Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 25

= September 25 =

Sir Fergus Woodward, Scottish explorer?
This possibly historical character figured in a prank I've now deleted at the article Bourges. Is Sir Fergus a phantom? Googling "Fergus Woodward" hasn't turned up anything that is securely not a mirror of a mirror, only reflections of This further prank. Clio? --Wetman 00:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This notable 18th century Scotsman isn't in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or in any of the other standard references I have to hand. Also, while there were a few 18th century Scots called 'Fergus', Woodward just isn't a Scottish name. He looks very much like a   to me.  Xn4  01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally have never heard of this individual, Wetman, and I thought I knew the names of all of the chief Scottish explorers. And as for Eric Mouhica, who can possibly imagine a French aristocrat with a name like that! Well spotted, but I have to say that it is subtle forms of vandalism like this that worries me most about Wikipedia. That particular piece of misinformation has managed to survive unchallenged for months. I spotted something similar on the St. George page not so long ago. Clio the Muse 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * John F. Kennedy: "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth, persistant, persuasive and unrealistic." Xn4  02:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You folks have confirmed my suspicions. The more I check him through Wikipedia, the more I see this is a prank: see Talk:Huvadhu_Atoll; a prank "Sir Fergus Woodward" paragraph was formerly in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll. Once you detect a prankster, it serves Wikipedia to check their User contributions for more of the same: here more than one logged in account was employed. --Wetman 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Felons voting rights
In the article "Texas Constitution" it includes this statement:

Article 6: "Suffrage" Denies voting rights to. . . felons. . . (though the Legislature may make exceptions in the latter two cases).

Do any/all other states of the U.S.A. deny voting rights to felons? If so, how extensively (to commiters of what felonies)?

Zantaggerung 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We have an article Felony disenfranchisement, but your question may be better answered in several publications on this topic available from the Sentencing Project. At least one "includes state-by-state table illustrating the categories of persons disenfranchised due to a felony conviction." Wareh 02:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On the state by state table, can anyone find a key as to what the Xs mean? I don't see anything that says whether an X in the column means that they can or cannot vote.  Dismas |(talk) 05:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. I think I got it figured out.  Near the top it states that Maine and Vermont are the only two states that allow inmates to vote.  Neither of those two states have any Xs.  So that leads me to believe that an X indicates the people in that column are not allowed to vote.  It would still be nice if there were a key...  Dismas |(talk) 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The table title is the key: it indicates disenfranchisement. --Anon, 21:27 UTC, September 29, 2007.

Ahmadinejad and Columbia
Does anybody know what address to write a letter to Ahmadinejad? I would like to thank him for speaking at Columbia. I thought his view was interesting and important regardless of how much I may or may not agree with him. Also, who made the decision to allow him to speak at Columbia? I would also like to write and thank that person (or people). I think it's very important that we open dialogue and allow ourselves to understand other cultures and countries, especially those from the middle east. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.81.179 (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would urge caution. He is a foreigner who supports terrorism (Hezbollah) and the destruction of Israel, denies that the Holocaust occurred, and is currently supporting attacks on US troops in Iraq by supplying the rebels.  That, combined with communications between Americans and foreigners being monitored, could mean you will find yourself on a terrorist watch list and not allowed to fly, etc. StuRat 04:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, citizens are to be punished for writing letters to people the US government strongly disapproves of, but not so strongly that they are allowed into the US? I wonder if Lisa Anderson, the dean of Columbia's school of international and public affairs, will be penalized for issuing the invitation to Ahmadinejad in the first place? It doesn't strike me as very likely, but if there are such Draconian powers to watch letter-writers and prevent them from travelling, then the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is down the drain. Xn4  04:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with StuRat. The person who writes to Mr. Ahmadinejad will land on a government watchlist at the very least.  I'm sure if Samantha Smith had lived longer, she would have been on watch lists for her entire life.  The letter may actually get through but I wouldn't bet on it getting through unnoticed.  It was only within the last 5 years or so that all the files on John Lennon were released.  So why would some random citizen feel safe in writing  a known terrorist sympathizer?  Dismas |(talk) 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you are kidding!--Tresckow 08:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you, would you prefer to fly on a plane with or without a person who writes fan letters to those who support terrorism and attacks on Americans ? Most Americans would prefer not to fly on a plane with such people. StuRat 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You hope who is kidding about what? Dismas |(talk) 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In answer to the question, his website has an e-mail the president widget. Can't see a print address; if you can't find anything, then "President Ahmadinejad, Islamic Republic of Iran" might work: most postal services can find their president. Apropos the discussion, the US government must spend a lot of time watching participants in Amnesty International letter-writing campaigns! Algebraist 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Or you could just leave a comment on his blog Algebraist 13:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to write to HIM, could you please ask HIM this question. Hypothetically since there are no homosexuals in Iran. If a homosexual man have sex with a homosexual women in Iran, does that count as two homosexuals having sex with each other? 210.49.155.132 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, StuRat, great soapbox/rant. Didn't sound like the poster was going to write a "fan" letter. Regardless, I'd prefer to fly with people who respect the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as not only the laws of the land but as valuable cornerstone's of our democracy; so here's hoping I don't end up on a plane with you and also hoping you don't actually speak for, "most Americans". Also, I now picture you as Dale Gribble. 38.112.225.84 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply that the original poster was sending a fan letter, but was using that as an illustration of a case where people would be worried for their personal safety. As for the Bill of Rights, I don't believe you will find an Amendment that provides for the "Right to enjoy the benefits of public or private transportation, regardless of political views".  When given the following choices, people consistently choose the third option:


 * 1) Allow everyone on planes without any search.


