Humanities desk
< June 4	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 6 >

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.

June 5

Billy Strayhorn lyrics to "On the Wrong Side of the Tracks"

I am trying to locate the lyrics of a song by Billy Strayhorn entitled "On the Wrong Side of the Tracks", but am having trouble locating them. Can you assist me? Often Strayhorn's songs were misattributed to Duke Ellington.

I take it that's a different piece than the one described here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Troopships

Did the British Army of the 19th century run its own troopships, or did the navy transport army troops overseas? If the answer depends on the year, the questions concerns 1880 or before. Thank you. 68.106.202.126 03:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Jason, all of the answers you are looking for should be in Troopships and their History by H. C. B. Rogers. This deals with the history of troopships from the reign of Charles II (1660-1685) onwards. Clio the Muse 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Near crash of airline flight because of autopilot joke

About 8-10 months ago, I read an article on wikipedia detailing an airline incident in the U.S.A. where a plane almost crashed. Does this article still exist or can someone point me to more information? The details, that I remember, were that the pilot turned on some form of autopilot and invited another person to sit behind the stick/yoke (whatever the correct term is). Then, for some reason, (I think the pilot had planned this), the plane went into a slight dive or climb and the person at the controls reacted by pulling back or pushing in the stick, but to no avail. They all had a big laugh and the joke was over. When the pilot turned it off ("it" might be some sort of yoke/stick lock too, I'm not sure), the plane went into a steep dive and everybody became weightless (except the co-pilot, who was still strapped in). The copilot recovered from the dive at only one thousand 1000 feet and everybody lived, but the pilot was promptly fired. I believe this incident occurred over Texas between 1940 and 1970, but I'm not sure. Any more details would be great. (I realize I've recounted the whole story, but I'd like some verification of whether it is true or not. Thank you. --Rajah 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall the details, but it sounds like something I saw on Air Crash Investigations, so maybe try looking through the list of episodes there? Confusing Manifestation 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... it looks like the one I remembered was Aeroflot Flight 593 - is this the one? Confusing Manifestation 07:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was just about to mention the Aeroflot flight. --Charlene 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Aeroflot crash reminds me of the Ehime Maru incident. --TotoBaggins 11:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no particular resemblance between the two accidents. --Anon, June 5, 23:44 (UTC).

Civilians at the controls leading to loss of life. --TotoBaggins 17:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I missed the "civilians at the controls" bit in the submarine accident. But it wasn't a cause of the accident; they were doing what they were told. It was the submarine's crew that was at fault. According to Wikipedia, anyway. --Anon, June 7, 12:00 (UTC).

Sure, but that was the case in the Aeroflot incident, too: pilots/commanders who let children/dignitaries control airplanes/submarines are at fault, not the tourists. --TotoBaggins 23:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original poster is confusing two incidents. The "inviting another person to sit" is the Aeroflot disaster, while everything else in the description is about American Airlines flight 311 on October 8, 1947. Its description at www.planecrashinfo.com is currently here, although that URL may not be durable. --Anonymous, June 5, 2007, 23:20 (UTC).

Thank you, anonymous. Flight 311 from 1947 was it! I wasn't confusing it with the Aeroflot flight (which I knew about). The wikipedia article, which I assume has long since been deleted for non-notability, was a rewrite of the link you provided. Thanks again! --Rajah 06:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolution

Is Mel Gibson's movie The Patriot an accurate depiction of the War of Independence?

