institutions more nervous about the prospects of a default by Ireland, Portugal, Spain, or possibly other European countries, which could result in a larger sovereign debt crisis. Also, since the European Central Bank has a lot of Greek debt on its balance sheet, its functioning could be impaired.  Likewise, some banks in Germany or France could be in trouble if forced to write off all or part of their substantial holdings of Greek debt.  Conceivably, a default could result in a global financial crisis because of the systemic risk involved in credit default swaps and other credit derivatives linked to Greek debt, which could conceivably jeopardize the solvency of financial institutions on both sides of the Atlantic.  Because reliable statistics on the amount of such derivatives are not collected or published, it is impossible to know in advance what the consequences of a Greek default might be outside of Greece.  Marco polo (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From a Greek contributor: When I hear people in Germany calling Greece "PIGS", while Greeks never use the term, I can only think "Hitler, Hitler, Hitler". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.78.155 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't Greece which is called PIGS. It's an acronym for Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. And I don't live in Germany. Flamarande (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it's not only Greece being called 'pigs', there are other countries in the groups. And it's not only Germans using the term, but when they use it, it contributes to their already tense relation. Wikiweek (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Greeced PIGS? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There was an article in The Economist a while back on the question of how a country would go about to stop using the Euro: "Breaking up the euro area: How to resign from the club", 2 December 2010. Gabbe (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally a reasonable answer. December 2010? Got to look it up. Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article suggests compelling banks to convert savings to the new currency, but unless this was done, there would be no need for banks to convert existing savings - any bank wanting to avoid a run could simply announce that they would continue to offer Euro savings accounts. Such accounts are already available in many countries which do not use the Euro. Warofdreams talk 11:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what would be the point of introducing a new currency in Greece without compelling people to use it. Gabbe (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If they were paid in the new currency, they would use it (even if just to convert it into Euros at the earliest opportunity). It's just a question of whether their savings should be devalued. Warofdreams talk 08:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

When does a winning lottery ticket count as income?
Suppose I won a $10 million lottery prize (I have not or I would not be on the computer at this time). When does it count as income for tax purposes, as soon as it becomes a winner, or only once it is cashed? The hypothetical scenario I envision is that a person who live in a state with a high income tax, like Massechusetts finds he has a winner. So to save a large amount of $$$, he moves to New Hampshire which has no state income tax, gains residency there, and then cashes his ticket. Hypothetically, this would probably be worth a couple hundred grand for him to do, but I would be surprised if Mass didn't send him a bill for unpaid income tax if they could prove he was a resident of Mass at the time he won. Additionally, if the prize was large enough, I could see a scenario where a person might renounce their US citizenship and become a resident of a country that does not tax lottery prizes, like the UK, in order to avoid paying many millions of $. So I guess are there any kind of safeguards the tax departments implement to avoid these kind of schenanigans? Googlemeister (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What any particular governing body counts as taxable income is unique to that governing body, so it entirely depends on the specifics of the situation. Tax evasion can be a serious crime (its what they got Al Capone on) and playing games without the advice of a competant tax attorney is a bad idea.  So, the answer to your hypothetical scenario is that a person would be unwise to try to avoid paying taxes on the lottery ticket as you describe without first consulting with a well qualified tax attorney to find out the difference between legal tax avoidance, and illegal tax evasion.  -- Jayron  32  19:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, so let me ask a related question. Has anyone who did not claim their lottery prize for a long time ever get charged for tax evasion?  Googlemeister (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Logic would suggest not. There is nothing in holding (owning) a winning ticket that obliges one to cash it in at all. Usually, one has a year, after which the ticket is void. Bielle (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then logically an unclaimed ticket would not be considered taxable income, or the IRS would want penalties and interest for not claiming it on an earlier return. If an unclaimed ticket is not yet income, then no tax is yet owed, and anything the individual would do such as changing residency would thus be tax avoidance and not tax evasion, provided the law is logical, which is not always the case.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not necessarily the case, and it would not be illogical even if it worked the opposite from how you have described. For example, if a state specifically had written a law which outlined how winnings are taxable (for example, by your state of official residence at the time of the drawing, regardless of when you come forward to claim it) then its perfectly "logical" and since a law specifically and overtly deals with the taxation of lottery winnings, there's not much you can do about it.  In fact, I would expect that every state with a lottery has laws which specifically govern how it is taxed.  Writing vague income tax codes which don't specifically deal with lottery winnings, and which are so blatantly open to dodging, doesn't sound much like what lawmakers do.  I would expect that the law is specifically written to prevent you from doing exactly what you describe, since I would expect that lawmakers wouldn't leave ignore lottery winnings when writing tax codes, and would instead specifically deal with them.  -- Jayron  32  01:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would also depend on if there is an expiration for the ticket. Some lotteries increase until there is a winner, others cap off at a certain prize value until someone wins. Once there is a winner, though, they typically reset down to a lower value. If the lottery resets to $1 million USD, but you claim a winning number from when it was $25 million USD a year ago, that presents a problem. A quick Google search shows many US news stories about lottery tickets expiring one year after they were issued. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reason #1536 for living in Canada vs the U.S.: no taxes on lottery prizes. You get the full advertised amount. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is of course offset by a higher tax rate for regular income that most people earn. Googlemeister (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line as said above is that it depends on local law, consult an accountant. You may find this interesting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43091952/ns/us_news-life/t/million-lottery-winner-still-gets-food-stamps/ μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In general, income tax is on calendar year cash basis. So if you turned the stub in last year and took the winnings by December 31, it would be in 2010's taxable income. If you get the money on or after January 1, it would be 2011's. And if you never turned it in, it wasn't income to you at all, so it's nothing. Here's the real kicker: Upon receiving your winnings you would need to make an estimated tax payment on or before the end of whichever quarter you got the money in. I think the form is 1040-ES. (I'm talking federal here - state laws may vary). Otherwise, on next year's return you would probably get a whopping penalty for not having done so. See the IRS and your state government for details on the requirements. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The lottery winnings are taxable upon when they are received. They are considered marital property the moment the ticket is purchased, so a divorce between the time the ticket is purchased and the winnings are received could result in half of the winnings (or more) going to the former spouse.  All states tax income that is sourced in the state.  In your example, Mass. will tax the winnings regardless of the origin of the winner, be it foreign or domestic.  The same goes for the federal government.  Living in a different state can result in double taxation.  The owner of the Campbell Soup Corporation, John Thompson Dorrance, died during the depression and left a substantial fortune to his heirs.  Both the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania taxed the estate claiming that Dorrance was a resident because he owned property in both states.  Each of the two states have a law which says that you can only be a resident of one state at a time.  The survivors appealed and lost in both New Jersey and Pennslyvania.  The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case and let the judgment stand.  The Dorrance cases are taught in American law schools today under the subject of conflict of laws.  Conflict of Laws is the procedure and argument of which law should apply when the answer is not that clear.  Our Supreme Court has held that real property (real estate) is only taxable at the situs, that is, in the state in which it is located.  Intangible property, such as stocks, bonds and lottery winnings are not protected by this Due Process right.  A state will decide the issue through its own common law.  Because of this, nearly every attorney would recommend not attempting to change residence after winning a lottery ticket, but attempting to sever any ties with other residences prior to claiming the prize.  The exact course of action will be determined by the actual state in which the winner resides and the facts which each state court would consider as establishing domicile.  Double taxation still exists today and it is easier to be double taxed rather than avoid a tax. Gx872op (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Donegal Ireland / Enya
Wasn't Enya born in Donegal Ireland, and can that be listed in your information about Donegal on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.145.140 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Throughout history, millions of people were born in County Donegal. Even counting only people who are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, there are 300 or so people listed.  In general, its not a great idea to say that Enya is important enough for getting special note at the Donegal article, ignoring the others who were born there, and it makes for a badly written article to take up so much of it listing every person born there.  So, its best just to not worry about listing everyone.  -- Jayron  32  19:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Donegal can refer to either the town of Donegal or County Donegal. Enya was born in the Gweedore area, which is in County Donegal (rather than the town). She is mentioned in the notable people section of the County Donegal article. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 20:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Japanese school schedules
What would be a typical schedule for a Japanese high school year, other than starting in April, school on Saturdays, and having three semesters? A typical school day schedule would be useful as well. 72.235.230.227 (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Freeview (UK) for graduates
Which channels on UK Freeview have content that graduates may find more interesting? Thanks 92.23.38.244 (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BBC4 seems to have content aimed at a more intellectual audience. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Film 4 offers a mix that might appeal, but really, if I think about British people I know who are and aren't graduates, they have much the same tastes in entertainment. In fact, I'd say it's probably more influenced by class than anything else. --Dweller (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean PhDs are on the edge of their seats agog watching Deal or No Deal (UK game show)? 92.24.177.159 (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some, yes. I know plenty of well-educated people who watch all manner of TV. Certainly, fewer do than perhaps the wider audience figures would suggest, but that is, as Dweller says, more attributable to class or the nature of their job than anything else (mid-afternoons being impractical for long commuters, or late city workers). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure that I know anyone with a PhD well enough to know their viewing habits, but I know a load of graduates (which was what the question was about) who love to watch that programme if they're not at work. They also watch all kinds of other crap TV programmes, just like the non-graduates do. And while we're at it, many non-graduates I know like to watch "intellectual" programmes.