 * 2) Thoroughly search everyone, even babies and old ladies.


 * 3) Thoroughly search only those who seem most likely to be a threat, based on their country of origin, politics, and associations (sometimes called "profiling"). This is the method the Israelis use, and it has been quite effective at preventing terrorism against their planes since it was implemented. StuRat 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (added to archives for completeness): I have acquired Ahmadinejad's postal address. It is "His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, The Presidency, Palestine Avenue, Azerbaijan Intersection, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran". Algebraist 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

EU Constitution
What is Latvia's view on ammending the European Union's constitution? Also, how does Latvia feel about the new role of the president within the EU? - anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.188.155 (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say Latvia is rather happy about that. They feel not really secure next to the russian bear and being a member of the EU makes it, even if only psychologically, easier for them. Besides it gives them a boost in prestige and a possibility of having at least some political weight. Joining the EU was the only reasonable thing to do. In contrast to Poland I guess they are totally happy. But that is just my guess.--Tresckow 08:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Latvia is a place. Places don't have opinions.  Perhaps you have in mind the Latvian state (whose personnel change) or the Latvian people (who are likely to have diverse opinions).  &mdash;Tamfang 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Admission of Croation into the EU
How does Latvia feel about admitting Croatia into the European Union? -anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.79.80.67 (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Croation???--Tresckow 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's not get into croationist controversy here! &mdash;Tamfang 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tamfang: ouch! SaundersW 18:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Boer Sympathsers
I read that there was a lot of sympathy internationally for the Boers during the Second Boer War. What form did this take? Luke Here 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first. Lanfear&#39;s Bane 09:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence that this is a homework question. -- Mwalcoff 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is a homework question with the first part slightly re-phrased or simply amended by adding 'I read that' in front of the question. What form did this take? sounds incredibly 'homeworky'. It also sounds as if the OP has not consulted the article on the Second Boer War which does include some detail on the international sympathy. If you compared it to a sample of the other questions on these desks you would notice a marked difference between 'honest' questions and homework. Lanfear&#39;s Bane 10:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then, let's just suggest that the questioner reads our very detailed article on the Second Boer War. I found it especially interesting that the article says "public support quickly waned as it became apparent that the war would not be easy and unease developed following reports about the treatment by the Army of the Boer civilians". Reminds me of more recent history ! Gandalf61 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No wonder, history repeats itself. Maybe the bestknown eyample towads the Boers: Kruger telegram. Although not during the Second Boer War.--Tresckow 16:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Luke, let me see what I can do for you.

First of all, since you have specifically asked for 'inernational' reactions, I am largely putting to one side the question of domestic opposition, though please let me know if you would like me to explore this dimension also. It might interest you to know, though, that the opponents of the war included many Irish Nationalist, which comes, I suppose as no great surprise. Michael Davitt, the founder of the Irish National Land League, resigned his parliamentary seat at Westminster in protest. He subsequently tried to interest the European powers in the fate of the Boers, writing an apologia, condemning the British for arming 'African savages' against two 'Christian states'. Arthur Griffith, founder of Sinn Fein, used the occasion of the war in an attempt to focus hostility towards continuing British rule in Ireland. Kier Hardie, leader of the British Labour Party, absolved the Boers of all blame for the war-and ignored their treatment of black Africans-because they were a "virtuous, republican and pastoral people, with all of the fine qualities that pertain to that way of life." J. A. Hobson, John Burns and Edward Carpenter, left-wing and radical, all combined to describe the war as the work of 'Cosmopolitain-Jewish manipulators' living in Cape Colony.

Beyond British shores, Theodore Roosevelt, then governor of New York, and himself no stranger to the attractions of imperialism, expressed some sympathy for the Boers, with whom he shared a Dutch ancestry, though he believed that their downfall was part of an Anglo-Saxon manifest destiny, just as was the downfall of the Spanish Empire in 1898. His distant cousin, Franklin Delano Rosevelt, took a quite different view, presiding over the Harvard Committee for Boer Relief. Sun Yat-Sen, Chinese revolutionary and political leader, was encouraged by the example of Boer resistence, seeing it as a blow against all forms of imperialism.

British conduct during the war, especially the setting up of concentration camps, was the source of much international hostility, though most remained blind to Boer atrocities against black people. Close on 3000 volunteers served with the Boer Republics, which included a Scandinavian Corps, almost wiped out at the Battle of Magersfontein. In the various Boer commandos it was possible to find Germans, Russians, Italians, Irish, French and Americans. The Germans included Count Harra von Zeppelin, at the one extreme, to Fritz Brall, the anarchist, at the other. In the Hollander Corps was to be found Cornelius van Gogh, brother of Vincent, the painter, and Theo the art dealer, who committed suicide after being captured by the British. The Russian Corp, mostly ambulence drivers and scouts, numbered among them Prince Bagration of Tiflis, a Cossack hetman, and Alexander Guchkov, later to serve for a time as Minister of War in the Russian Provisional Government, established after the Revolution of February 1917. The French included Prince Louis d'Orleans et Braganze, cousin of the Orleanist pretender. He was joined by Count de Villebois-Mareuil, one of the founders of Action Francaise.

Naturally enough, the Boers attracted a lot of support in the Netherlands, their ancestral home, with Queen Wilhelmina going so far as to send a warship to bring Paul Kruger to Europe, where he was well-received, both in Paris and the Hague. Streets were named after him in the Netherlands and Belgium, and a statue erected in his honour in Dresden. German approval of the exiled president was to continue for some time, and the Nazi film industry was later to pay its own tribute in Ohm Krüger, made in 1940. Widespread as it was, pro-Boer sentiment caused no government to bring pressure on the British, and had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the war.