Our article on the film has a section detailing the inaccuracies. --Charlene 06:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably one of the most disturbing and historically inaccurate scenes in the movie is the scene where Tavlington burns citizens of a town within a church. In a July 2000 New York Times article called "Hubris, But No History" David Fischer, a U.S. historian and author, said the following concerning that scene. "Something remarkably like this event actually happened, but not in South Carolina during the American Revolution. It happened in the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane on June 10, 1944, during World War II, and it was done by Germany's 2nd S.S. Panzer Division. There were atrocities enough on both sides in the American Revolution, but Roland Emmerich, the film's director, has converted an 18th century British and American Loyalist Army into the S.S." There are other historical facts and tidbits that are wrong in the movie, but it is my opinion that it is this inappropriate vilification of the British that could do the most damage to people's understanding of the Revolutionary War. Sjmcfarland 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree, Sjmcfarland. When I saw that scence on DVD recently it occured to to me that the British should not have been wearing red coats but field grey, with the double lightning flash on their collars. Professor Richard Holmes, author and television presenter, explained some of the thinking behind a documentary series, Redcoats and Rebels, shown on British television; "...I made the series to reveal textures too often obliterated by Hollywood's airbrush...I might not have felt so strongly had it not been for Mel Gibson's antics in the 2000 film, The Patriot. To those who say that some of the incidents, such as the massacre in the church, were simply metaphors, gleaned from another century and perpetrated by another army on a different continent, I would reply that audiences are more suggestible than film-makers admit, and one dramatic exaggeration has more impact than a forest of scholarly footnotes." I would say that there is history, and there is Mel Gibson. The two are never to be found in the same place at the same time. Clio the Muse 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite bit from that article is "The film also makes reference to the British having lost at the earlier Battle of Guilford Courthouse (1781, Major-General Lord Cornwallis against Major-General Nathaniel Greene), when in fact the British won in spite being outnumbered 1900 to 4400.". Just, why? Skittle 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superior numbers do not always bring victory, Skittle, as you will see if you read the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. The British Army is often at its best in adversity. Even so, in gaining the advantage that day, Cornwallis sustained high casualties, leading Charles James Fox, the leader of the Whig opposition in Parliament, to describe the battle as a 'pyrrhic' victory. Clio the Muse 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain, but I think Skittle may have meant "Just why did they misrepresent the winner of the Battle of Guilford Courthouse" -Czmtzc 13:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Czmtzx; I wasn't sure. I that case I would say it is really in the nature of the medium, either to distort history, or simply turn it upside down. Clio the Muse 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sustain in that usage is a funny word; it would seem more applicable to the other side. "We're cutting 'em to ribbons, Colonel!" "Good, sustain it." —Tamfang 04:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that is certainly one usage. 'Experienced' or 'suffered' is another. Clio the Muse 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banastre Tarleton was a villain in US history books decades (centuries?) before the film in question. A U.S. tv series in the early 1960s about the American Revolution had Tarleton as a recurring villainous character, as did The Swamp Fox (TV series), a 1959 Disney TV series of 8 episodes about Francis Marion, who is the basis for Gibson's character in The Patriot. The massacre of surrendered opponents in the Waxhaw massacre and other extreme incidents led to "Tarleton's quarter" as a rallying cry for American patriots such as Francis Marion. Tarleton's atrocities were a spur to increased fighting spirit amoung the Southern U.S. forces. The film is in that way an illustration of how cruelty and barbarism by Tarleton motivated the Americans to fight with all the more determination in the crucial battle of Kings Mountain, which was a major turning point in the war. Edison 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each nation is obviously at liberty to create its own national myths, but it unsettles me when the past is distorted or even completely rewritten. OK, OK; I know we should not expect a high standard of historical truth from cinema or television, but 'Bloody Ban' is not quite the complete villain you may suppose, and Francis Marrion is not such an unsullied hero. I would imagine most Americans who have even a passing acquaintance with the history of this period are well aware of the crimes of Ban; but what about those of Light Horse Harry Lee? The massacre of the loyalist on their way to join Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781 would appear to have been airbrushed out of history, receiving no mention at all, even in his Wikipedia page. Let's not forget that the loyalists were Americans too. I really do not want to take this point too far, because war produces excesses of all sorts, committed by all sides. I simply make a plea for an understanding of the past, with all of its complexity, in its own terms. I imagine no filmaker would now depict 'Redskins' in the fashion formerly favoured in Hollywood; by it is still alright, it would seem, to depict the British as Nazis. Clio the Muse 22:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Kane