 * Given that huge swathes of the British population now get degrees, the enduring dominant popularity of mainstream channels and the marginal position of "intellectual" channels in the viewing figures (even those that are on terrestrial TV, such as BBC2 and Channel 4) suggests that the people I know are fairly representative. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The OP will be concerned to hear that, although I watch television extremely rarely, when I do watch it is often Road Wars (TV series) or Judge Judy. I despise game shows and all other daytime television (even other shows that ape the Judge Judy format), although I guess some would argue that Countdown (game show) has an mental agility element to it, even if not an intellectual element as such. I guess the cause of this is that I don't watch TV for intellectual stimulation, since intellectual stimulation is more readily available elsewhere. Even serious documentaries tend to be somewhat intellectually vapid compared with proper scholarly coverage of the same topic in a reference book. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about tv documentaries - knowledge that you could read in less than a minute padded out to waste 60 minutes of your life. 92.24.177.159 (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also a fair amount of Open University broadcasting during the night - though I doubt it appeals to graduates, unless they've got an assignment due and it's required watching! The channels with 'up-market' shows that are on freeview I suppose would be (most mentioned already)... BBC Four, Film 4, Quest (a freeview discovery channel) and regular old BBC One, BBC Two and Channel 4 - all of which show a mixture of news, factual, entertainment, comedy and drama.ny156uk (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What channel number is Quest on UK Freeview please - I have not heard of it before. And similarly, where can I find out more about OU Freeview broadcasts? Thanks 92.24.177.159 (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quest is on Freeview channel 38 according to this. You can also see their listings. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quest doesn't seem to be a "discovery channel" at all, unless you count "American Chopper" as being highbrow. As for the OU broadcasting during the night, I think this was consigned to the dustbin a long time ago, at least since the advent of video recorders - I last did an OU course in 2001 and even then we had videos, cassettes and CDs as course material. The OU does partner with the BBC still and produces documentaries such as Coast, Atom and Wonders of the Universe. The OP might like to check out the Yesterday channel (no. 12), which used to be called UK History which gives you an idea of its content. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So in summary the more intelligent channels are BBC2 and BBC4? And that the less trashy would be BBC1, BBC3, ITV1 (ITV2?), C4? Any others? 92.28.251.178 (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Royal Marriages Act 1772
If I understand correctly, any marriage of a British prince contracted without the consent of the monarch is null and void. Therefore, a person could marry a Roman Catholic and retain their position in the line of succession only if the monarch refused to consent to the marriage because then they wouldn't really be married, right? So, for example, the Prince of Hanover would've still been in the line of succession after marrying the Hereditary Princess of Monaco had the Queen of the United Kingdom refused to consent to their marriage, while their child would be out of the line of succession as a "bastard"? Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But is "the Prince of Hanover" a British Prince? Just being in the British Line of Succession does not make one British.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From 1705 to 1948, it did. The prince of Hanover "Missed it by that much." Under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 he would have been an automatic British citizen - if only he had been born 6 years earlier before it was repealed. Rmhermen (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He uses the title "Prince of Great Britain" though he is not considered to be one. He is affected by the Act, however. Otherwise I am not sure why he would ask the Queen to permit him to marry or why the Queen would bother to permit him. Surtsicna (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "British prince" is a generic description here, not a legal title: As far as the Royal Marriages Act is concerned, any legitimate descendant of the Electress Sophia in the male line (or in the female line exclusively through marriages to British subjects) is deemed a "prince" or "princess", and is subject to the Act. Descent matters, title does not (that's why the marriage of Lady Louise Mountbatten in 1923 to the future King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden was lawful despite Sweden's law banning its royalty from marrying commoners: it was deemed sufficient that Louise was in the line of succession to the British Crown, howsoever distantly). As for the original question, the answer is yes: if Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover had wed Caroline, Hereditary Princess of Monaco in 1999 without permission of the British sovereign, the marriage would have been legally void and their child a bastard in UK law. (Ironically, in 1999 Monaco's Franco-Monegasque Treaty of 1918 was still in force, which meant that for the marriage to be dynastic the permission of France was also required. This is a unique case, on the eve of the 21st century, of a marriage only being fully legal between a member of a pocket-principality's "royal family" and an aristocrat whose family lost its kingdom nearly 150 years ago if two of the UN Security Council's permanent members approved the nuptials in advance!) That is why the marriages of sons of George III to Roman Catholics did not bar George IV and some of his brothers from succession to the throne: they married Roman Catholic women unwilling to become (or remain) their mistresses without first obtaining permission from the Sovereign or (in case of refusal and a year's wait) Parliament, knowing that the marriages would be legally void under British law. FactStraight (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see why your analysis isn't correct. However, I doubt that any person likely to be in that position would see the positive side of such a move ("I get to be King!") as greater than the negative sides ("My 'wife' isn't Queen and my descendants are excluded from the Throne forever."). Proteus (Talk) 13:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a thought: Could an heir to the throne marry a commoner and a Catholic and keep his right to the throne, if the monarch did consent to the marriage and gave permission to it? And could the monarch him/herself marry such a person? They would then give consent to their own marriage?