I trust this is enough, Luke, and sincerely hope that you have not been put off Wikipedia, and the Reference Desk, by some of the remarks made by other contributers here at the outset. My best wishes. Clio the Muse 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Land grants
I have an orginial War of 1812 land grant from President Pierce signed with the U.S. Presidential seal and recorded by Granger company giving a soldier Richardson 40 acrea of land in Danville Illinois. Does this document have any value to anyone? Who would I contact? appox. how much would something like this be worth? 71.213.53.228 07:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Joy Willumsen


 * A war of 1812 land grant signed by the man who was president 1853–57? What's with that? (and no, I don't know the answers to your questions. I'm just feeling inquisitive) Algebraist 12:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The War of 1812 veterans were a rather powerful political force during Pierce's campaign. Add to that Pierce's habit of handing out tons and tons of land grants and it isn't much of a stretch to assume he was handing out land grants to War of 1812 veterans to gain political power. --  k a i n a w &trade; 14:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just found this that details a conflict between "land warrants" for Mexican War veterans and War of 1812 veterans of that period. -- k a i n a w &trade; 14:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and don't miss Antiques Roadshow when it comes to town.--Wetman 07:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Australian independence
Would it be true to say that Australian independence was born with the fall of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942? Barnie X 10:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Dweller 12:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. Actually, no. --Dweller 12:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then again, maybe. --Dweller 12:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, why don't you just tell your teacher that questions that render complex historical processes into inane questions that beg a yes/no/maybe answer are lazy and deserve one word answers. --Dweller 12:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, someone's irritated me, so I might be a little grizzly, but the teachers setting stupid questions are actually more annoying than students posting homework questions on this desk, in my opinion.
 * Tell her you fail to recognise Australian Independance and that you cannot possibly comment on the situation with a clear conscience and without the use of profanity. Or do an article on Austrian Independance and claim you misread the question. Or, do your own homework. Lanfear&#39;s Bane 12:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Constitution of Australia would be a good start. Neil   ム  13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what we are talking about here, Barnie, is the creation, if it might be so expressed, of a new Australian 'national consciousness'; an awarness, in other words, that Australia was a nation in its own right, with interests that could not be subsumed within a wider British Dominion. That may not date specifically to the Fall of Singapore in February 1942, significant as it was, but to the entry of the Japanese into the war and all that followed from this, which served to focus minds that the first priority for Australians was not defence of the Empire, but defence of their own homeland. Australia declared war in September 1939 to fight Britain's battle; it ended by fighting its own.

The problem was that, by 1941, Australia was ill-prepared to face a challenge to its own sovereignty, with its best divisons serving far away from home in the African theatre of operations against the Germans. Responding to concerns by Sir Robert Menzies, the Australian Prime Minister, over the establishment of Japanese bases in the French colony of Indo-China in 1940, Winston Churchill said that while he could not send a fleet to the Far East he considered the possibility of a Japanese invasion to be 'very unlikely.' But if they did invade Britain would "cut our losses in the Meditteranean and proceed to your aid, sacrificing every interest except only the defence position of this island on which all depends." His intention was to secure more Australian troops for the Middle East, really quite cynical in the circumstances. Though mindful of the advice being given by Frederick Shedden, amongst others, Menzies still declined to put the defence of Australia first, fearing for the future of the Empire as a whole.

Things changed to some degree after John Curtin, the Labor leader, took office in October 1941, when a clearer distinction between British and Australian interests began to emerge. Even so, Curtin initially held to commitments previously entered into by his predecessor, leaving three divisions in the Middle East and even agreeing to provide fresh troops in the event of a German invasion of Turkey. In the meantime Churchill was actively hoping for a Pacific war between Japan and the United States, as a way of drawing America into the general conflict, giving no serious thought to the implications this would have for Australia. Indeed, British commitments in the east, and to the defences of 'Fortress Singapore', were actively cut back.

With the entry of Japan into the war Curtin urged Churchill to make good his promise on Imperial defence, a promise he quite simply could not meet. In late December 1941 it is possible to detect the first great 'break' in Australian history, the first indication of a new beginning, in Curtin's New Year message, published in the Melbourne Herald;

''Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom. We know the problems the United Kingdom faces. We know thae constant threat of invasion. We know the dagers of the dispersal of strength, but we know, too, that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on. We are, therefore, determined that Australia shall not go, and we shall exert all our energies towards the shaping of a plan, with the United States as its keystone, which will give to our country some confidence of being able to hold out until the tide of battle swings against the enemy.''