What is Citizen in Citizen Kane ? Is there such a real-life title for eminent citizens ? Tintin 08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question; I had never thought about the use of this word in the name of the film before. It's certainly not a title in the same way as "Mr" or "Mrs". What it does is spell out the idea that Kane was a man of the people, rather than an aristocrat. There was a BBC sitcom in the 70s called Citizen Smith, which might be a reference to Kane but is also a joke about the main character's revolutionary beliefs. To address someone as "citizen" is to make a kind of statement about your supposed socialist affiliation with them. It connotes leftish comradeship in the same way as addressing someone as "brother" or "sister" does. These days, such terms would only ever be used ironically. Maybe there's a hint of the same irony in the use of the word "citizen" in relation to Kane. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an outside reference. The state would refer to a person as a "citizen" in early communist nations. See W. H. Auden's "The Unknown Citizen": it is a way of depersonalizing and suggesting an economic unit rather than a living person. At the same time, it's a way of punning/playing with "first citizen of the United States." Such is the president of the US. That formulation has gone out of fashion (gee, can't imagine why, with all this talk of commander guy), but Kane is first citizen in another way. Finally, it is a sincere reflection of what the film is trying to get at: the man without sentiment. It is also a way of saying that he is us, and we are him, that he is average like us. Utgard Loki 13:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have two meanings. First, the direct meaning, wherein he is a person and member of the nation-state with similar concerns to all Americans. Second is the ironic meaning (as Richardrj stated), wherein Kane has much more power, influence, prestige and longevity of myth than the average person. I think these play against each other in the film and can most easily be seen in scenes with Kane's wife where they attempt to enjoy the ordinary pleasures of life in a massive mansion. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 20:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last battle between England and Scotland

I had a friendly argument recently with some friends on that last battle fought between the Scots and the English as distinct national groups. Most people say it is Culloden in 1746, but I do not think that is right. If not, which is it? I've taken bets on the right answer, so please do not disappoint me, people! (Clio, are you there?) SeanScotland 09:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave Clio to give the accurate answer, but culturally, you could say it was this battle. --Dweller 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing... I'm not sure if that counts.

The phrase "distinct national group" is somewhat ambiguous. If the Scottish Jacobites who supported Charles Edward Stuart in 1746 can be seen as a national group, then yes, this battle would represent the last battle fought between the Scots and the English. The Scots in this conflict, as I'm sure you know, didn't represent the nation of Scotland which had become part of the Kingdom of Great Britain after the Acts of Union 1707 Sjmcfarland 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, are you equating the nation with the state? —Tamfang 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unclear. I was merely trying to make reference to the fact that in that battle the Scottish Jacobites did not represent all Scots, and as Clio makes clear below, there were Scots who fought for the British. Sjmcfarland 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presente, Commandante! Putting Dweller's caveat to one side (that is surely part on an ongoing war?) there are one or two small points we have to make clear. First and foremost, it is important to understand that that the various Jacobite Rebellions, which took place in the period between 1689 and 1746, were all in the nature of civil conflicts. Although there were strong pockets of Jacobite support in Scotland, these were largely confined to parts of the western Highlands and the Lowlands of the north-east. The southern Lowlands were almost uniformly hostile, as were large parts of north, especially those areas under the control of pro-government clans, like the Campbells, the Mackays and the Gunns. Although the British Army, and I place a deliberate stress on British, faced a largely Highland rebel force at the Battle of Culloden in April 1746, three of Cumberland's professional regiments-the 1st, the 21st and the 25th-were all made up of Lowland Scots. He also had a large number of Campbell auxiliaries. So Culloden was most definitely not the last battle between the Scots and the English as distinct ethnic groups.

