Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 28

= May 28 =

Did WWII tanks ever resort to physically pushing enemy tanks?
I vaguely remember a story some years ago about US Sherman tanks' cannons being so inneffective against the German Panzers' armor that they resorted to pushing them, or dragging them off the battlefield entirely. Now I'm not sure that this is true at all because I don't remember properly, I think I heard it on a historical war program though. It may also have been another set of tanks but I think these are the ones best known for the issue. The Panzers having brilliant armor and their cannon excellent ability to penetrate armor, while the Sherman was the opposite in those respects.

It may also just have been about dragging friendly, damaged, tanks around as I'm sure did happen at times. The thing is I can't find any mention of it anywhere, it may have been a very obscure occurance in odd battles here and there.

Does anyone know whether it is true? And if so, could you please point me towards any reliable source on the matter?

All input is apreciated :)

92.21.186.193 (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Baharroth


 * I believe that in the 1965 movie "Battle of the Bulge" the Panzers pushed a Sherman off a bridge after shooting and destroying it. A Sherman would not have tried to fight a Panzer by pushing it. Sherman tactics against Panzers were to get behind it and shoot it where the armor is thinner, or hit it with shots from multiple Shermans. The Panzer armor was not magically invulnerable to multiple shots from the Sherman cannons.Here is a Panzer destroyed by a Sherman:. Or they could wait for the Panzer to break down, since they were unreliable. Damaged tanks could certainly be hauled in for repairs. The funniest tank pushing newsfilm from WW2 showed GIs pushing Shermans to keep them from sliding sideways on an icy road, perhaps while headed toward the battle of the Bulge in December 1944.Edison (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The Sherman tactics were to get behind the Panzers. This was not incredibly difficult, as the Shermans were much faster and manoueverable than the heavier Tigers or King Tigers. Panthers were a different matter, though ( Funny how Mac OSX is named after German tanks! They also have the Leopard ! ). If a Sherman ever did try to push or drag (presumably using grappling cables), it would be suicide, as the Panzer's turret could just turn and blow the Sherman to pieces, and at that range a kill would be a sure thing. I believe your last theory is correct. Tanks are often used to drag damaged friendlies to safety where they can be repaired, even these days. There is a story I read once about an M1 Abrams getting caught in a bog in the first Persian Gulf War. It was attacked by four T-72s (from as little as 400 yards) and hit four times, but wasn't damaged. It then took out the four Iraqi tanks before help arrived in the form of a couple of APCs. The APCs tried to drag it out of the bog, but failed. Along came another M1 Abrams, and the decision was made to blow it up so it didn't fall into the hands of the enemy. It took three shots from the Abrams before an explosion was noticed, and meanwhile two other Abrams had turned up. The other two Abrams attached cables to the stranded tank, and pulled it back to base for repairs. The only damage that had been done by the explosion was that the main gun had been disabled. This was replaced and the tank was back in service the following day. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are stories of Soviet tanks ramming their German counterparts during the Battle of Kursk, but this history professor roundly dismisses that as "fanciful" and "hogwash", and cites only a single verifiable tank ramming (in France). 87.114.167.162 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqpj4iYeg40&feature=PlayList&p=713627567B9AE662&index=8&playnext=9&playnext_from=PL Replaceable T34s would ram the less plentiful german tanks.206.220.192.169 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the link from the last poster, it says "The only documented instance of tank-ramming I am aware of is in Normandy, when a British Sherman rammed a German Tiger." Possibly not true, but seeing as it is apparently from a proffessor exposing myths, it might well be. I really did mean that if it ever happened it would be only one or two obscure events. It's the sort of thing that would get picked up in a history program about a particular battle in the War.

Perhaps it happened in WWI when the tanks were less effective? I don't know XD

Thanks also to the other posters, I enjoyed the M1 Abrams story; which, if you're interested, reminds me of one about the Falklands War:

The UK Harrier jet planes which had only recently been produced and not been in...any battles / any major battles? (Don't quote me on that part but you get the point) So it was a true test of their capabilities, and it was worrying that the Argentinian planes had a maximum speed advantage, but luckily they were limited on speed by needing to save fuel (because the airfields were too far away). So in all at the end, "Sea Harriers shot down 21 aircraft with no air-to-air losses themselves, although six Sea Harriers were lost to ground fire and accidents." One of those accidents being that it was foggy and 2 of the Harriers crashed into eachother. Meaning that the Harriers did more damage to themselves than any of the Argentinian planes they were fighting and had been worried about.