Churchill was so angry that he thought himself of making a broadcast to the people of Australia, attacking the line being taken by Curtin, which threatened his negotiations in Washington. In Canberra the feeling was growing that, from the perspective of London, Australia was no more than an expendable 'outpost of Empire'. Curtin and his colleagues were now fully aware that while they had been prepared to expend all in the defence of Britain, Britain had not the will, had not the power, had not the ability to make an equal return. Imperial defence was a failure. It was a failure that General Douglas MacArthur, who arrived in March 1942 to take overall command of the Allied war effort was prepared to exploit to his advantage. Britain had, so he told Curtin, failed in its 'fundamental duty'. The defence thread was broken; all others, beyond mere sentiment, followed. Australia had to find its own place in the world; Australia had to be independent in the fullest sense of the word. Clio the Muse 02:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't add much to Clio's explanation, but I'm reminded of Benjamin Disraeli's famous comment "Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent." In 1914, the British government in London was able to declare war on the Central Powers on behalf of the whole Empire. By 1939, several declarations of war were required, and although in some cases (such as Australia, New Zealand and India) these followed quickly and inevitably, the Union of South Africa delayed and pondered. After the Second World War, there were no more automatic declarations of war by Australia in support of the mother country, and Clio has outlined why that was. Xn4  03:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Xn4. Most of all thanks to you Clio for a brilliant answer, everything I expected of you and more.  As for the cheeky responses at the top what can I say that would not breach your civility rules other than that I find them glib and sickeningly superior.  I wont be coming back here.Barnie X 05:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * BarnieX, in the hope that you forgive the perpetrator and do come back:
 * Australia entering into a state of war with Germany in 1939 was even more than the "inevitable" that Xn4 refers to. It wasn't a separate declaration of war in any legal sense that I'm aware of.  Menzies simply went on radio and said "Fellow Australians, It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war.  No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make such an announcement."  Note, he didn't say it was hard task to make a declaration of war, he said it was a hard task to much such an announcement.  He considered that Chamberlain's declaration automatically applied to Australia.  Had he been in power between 1941 and 1949 instead of Curtin, Forde and Chifley, I'm quite sure (although I obviously can't prove it) that the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (see Australian nationality law) would have been much delayed.  It came into effect on 26 January 1949.  Menzies came back to power in December 1949, and much later he was still spouting stuff such as "Australians are British to the bootstraps".  I wonder what the millions of post-war immigrants from countries other than the UK thought of that.  --  JackofOz 02:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jack. That was perhaps Menzies's way of breaking the news, as Australia did indeed formally make a separate declaration of war on Germany on 3 September 1939, which was the same day as the UK, France, and New Zealand. South Africa declared war on Germany on 6 September and Canada left it until the 10th. It was all to do with the Statute of Westminster. When it came to declaring war on Japan, Canada beat the rest of the Empire to it and acted on 7 December 1941, while the UK, Australia and New Zealand left it until the next day. Xn4 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Xn4. I would love to see a document that would prove me wrong about this.  Can you point me to any official document that constitutes a formal declaration of war by Australia against Germany in 1939?  --  JackofOz 13:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Having looked into this some more, you seem to be right. Several sources refer to an Australian declaration of war on Germany on 3 September 1939, which was supported by the Australian federal parliament when it met, but I couldn't find a source referring to an actual document. It appears, though, that Australia didn't formally adopt the Statute of Westminster until 1942, and that it did so with effect from 3 September 1939. It's suggested here that that was to expunge any possible unlawfulness in Australia's participation in the war against Germany without a formal declaration of war in 1939. The Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No 77 dated 10 March 1942 has the Australian declaration of war on Thailand, as from 2 March 1942. If you can check the Gazette for September 1939, you may be able to fathom this. It may be that Menzies's announcement that he considered Australia to be at war with Germany was treated by all concerned as Australia's declaration of war, if one was needed.  Xn4  22:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Xn4. I haven’t been able to track down the actual Gazette notice (special issue No. 63 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, 3 September 1939), but:
 * this says: "... the only formal steps taken by Australia were publishing a notice in the Commonwealth Gazette recording the fact that war had broken out between the United Kingdom and Germany, and requesting the British government to inform the German government that Australia was associated in the war with Germany". It quotes what appears to be the full text of the gazette notice: It is hereby notified for general information that war has broken out between Great Britain and Germany. Dated this Third day of September, 1939.  Canada, South Africa and New Zealand, on the other hand, chose to make separate proclamations of war (see paras 22-41 for the full discussion)
 * this says: Australia was considered to be automatically at war with Germany following the declaration of war by the United Kingdom. Australia therefore made no general declaration of war
 * this says: Australia, whose Prime Minister, Mr R. G. Menzies, was a lawyer, was the only dominion to adhere to the doctrine that the King's declaration of war involved all his subjects. Mr Menzies signed and published in the Commonwealth Gazette a notice ‘for general information’ that war had broken out between Great Britain and Germany, and broadcast the plain statement that ‘Great Britain has declared war, and that, as a result Australia is also at war ...; and
 * this is the full text of Menzies' radio broadcast (fascinating; I’d never read it before).
 * So, as I've always believed, we didn't declare war on Germany. Chamberlain did it for us.  A lot of websites and other documents repeat the erroneous information that we did declare war, and it's not unreasonable to assume they're right.  The facts tell us otherwise, though.  --  JackofOz 01:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Jack, you seem to have got to the bottom of it. My only reservation is that if (which seems uncertain) Australia should have declared war on Germany and didn't, then perhaps it might be argued that "requesting the British government to inform the German government that Australia was associated in the war with Germany" amounted to a declaration of war, in any event. There were international agreements on war which may be relevant: remember the fury of F. D. Roosevelt when Pearl Harbour was attacked before the Japanese had made their declaration of war on the US? But there was probably no exact definition anywhere of the terms in which war needed to be declared. If you look at the requirement purposively, then the request to Britain may well have complied with any international obligations. I'm not clear whether it makes any difference that Australia didn't ratify the Statute of Westminster until 1942. We're in deep waters, and these things can often be argued different ways. Xn4 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. It seems to me that Menzies considered that Britain spoke for Australia in these matters - almost as if Australia was an integral part of the UK, as distinct from a separate nation.  When the UK declared war on Germany, it automatically meant that Wales, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland .... and Australia, were at war with Germany.  None of the other 4 made declarations separate from the UK declaration, so there was considered no need for Australia to do so either.  And in a sense - but only in a sense - Menzies was right.  I believe that Australia did not send ambassadors to foreign countries till after WW2, and we relied on the ambassadors from the UK to represent our interests overseas.  Thank God things have moved on somewhat since then.  How Menzies reconciled his position with those of the other Dominion PMs who did make separate declarations of war, I have no idea.  --  JackofOz 14:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