So, where does this leave us? Do we have to go all the way back to the days before the Union of the Crowns in 1603, to the late Middle Ages? No, we do not. We have to travel no further back that the early 1650s, to the so-called Third Civil War. After the execution of Charles I in 1649, Scotland and England went in separate directions politically: Scotland recognised Charles II as King, while England became a republic. Charles came to Scotland in the summer of 1650, and so, too, did Oliver Cromwell and the New Model Army. The scene was now set for the last war between England and Scotland. The last battle of that conflict was fought at Worcester in September 1651. Now, while all of Cromwell's army was certainly English, Charles' army included some English royalists. Therefore, the very last engagement in which one side was all Scots and the other side all English was the Battle of Inverkeithing, fought in Fife in July of that same year. The game is yours, Sean! Clio the Muse 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weel done, cutty sark! I have one more question. Why did the Scots end up so deep into England after a defeat in Fife? SeanScotland 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tam! The defeat at Inverkeithing turned the flank of the main Scottish army, based at Perth. With John Lambert moving north-west through Fife, and Cromwell probing westwards from Edinburgh, Charles could either retreat north in the face of an ever more difficult supply situation, or sweep south past Cromwell, and thus over the English border. He chose the latter, in the hope of attracting recruits from the old Cavalier faction. It was a desperate gamble, which failed at Worcester. Oh, yes, and before I forget; But here my Muse her wing maun cour/Sic flights as far beyond her power. Clio the Muse 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindertransport pt. II

If the Nazis were trying to exterminate the Jews, why did they allow the Kindertransports? Or did they just not want Jews in their country and they didn't care if they lived somewhere else? Dismas|^(talk) 09:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous discussion(s) on Holocaust timelines. There's no compelling evidence (in fact, no real evidence at all) of planned extermination of Jewry until long after the Kindertransports were stopped. --Dweller 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Dismas|^(talk) 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Pitt's Reign of Terror

What was this? MindyE 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Reign of Terror and William Pitt the Younger. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This, in fact, has nothing at all to do with the French Reign of Terror. It is, rather, an ironic description of the legislative response of the government of William Pitt to the perceived dangers presented by native radicals. After Britain went to war with France in February 1793, it was felt that a pro-French 'fifth column', represented by groups like the London Corresponding Society, was ready to assist the enemy in the event of an invasion. In 1794 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, which meant that people suspected of subversive activities could be arrested and held without trial. This was followed in 1795 by the of the Treasonable Practices Act and the Seditious Meetings Act, the so-called Gagging Acts. By the opposition these measures were known collectively as 'William Pitt's Reign of Terror.' It effectively made gatherings of the radical societies illegal. In the House of Commons, the 'Committee of Secrecy' assembled information on all suspect groups and publications. The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine was outlawed. The London Correspondence Society was subject to growing harrassment, before it was banned outright in 1799. Many suspects were held for lengthy periods in Coldbath Fields Prison, effectively the Guantanamo Bay of its day. Pitt's 'Reign of Terror' ended with his resignation in 1801. Clio the Muse 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despair

Who is the roman god of dispair? I assume he is mostly known under a synonym of despair. Or it might be a goddess.

And sorry if they don't have one. Is there anyone like this in the roman religeon?

I, for one, can't think of any. I'm thinking back on all the despairing moments in tragedy, and I can think of several invocations of dark gods and goddesses, but none for despair itself (herself, I'd say, but that may reflect my experiences). They'd invoke Nox and Dis and Hecate, but those were generally not despair so much as wicked darkness, and Hera was supposed to guard mothers from post-partum depression. Utgard Loki 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I can tell you that the Anglo-Saxons had a nice word for despair: "wanhope." It was sort of "hopeless" and "death of all hopes" mixed -- a state of enervation and ... despair. Utgard Loki 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fast-forward to the 14th century, and you can have Giotto's Desperatio. Wareh 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Oizys (a goddess) was in charge of "misery and woe, distress and suffering." The Romans knew her as Miseria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapesaresour (talk • contribs)