--Aciram (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, a valid marriage to a Roman Catholic means loss of all rights to the British throne, forever (even after the marriage ends). The monarch's consent, however, means that the children born of that marriage (being legitimate) will have their place in the line of succession if they're not raised as Roman Catholics. Surtsicna (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So a future monarch who really didn't want the job could "opt out" by marrying a Roman Catholic? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As Treasury Tag points out, that does require consent from the Monarch (and, in practice, the Government) if they're high up in the succession. If they're actually monarch already, I'm pretty sure they need Parliamentary approval before they can marry. So, not so easy, but potentially could perhaps be done. More reliable, and more under their control, would be to convert to Catholicism, even though they'd have to go through the years of preparation: as we've seen with Charles, it can take much longer than that for those responsible to allow a marriage. I've long suspected that, if the Queen should die before Charles, he planned to convert and thus remove himself from the succession without abdicating. However, I also suspect that recent sentiment would mean a rush job through all the parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms, allowing Catholics into the line of succession: not because people particularly want him King, but because it would seem unfitting. And then he'd be stuck, his ace unexpectedly defeated :( God save the Queen. 86.164.66.52 (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP seems to miss the point: if the monarch doesn't consent to a marriage, it cannot legally take place, ie. no vicar or any other sort of clergyperson would carry it out. So the issue of them 'marrying' a Roman Catholic in defiance doesn't arise. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Africa, Asia and the UN  ─╢ 21:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They could go to Las Vegas and get married. Although if the future monarch really doesn't want to be monarch, there are probably more direct ways of addressing it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there aren't: people often say that Prince Charles should relinquish his place in the line of succession and let Prince William be the next King. But there's literally no mechanism to do that. Abdication can only happen once one is the monarch. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Odelsting  ─╢ 09:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's one mechanism - become or marry a Catholic. Under current law, that would instantly disqualify him and Wills is home free.   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He's already married to an Anglican, so that just leaves converting. From reading Charles, Prince of Wales, it seems that if he wanted to convert to anything, it would be Greek Orthodox, which wouldn't spare him the throne. If he really does decide he wants to give up the throne in favor of William, the easiest way is probably to abdicate immediately upon becoming king. Pais (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although not very easy... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Captain-Regent  ─╢ 11:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but it's not impossible to contemplate. It was necessary to create a special amending law to enable Edward VIII to abdicate, and it would be no harder to create a special amending law to allow Charles to back out of the line of succession before ever becoming king, if that was his express wish.  There's no precedent for such a thing, and it itself would create an undesirable precedent - but hey, the idea of peers renouncing their peerages was pretty unthinkable before they allowed it to happen.  In many ways it'd be far better to back out beforehand than become king and then abdicate, or remain king but without his heart in it.  The monarchy only really works when the monarch is fully committed to the job.  That's why QEII is personally so highly respected by so many people, including those who detest the very idea of monarchy.  But this is all fluff: I've seen nothing to indicate Charles does not want to become king.  I've seen plenty of stuff from people who do not want him to become king. Tough.   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * TreasuryTag, I did not miss the point. Royal marriages have taken place without the Sovereign's consent. Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, married twice without permission and Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, married once without permission. Their marriages were invalid and as such did not exist but they did say "I do". Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Debt