HR & PM
It is argued that personnel management and human resources managemnt are the same. Give advantages and disadvantages of each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.217.11 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do your own homework. The reference desk will not give you answers for your homework, although we will try to help you out if there is a specific part of your homework you do not understand. Make an effort to show that you have tried solving it first.. Lanfear&#39;s Bane 14:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Our article Human resource management might help you with your homework question. I do think this is a very bad question, however.  If the two terms are indeed synonymous, then it's meaningless to try and give advantages and disadvantages of them (and how can terms have advantages and disadvantages, anyway?).  A far better question, and one you might want to take a stab at answering for yourself after reading our article, is what are the different approaches to PM/HRM as revealed by the differing terms. --Richardrj talkemail 14:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Women in Iron Age Britain
I would like to know something of the role, particularly the political role, of women in Iron Age Britain. This is for a paper on the changing position of women in various historical periods. It is not a 'homework' question as such, so I hope not to be treated with the same rudeness that I see other people have been on this page. Thank you.Pacific231 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Our article, British Iron Age, is sadly lacking, both in content applicable to your topic, and in links for further research. Sorry.  However, the British Iron Age was "the age of the Celt".  has a section on "the lot of women" - Celtic lands were owned communally, and wealth seems to have been based largely on the size of cattle herd owned. The lot of women was a good deal better than in most societies of that time. They were technically equal to men, owned property, and could choose their own husbands. They could also be war leaders, as Boudicca (Boadicea) later proved.  You might also find this link useful.  Neil   ム  14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Boudica, of course, might be a good start, as the most known Iron Age woman. That article does have a lot of resources provided. Neil   ム  15:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC) If it's not a homework question then you shouldn't be worried (however, if the cap fits, wear it?). And it's not rudeness, it is simply one of the 'rules' of this area of Wikipedia. The contributors to this section enjoy helping people, not doing (home)work for them. You might also wish to consider that insinuating that people are rude while asking for their help is not a great strategy. I do however hope that someone is able and willing to help you with your not a 'homework' question as such. Lanfear&#39;s Bane 14:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In the absense of historical documents it's difficult to know - you'll probably have to rely on roman accounts.87.102.10.190 17:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC) The only other alternative I can think of would be to infer 'things' from grave goods - however the presence of high value goods in grave no more means a highly valued slave (or even sacrifice) than a respected member of society...87.102.10.190 18:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from Boudica and her daughters, the only women from Iron Age Britain referred to in Roman accounts are Cartimandua and some of Caratacus' relatives. To them we could add the woman buried with a chariot in Wetwang, Yorkshire. All of them are aristocrats, so how far you can apply their cases to women generally is questionable. The site Neil links to above sounds like new age wishful thinking to me - there's very little evidence for laws or customs for the ownership of land or sexual politics in the Iron Age. It is true that women could be leaders, but Boudica and Cartimandua could be anomalous, despite what Tacitus says about the former - Boudica only found herself in a position of leadership in the exceptional circumstances of a revolt, and Cartimandua was propped up as a Roman puppet. There's no identifiable evidence of any other female rulers from coins or texts that I know of.


 * The Roman sources for Iron Age Britain are fairly thin. Some use might be made of classical descriptions of related societies in Gaul. Archaeology might be able to shed some light, but again, grave goods would probably only tell you about the aristocracy. Medieval Ireland is probably the most closely related society that's well documented, so if you can find a book on early Irish law (the Brehon Laws) you might find some material there. Another area to look in might be the Picts, who are said to have reckoned descent by the female line. --Nicknack009 23:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pacific 231, I can add a little to the information you have already been given from Dio Cassius, one of the Roman sources, who has Boudica announce, "We British are used to women commanders in battle." I have no idea if this is an accurate statement or not, or if it is simply another way of disparaging 'barbarian' practices for a Roman audience. On the assumption that you have not already done so, you might try consulting Celtic Goddesses by Miranda Green, and Women in Prehistory by Margaret Ehrenberg. Clio the Muse 23:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank all who responded to my question-all with the exception of Lanfear's Bane. Pacific231 11:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Can Anyone Help?
I am from Scotland and I am trying to trace my Dad,his name is Norman Grant and he is in his sixties,the last I heard from him he lived near Nahoon Beach in East London. I would be grateful if anyone could give me any information on how to trace him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaygrant (talk • contribs) 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (copied from Village Pump by me DuncanHill 16:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC))


 * I take it you've tried the obvious routes, such as telephone directories and the electoral register? Our article on missing persons is rather US-orientated, but you would do well to contact one of the several UK charities who specialise in this sort of thing, such as http://www.missingpeople.org.uk/ There is also a free teletext service on Channel 4 to help you find missing people. There are also a number of organisations listed here.--Shantavira|feed me 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The South African phonebook can be searched from here, but I suppose you've tried that. Perhaps if you can write it up in suitably appealing form and send it to the local paper in East London, they'd publish it. That might get a response. The Daily Dispatch (no article) (http://www.dispatch.co.za) and the Herald (also no article) (http://www.theherald.co.za/) cover the Eastern Cape. Presumably, like everywhere else, there will be local free papers as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply,I searched everywhere from appeals in newspapers to contacting the Salvation Army missing persons, I did everything possible and after a lot of work I discovered that he had moved out of East London and unfortunately when I did manage to locate his new address I was too late as he has died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaygrant (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
Could you please help in regards to the question below:

How many borough councils are in the British Isles.