Yes, Hesiod (the source here is Theogony line 214) is a good pedigree for such abstract constituent elements of human existence, and Cicero's Miseria (De natura deorum 3.44) is clearly a translation of Oezys. Wareh 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic

Hi there! I really can't figure out if I'm in the right forum. Should I be going to the Entertainment forum? Anyway, did Rose DeWitt Bukater, or Rose Dawson, and Jack Dawson really exist? That's the impression that I got from the movie, since you could see Rose talking about her voyage on the ship. However, many other sources on the internet say that she didn't exist. How is this possible?

See this article for information on the woman who inspired the story. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That really isn't what I meant. Did the couple actually exist?

When a real person inspires a fictional story, it means that the people in the fictional story did not exist, but were based on real characters. Please read the article. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's too bad. If the characters weren't real, then who was the older Rose Dawson in the movie?

An actress :] HS7 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get it. So what you're saying is that the entire love story in Titanic is a fake? There never was a diamond or some crazy forced fiancee? Also, does this mean that Rose Dawson never died since she didn't actually exist? Does this also mean that Jack Dawson never drew Rose naked OR fell to the bottom of the sea because he didn't exist either?

Yep. The film was inspired by (but not based on) the memoirs of a Titanic survivor called Helen Churchill Candee, "a 50-year-old American divorcee who was also a writer, nurse and suffragette, returning home in 1912 after learning that one of her sons had been injured in a car crash" (from the ABC news article). Most of the film's plot doesn't appear in her memoirs. Down M. 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the general subject of filmed history, the vast majority of bio-pics contain characters who never existed, and depict events that never took place, while leaving out some of the real people and real events that would have made the story more historically accurate. These days, most bio-pics contain disclaimers that some characters are amalgamations of two or more people and that events depicted were "inspired by" real events and are not intended to be accurate portrayals of what actually happened. -- JackofOz 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One strange example is Dreamchild: the poster said "a true story" (or similar language) while the opening titles, if memory serves, had the usual disclaimer. (And while I'm up, it was miscast: Dodgson would have been 30 at the time of the flashbacks, but was played by Ian Holm at 53.) —Tamfang 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, "Fargo", which stated it was based on a true story. It was not based in any way on any true story. The writers put that at the beginning of the movie as a joke. Sometimes it isn't needed though. It took years to convince one of my Aunt's that Forrest Gump was not a real person. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luya Province (2)

Thank you for answering my questions. My motivation was because my last name is LUYA. In my country every person with our last name was part of my family. My research when I was living in Spain resulted that missionaries went to Cuba and other south american countries and I was wondering if maybe some of this missionaries did such a wonderful job in Peru that a province and district it was named in their memory. Thanks again 63.3.3.129 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have told that. The name "Luya" in Luya Province comes from a small town (more a village) named Luya, which is the capital of Luya District (but not of Luya Province). This is deep in the Amazonas, and most toponyms around there have an Amerindian origin. On this "virtual portal" of the municipality of Luya we learn that the meaning of "Luya" is "Alegría" (in Spanish), that is, "Joy". --Lambiam ^Talk 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, "luya" is also the Tagalog name for "ginger". See here[1]. Bielle 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Frenzel

He was relased 25 years ago because of the "bad health",but hes still alive.Shouldnt he go back to jail,because its clear hes health is not so bad after all? Is it really fair that they let him live to be 100 years old,enjoying free life? Init time for him to go back to jail??