According to this op-ed, the dept-to-income ratios of most companies is greater than one. My understanding of economics is limited, to put it generously, but how are these companies making profit if they're earning less than they're borrowing? 74.15.136.219 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That the companies have borrowed more than their yearly revenue doesn't mean that they do so every year. When you buy a house, for example, you might borrow an amount that is much higher than your yearly salary, but it doesn't mean that you can't have an income higher than your expenses (thus making a profit) in a typical year. Gabbe (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c) The debt is how much you owe. The interest on the debt, which would be taken out of any profits, is likely to be very much smaller (depending on the type of borrowing), and so this does not impact the ability of the company too much. In some corporate instances, the mere interest on the debt has had too much of an effect, but these are the exception not the rule. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, of course; the question was kinda stupid in retrospect. Thanks. 74.15.136.219 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you. The article you linked is somewhat puzzling. Gabbe (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be a Ponzi scheme...Smallman12q (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gabbe. The article utilises the present tense "borrows" which is confusing. In actual fact, governments go through a constant system of paying off and borrowing the same money through the bond markets, so a present tense would be justified. However, in normal parlance, if I'm "borrowing" money, that would be adding to my debt. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

films based on Latin American wars of Independence
Is there films based on Latin American wars of Independence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.119 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's Category:Mexican Revolution films. Gabbe (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a 1969 film called Simón Bolívar about the Venezuelan war; it stars Maximilian Schell in the title role. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Henry VIII on trial
If Henry VIII of England was put on trial for murder in the UK in 2011, would he be found guilty? What about other British kings and queens? Thanks 92.29.113.106 (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, if he were the present King? Would he not have sovereign immunity? Or do you mean, if he invented a time machine and travelled from the past to the present, where he is no longer King? Edison (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And which acts of his are you talking about - the executions of his wives? the martyrdoms of people like Thomas More and John Fisher?  other sundry killings he authorised?  Could those events possibly have even taken place if Henry were monarch in the 21st century?  Or is he being put on trial in the 21st century for acts committed in the 16th century, under laws that were for the most part very different than today's laws?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This kind of thing is why the US Constitution specifically forbids ex post facto laws. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does and did the UK legal system allow prosecution under laws passed after the act in question? If so why did the writers of the US Constitution add a rule against such ex post facto prosecutions? If it were part of common law, and if they had not suffered from the practice, why bother to put it in the constitution of the US? Edison (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It does raise a different question, though. What if a current or future monarch of England were suspected of having committed a felony. What would be done? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It also raises the question of whether current leaders of Western nations, and their predecessors, might be put on trial for "war crimes" by some future administration or world authority, but I don't want to start a discussion on the rights and wrongs ...   D b f i r s   07:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That subject was pretty well beaten to death a week or two ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that, but I don't want to start it up again, so please ignore my comment.   D b f i r s   20:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I imagine he'd respond in much the same way that Charles I of England did, when he was put on trial. See Divine right of kings. --Dweller (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First, we must distinguish between committing "murder" and ordering a legal "execution". The first is committed in violation of the law, the second is committed in accordance with the law.  For example, those executed by Henry VIII were all tied and convicted of the crime of Treason, which (at that time) was punishable by death.  Henry could not simply order someone beheaded... he had to put them on trial first.  Granted, Henry was powerful enough (unlike today's monarchs) that the outcome of most Treason trials were essentially pre-determined... but at least the formalities had to be observed. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Henry had another advatage; it was legal to torture suspects until they confessed. Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The case of General Pinochet might be instructive. The House of Lords ruled that (a) the English courts _were_ competent to try "international crimes" (including torture), despite Pinochet's sovereign immunity, but (b) torture was only (officially) illegal in the UK after the ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, so Pinochet couldn't be tried for any acts of torture before then.  So, Henry (as others have said above) could be prosecuted for anything he did that was illegal by the laws of the sixteenth century, despite his being King.  (Only King of England, as well, not the UK, which I'm sure would be a material aspect of the case). Tevildo (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Henry VIII didn't murder anyone. He may have ordered the executions to occur, but he didn't put his hand to the axe.  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not germane. If they were unlawful killings, the person who ordered them to be carried out is as much guilty of murder as the person who wielded the instrument of death.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)