Many thanks

Regards 80.194.35.66 17:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See Borough status in the United Kingdom.--Shantavira|feed me 17:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And Local government in the Republic of Ireland, which has five, as far as I can make out. Algebraist 13:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Help me to identify an Andy Warhol piece
Hi guys

I recently aquired a print of one Warhol`s artworks. It seems vaguely familiar so I`m hoping that someone will be able to identify it. I`ve been on a website but I couldn`t find the name of the print. I`m not entirely sure how upload a picture of it onto this page, so I`ll describe it. It appears to a collection of glasses, wine glasses and empty wine bottles, saucers on a black table. The glassses on the right side have a yellow/orange outline while the ones on the left side have a red outline.

Thanks a lot

129.100.207.195 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like After The Party. -- LarryMac  | Talk  19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. It is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.207.195 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

safety glasses
can anybody tell me if the ANSI Z87.1-2003 CE-166 matches the british standard for safety glasses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.202.100 (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-Refrencing Art
I was wondering if there is a specific name for the kind of art (particularly sketchs and paintings) that refrence the piece in question. For example: http://denis2.deviantart.com/art/Debate-44961626 and http://nocturnal-devil.deviantart.com/art/sketch-book-8298361

I looked up information on MC Escher thinking he might have done something similar, and either he didn't or it's not posted. Also, I have already tried a few terms like picture in picture to no avail. Any information would be nice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.45.152 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like an example of recursion to me. Malcolm Starkey 19:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See Droste effect and the references therein to Escher. --Lambiam 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea on a name but it was also used, with slight variation, on the Pink Floyd album Ummagumma. Dismas |(talk) 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of Escher's pieces play tricks with perception through mixing of levels (see strange loop) and oblique self-references (for example, Belvedere contains an image of a boy playing with an impossible cube) rather than the direct picture-within-a-picture of the Droste effect. The one exception that comes to mind is Print Gallery, in which a print gallery contains a print of the gallery and its surrounding town. Gandalf61 10:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I submit, for your consideration, the greatest use of the Droste effect in the history of Western art: . --Sean 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I submit, for your consideration, that your link has issues:

You don't have permission to access /gerpunx/archives/hasselhoffian-recursion.gif on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. -SandyJax 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed! --Sean 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary diarists
Please provide some names of famous contemporary writers, who have published their diaries (and are famous for this) as well as the title of their diaries.

Regards, Ramonalex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramonalex (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We have a List of diarists. Most names on the list did not publish their diaries themselves, though, and are more famous for other things. --Lambiam 23:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Copenhagen 1807
We are not long past the two hundredth anniversary of the British bombardment of Copenhagen in September 1807. Was this a legitimate act of war or an unprovoked attack on a neutral country? Thanks for any answers. Simon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.242.50 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The attack on Copenhagen in 1807 came about through a complicated set of circumstances involving British paranoia, an unfortunately timed Danish mobilisation of their navy, and a disgruntled French-born Russian secret agent. All very "Whoops Apocalypse".
 * The British government had frequently started hostilities without a declaration of war in the 18th century. This, and the reasons for it, are remarked upon in Jeremy Black's Knights Errant and True Englishmen. From London's perspective the risk of the Danish fleet and its vast array of stores falling into the hands of the French justified extreme measures to ensure a rapid, total success. Although bombarding defended cities was not all that uncommon and doubtless a legitimate act of war, as it remained under the Hague Conventions, it seems to have been rather more indiscrimate than usual at Copenhagen. It was an Ungentlemanly Act, and so was the attack in 1801. Sinking and capturing a large part of the (still neutral) Spanish treasure fleet in 1805 wasn't very nice either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just providing the link for Battle of Copenhagen (1807). Jooler 22:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Simon, it was an episode that attracted a great deal of 'criticism from within' at the time, though George Canning, who conceived of the attack as a strategic and political necessity, defended his actions in Parliament with all of the formidable skill at his disposal. It is important, you see, to consider the circumstances of the day, and the position Britain found itself in after the conclusion of the War of the Fourth Coalition. Once again, with Russia withdrawing from the conflict after Napoleon's victory at the Battle of Friedland, Britain stood alone without allies, to face all of the power of the French Empire. If you are looking for a modern parallel then you could do no better than consider the situation in 1940 after the Fall of France. Then Churchill, fearful that the powerful French fleet would fall into German hands, ordered an attack on its base at Mers-el-Kebir, after an ultimatum to hand over the ships was ignored. And so it was in 1807, with one crucial difference: Russia, Britain's former ally, had entered into an understanding with Napoleon at the Treaty of Tilsit. Once again the country faced the possibility of a hostile naval combination as it had in 1801 with the Armed Neutrality of the North. Then the Battle of Copenhagen followed, which I personally believe to have been a strategic necessity, contrary to Angus' contention in the above.

Now, although Denmark was neutral in 1807, Canning had received good intelligence that after Tilsit Napoleon was planning to combine several fleets: the Russian, the Swedish, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the French, as well as the Danish, thus reviving the invasion threat of 1804 and replacing the naval power that he had lost so decisively at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. It was a situation that no British war-time leader could face with equanimity; it threatened the vital Baltic trade; more than that, it threatened Britain's very existence. Once again, as in 1801, Denmark was the obvious weak-link, one with great strategic importance, because it controlled the narrow sea passages into the Baltic.