Well, "bad health" doesn't necessarily mean "terminally ill." Presumably, he has some kind of chronic illness that, while not immediately fatal, makes it unreasonable (at least, unreasonable in the jurisdiction in question) for him to be imprisoned. Carom 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article on Karl Frenzel, albeit extremely short, and the external links to it, he was released from a life sentence originally on some unspecified technicality after serving 16 years. He was then retried, convicted and, again, sentenced to life imprisonment. This second sentence, however, was not imposed on the grounds of an alleged heart condition. As to whether or not this is just or fair, you would have to ask the authorities who granted this stay of sentence.Bielle 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other examples of such anomalies - see Mal Colston#Travel allowances scandal. -- JackofOz 01:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or see Willy Lages. --Lambiam ^Talk 06:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of an Italian who avoided prison for about 14 years by keeping pregnant (as much of the time as is humanly possible). —Tamfang 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very typical of postwar Germany. Everyone's heard about the Nuremburg trials and the executions of a few of the most-famous Nazis. What we don't hear about is how the vast majority of Nazi war criminals who were in West Germany after the war were never punished or got off relatively lightly. The postwar West German judiciary was full of judges who themselves had questionable Nazi-era histories, so there was a lot of sympathy for Nazi defendants in the system. The occupation authorities, starting with American Gen. Lucius Clay, were far more concerned about the immediately pressing problem of the Soviets than they were about punishing West Germans for their wartime deeds; the Western Allies sought to get on the Germans' good side by taking it easy on the denazification of their friends and neighbors. And, lest we forget, sympathetic immigration authorities in the Americas, who had done their best to keep Jews out during the war, often overlooked or failed to properly investigate the wartime activities of ex-Nazis and collaborators and let them into their countries. What seems to be unique about this case is just how high-ranking of a war criminal got off and how late this happened. You would think that by the 1980s, the Germans would know better. -- Mwalcoff 07:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,so shouldnt them send him to prison at least now,since he lived 25 years on freedom,its clear hell live some more years in jail.Is there a single reason for him to be free just now.Today he might playing with his grandchildren,eating fried turkey and coke...WHile all the people he killed are gone forever.Shouldnt he go to jail,AT LEAST NOW??

Yes, he should. Unfortunately, I'm not the German legal system. -- Mwalcoff 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without any further comment on this case, you might find this blog interesting. The author appears do be doing some kind of series on Frenzel at the moment. Carom 17:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I request information on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.183.179.116 (talk • contribs)

Check out this article on her.Sjmcfarland 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Dee (Robert van Gulik)

Hello everyone,

I have read the first fictional Judge Dee book (The Lacquer Screen), and I am anxious to read the next. I see that Judge Dee at Work contains the next three stories, but then chronologically it skips to other times. The next complete novel is The Chinese Lake Murders. Should I read the three first stories in Judge Dee at Work, and then go back to the rest of the stories in this book after I come to them chronologically, or just read that or The Chinese Lake Murders in their entirity? Thanks!

Transcription 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a matter of personal opinion, but personally I believe reading them in the chronological order is always best. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 23:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that "chronological" in terms of when they were written, when they were published, or when the action in any book takes place? Bielle 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bielle, it is the order in which the action takes place. Also, The Random Editor, so you would recommend reading the stories which take place before the book first, then go to The Chinese Lake Murders, and then go back to the stories that take place after? Thanks for the help everyone!

Transcription 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost shareholders

I understand that transfer agents are employed to handle shareholder records. To that end, their (failed) efforts to track down certain shareholders results in so-called "lost shareholders." But what ultimately becomes of those 'lost shares'? Does a corporation absorb them after a certain amount of time? Any help, with references, is much appreciated. Wolfgangus 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rules will vary by country, and even, perhaps, by province, state or county. The U.K., I think, has a "reasonable efforts and 16-year" rule, after which the lost shares may be absorbed back into the company. There is a site the purports to tell you, country by country, what the rules are. Go here [2] and click on the relevant flag. However, this may well be a legal matter and Wikipedia does not give legal advice. We recommend you consult an legal expert in your jurisdiction. Bielle 01:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually just doing some fact-checking and I think the referred site will do just fine. Thanks for the help. Wolfgangus 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]