Frightful as the attack was it worked, and the 'nightmare of Tilsit' never emerged. In my view by far the best summary is to be found in the journals of William Wilberforce, the anti-slavery campaigner, "My friends doubt about the Danish business-I own the policy doubtful; but our right is clear. They would have become our open enemies very shortly.  Still, our national character is injured." Clio the Muse 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Passport issued by the Governor of Georgia (state)
I have a copy of a passport which the Governor of Georgia (US state) issued to one of my ancestors to travel out of Georgia and into the Native American areas (Alabama, presumably) circa 1805. What was the purpose of such a passport? If my ancestor hadn't had that passport, would he have been subject to arrest for being in Alabama without authorization? Corvus cornix 20:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the specifics of the situation in Georgia in 1805, but on various occasions North American governments have taken steps to prevent liquor and firearms from being sold to Indians in circumstances in which the governments didn't want liquor and firearms to be sold to Indians, and/or to prevent unauthorized individuals from cutting into the profits of licensed Indian traders... AnonMoos 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it dated? Before the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, there were Native American areas not far away which were outside the US. Xn4  02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There were also treaties with Indians, part of which was the promise to keep Europeans off of their lands. Such promises were typically kept for a short period, then the treaty was broken.  This may have been one of those periods in which they were genuinely trying to abide by a treaty. StuRat 04:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

For Georgians in 1805, not only was Alabama "Indian Country" (Creek), but also northern Georgia (Cherokee). Unlicensed trespass in Indian country was forbidden by the federal government per the Indian Intercourse Act. This posed a big problem for US citizens who wanted to travel from Tennessee to Georgia or vice versa, because they had to pass through Creek or Cherokee territory. As a result, great pressure was put on the Indians to sign treaties allowing for roads to go through. (For American Indians, the real problem was not the breaking of treaties, but rather the enforcement of treaties that were coerced or not widely accepted as binding.) Americans could be arrested for trespassing on Indian land, but I don't know how often this happened. The US Government, like British officials before them, found that it was extremely unpopular to force white settlers off Indian land, and so usually took the easier route of compelling the Indians to sell the land rather than removing white settlers.

Of course, later on Georgia quite famously began arresting whites in Cherokee territory. The state passed a law forbidding unlicensed whites from being in Indian Country as a pretext for removing the missionaries who were assisting the Cherokees in resisting Georgia. Samuel Worcester and others were arrested, leading to the famous Supreme Court case. But this turn of events appears to be later than your passport. —Kevin Myers 15:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oldest historical event passed down by word of mouth alone
I've always wondered exactly how far oral tradition can preserve historical memory in non-literate societies. Can it last a few hundred years, a thousand years, longer? Please try to give clear examples of preserved historical events or situations rather than vague mythological parallels. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity on this.--Pharos 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, bear in mind that you need physical references as well to confirm that practitioners of oral tradition are actually coughing up the goods. Good examples where you'd get some of both are volcanic eruptions. According to, the Māori remembered eruptions of Mt Taranaki for several hundred years before the first Western explorers tried to set up camp on its northern side, with catastrophic results. tells a similar story, with modern Nisga’a recalling an eruption that took place in the mid-18th Century. I would suspect that after a few centuries, legend and myth will creep into almost any story told by many people, and after a few more, they'll form the bulk of the telling. Heck, look at some of the legends that have arisen about events that we actually have written documentation for. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it mildy amusing that Attila the Hun, ruler of a nation of steppe nomads who came from the east to crush the Goths and rule over the Germans, is remembered as a chivalrous king who is more good guy than bad guy in the Nibelunglied... AnonMoos 02:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See Vedas. Rigveda says "The Rigveda's core is accepted to date to the late Bronze Age". Xn4 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Biblical flood, also recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and by other cultures (see Deluge (mythology), may have been passed down orally for thousands of years before being recorded. Recent scientific findings support that a massive flood (but not world-wide) may have indeed occurred when the Black Sea was filled in from the Mediterranean Sea.  See Black_Sea.


 * The Trojan War, long believed to be a myth, may have taken place and been carried down by oral tradition until recorded by Homer in the Iliad.


 * The myth of Atlantis may have resulted when a small Greek island was destroyed by an exploding volcano. This was also carried down orally until recorded much later. StuRat 04:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

--No, no, the oldest oral recantation still excercised today is the story of the Three Little Pigs. Beekone 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah? When was it recanted?  &mdash;Tamfang 00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Quandary on Sudreys and Sundries
I've been trying to find out more about the history of the Isle of Man but not being able to read Manx, the old chronicles aren't much good. One question I've had that doesn't even figure at all on the WikiSphere is: What exactly was the "Kingdom of the Sudreys", what came before it and what came after it? What caused the transitions? Anyone with knowledge on "British" (well, British Isles, anyway) history around? 90.240.217.229 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No reason you should want to read Manx: Latin, Old Norse and Classical Gaelic would be helpful though. Sudreys is the anglicisation of Old Norse Suðreyjar = south islands, compare Suðrland = south land = Sutherland. South here is relative to Orkney and Iceland. The Sudreys corresponded with the Hebrides. These were sometimes, but perhaps not all that often, ruled together with the isle of Man.
 * The early history of the Isle of Man is pretty obscure. The Irish annals say that Báetán mac Cairill conquered the island around 580, but didn't hold it for long. Áedán mac Gabráin may also have conquered it soon after. Who they were conquering it from is unknown. Probably some people speaking a form of Old Irish. Bede says that Edwin of Deira conquered the island, sometime in the 620s. It may have belonged to his enemy, who would eventually kill him, Cadwallon ap Cadfan. It is possible that Fiachnae mac Báetáin conquered the isle of Man. Or not. This relies on the presumed contents of lost Irish sagas rather than histories or annals. I believe the final appearance of the isle of Man in the written record before the Viking Age is as the place of exile of Osred II of Northumbria in 790-792, this is mentioned by Simeon of Durham writing several hundred years later, but probably relying on a near-contemporaty source.
 * In the Viking Age, the isle of Man was part of the Viking Atlantic world, along with the Hebrides, the settlements in Ireland, &c. There is little reliable written evidence for this period and, as always, archaeological evidence can be interpreted in all manner of different ways. Whether many Scandinavians settled on Man or not, their language was brought there, as the place names show. In this period Man was sometimes united with some of the Hebrides. Godred Crovan, who established a long-lasting line of kings, ruled Man but died on Islay, so he may have ruled that too.
 * There is a comprehensive New History of the Isle of Man published by Liverpool University Press. Volumes 2 (Prehistory), by John Belchem, covers up to 1000 AD, while volume 3 (Medieval), by Sean Duffy, goes on to 1405. The Chronicle of Man and the Sudreys is worth a quick skim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 90.240. You do not really need to know the Manx language to find out about the Kingdom of Man and the Isles; there is a lot in English, and even some of the old chronicles, Gaelic and Norse, as well as Manx, have been translated. Let me know how far you want to go and I will make some suggestions on further reading.

First of all, a note on terminology. The 'Sudreys', or the Southern Isles, is the old Viking name for the present day Scottish Hebrides, used to distinguish them from the 'Nordreys' the northern isles of Orkney and Shetland. From the ninth century onwards the Vikings began the process of penetration and settlement, from what is now the Isle of Lewis, down to the Isle of Man. In the process what was sometimes known as the Kingdom of Man and the Sudreys took shape, owing nominal alliegance to the crown of Norway, but largely self-governing. At the end of the eleventh century the Norse King, Magnus Barelegs, sailed down the west coast, deposing Godred Crovan as King of Man, and entering into a treaty with Malcolm III of Scotland, by which the Isles were formally recognised as part of the Kingdom of Norway. But no sooner was Magnus killed in 1103 the Kingdom of Man and the Sudreys emerged once more as a semi-independent political entity.

The period that follows is one of some confusion, but towards the middle of the twelfth century Godfred V united Man and the Sudreys under his rule. His half-sister, Ranghild, was married to a powerful Scottish lord by the name of Somerled, himself of partial Viking ancestry. Somerled, although nominally a subject of the King of Scots, was also a largely independent ruler, with a domain in what is now the mainland part of Argyllshire, adjacent to the Isles. His marriage to Ranghild gave him a direct political interest in the Island kingdom to the west.

In 1156 Somerled went to war with his brotther-in-law, defeating him in a naval encounter, simply known drom the time of year that it was fought as the 'Battle of Epiphany.' After this Godfred agreed to partition his kingdom, all the Isles north of Ardnamurchan going to Somerled, leaving him with the Isles to the south, including Man. But this was not enough for the ambitious Somerled, who two years later seized the remainder, forcing Godfred into exile. Somerled was killed in battle himself in 1164, after which the Kingdom of Man was in part restored, though the northern Isles remained largely in the hands of the his descendants, who in time were to become the Lords of the Isles.

In the thirteenth century the Kingdom of Scotland, first under Alexander II, and then Alexander III began its own westwards expansion. In one last attempt to establish Norse control Haakon IV led a great expedition down the west coast of Scotland in 1263. Nothing significant was achieved, and the failure of the campaign only demonstrated that the distant kings of Norway could not retain control of the area in the face of a determined local power. In 1266 the Treaty of Perth finally brought all of the Isles, including Man, under Scottish control. The last King of Man, Magnus III, died in 1265, the Scots taking possession soon after. And so it remained, until they lost control to the English in the course of the Scottish Wars of Independence. Clio the Muse 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Godred Crovan (d. 1095) and Malcolm III (d. 13 Nov 1093) are presumed to have died before Magnus Barelegs set out west for the first time. Of course, this assumes that the 1098/1102 dating of the expeditions is the conventional one. Whatever the dating, Magnus is unlikely to have signed a treaty with Malcolm. Magnus's father only died in 1093 and the Heimskringla keeps him busy for several years after that fighting rebels and raiding. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll check my sources, Angus, and get back to you tomorrow-if you can wait that long! Clio the Muse 01:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm basing this on Duncan and Brown's paper in the Proceedings of the Sociey of Antiquaries of Scotland (Vol. 90 (1956-1957), which seems to be followed by Barrell's Medieval Scotland. Perhaps relevant to unravelling the chronology of events in Man from 1095 to 1114, Ó Cróinín in Early Medieval Ireland sees Magnus and Muirchertach Ua Briain as partners in crime, much as Duncan and Brown see Edgar and Magnus. For me, that would tend to place Domnall mac Taidg's rule over Man in the context of Magnus's second expedition. Not being a historian, my ideas are worth what you pay for them. If I could lay my hands on McDonald's Kingdom of the Isles, I'd tell you what he says. Duffy's volume of the New History of the Isle of Man would be helpful here, or Benjamin Hudson's Irish Sea Studies and Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, but I've never read any of those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, Angus; first of all, a simple error on my part: Godred Croven was indeed dead by 1095, and could not therefore have been displaced by Magnus, on the assumption that his expedition did indeed come in 1098. The hammer fell, rather on his family in the shape of Lagman, thought to have been his son, who was temporarily displaced as King of Man.  As far as the Scottish king who entered into the treaty with Magnus is concerned I took this from one of the sources given in A. O. Anderson (ed.) Early Sources of Scottish History, Volume II, 1922, pp. 112-3.  But you are right; taking the date as given, then the king would have to have been Edgar, Malcolm's son.  I have, in fact, read Duncan and Brown's paper, so I have no excuse for misremembering the facts!  I have also read R. A. McDonald's Kingdom of the Isles, which I greatly enjoyed.  Clio the Muse 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)