92.1.240.55 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Baharroth
 * Hmm, similarly they say there were more Brits killed by Americans (in friendly fire accidents) during the first gulf war than by Iraqis. Have only heard this in passing, don't know if it's actually true... TastyCakes (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon further inspection it seems 9 out of 47 of the British fatalities in that war were friendly fire (doesn't say if they were all Americans that shot at them). So what I said seems to be untrue, unless most of the rest of the casualties were from accidents etc.  Perhaps it was true for a period during the war?  TastyCakes (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have heard that the manual for the Tiget Tank instructed the tank commander to ram and crush enemy targets if possible instead of using expensive cannon or machine gun rounds. Also Soviet tankmen used ramming during the Prohorovka battle (near Kursk) when their tanks expanded all of their ammunnition and dust on the battlefield dramatically lowered visibility but this was a desparate move and not satndard practice. Mieciu K (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Bai Koroma's wife Sia
Around how old will Sia Koroma be? They didn't even say what year was Koromas marry. Ernest Bai Koroma was the 4th national leader of Sierra Leone, and Enest is only 55 (b. 10/02/1953).--69.229.240.187 (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP article to which you have linked states that she was born in the "late 1950s" and that she and Ernest were married on October 18, 1986. However, there are no sources given for this information, so I don't know how reliable it is. // BL \\ (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * She was born on 19 March 1958, so she is currently 51. Source: her website.  Them From  Space  13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone care about the big picture?
How come hardly anyone -- even among the non-religious sort who believe this world is or may be all there is -- seems to be interested in achieving things that will make a difference in the grand scheme of things (i.e. affect a significant percentage of the world's population, and/or continue to make a difference billions of years into the future)? Neon Merlin  03:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * People are, at the end of the day, interested in doing things that increase the chances of their genes being perpetuated. The "grand scheme of things" doesn't make much difference to the reproductive success of one person. --Tango (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather, people are interested in doing things that make them happy, comfortable, and secure in their happiness and comfort. Perpetuating their genes may be what makes some people happy, but certainly not everyone.  For other people, looking at the big picture is it.  Still others have other preferences. --Anonymous, 21:35 UTC, May 28, 2009.

Some people do look at the big picture. What makes you think they don't? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And what about Global warming? Long term, global impact? Plenty of people care about it. Fribbler (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We (humans) think about many things at once -- the big picture, the little picture, and a variety of sizes in-between. I think it is a mistake to be overly restrictive in our characterizations of the thinking processes of others. Bus stop (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Man's civilisation has lasted for around 10000 years. It would be arrogant to plan for a future in a billion years let alone billions of years. Sleigh (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Worse than arrogant—plain impossible. The few concrete plans to do so are pretty amusing in their futility. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my experience, of living in Berkeley for many years, the people who claim to care the most about the entire world at once are the worst to try and interact with on a personal basis. They're the ones who claim to be cosmically connected with the universe but are complete a**holes with people they have to cross paths with in a more mundane way. My suspicion is that their idealized humanity that they care about is something quite different than the reality of human beings, all of whom when seen from up close are considerably more problematic and troublesome than the idealizations would allow.
 * Or, put another way, I think people need to first cultivate their own garden before taking on the whole world. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that syndrome well. It's often described as "I love humanity, but can't stand people".  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The people who tell you they care about the world, sure, because you have to be pretty stuck up to go around telling people how caring you are. I don't think that means that caring about the world is a bad thing or that it makes you a jerk. -- BenRG (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because spending your brief time on this Earth worrying about possible outcomes billions of years from now is tragically sad, and a waste of time in the most ironic sense? Because thinking you can (or even wanting to) change a significant portion of the world's population is possibly pompous and patronizing and probably pointless?  Better, I think, to hang about on wikipedia alliterating.  Regardless, you might find the Long Now Foundation interesting...  TastyCakes (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the original questioner's use of the term "billions." I don't take it seriously. I think it is meant to imply "long term future." Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Sun is gradually getting warmer such that in about a billion years, the Earth will no longer be habitable. If you really want to think about the big picture, we need to get off this planet and find a new home.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is theorized that when our Sun dies, that Mars may escape destruction, but that Earth may not. [Scientific American Magazine|http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=improbable-planets] Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's when the Sun turns into a red giant which happens in about 5 billion years. But we don't even have that long.  My understanding is that our oceans will boil away in about a billion years.  Mars will certainly be warmer but I don't think it has enough gravity to keep a significant atmosphere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)




 * Well, for a good reference, see Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The big picture is at the tipety-top of the pyramid.  Most people in the world live day-to-day trying to meet the needs at the bottom of the pyramid.  Its tough to worry about global warming when you are trying to feed yourself and your children.   --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Check out the Long Now Foundation. They care! BrainyBabe (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Salma Kikwete
About what year will Salma Kikwete be born. All they said is Kikwetes have 8 kids total, and Jakaya Kikwete (4th national leader of Tanzania) was born in 10/07/1950 (He'll be 59 in about 4 months), then his wife shouldn't be born later than 1960, but I'm guessing she would be at least 4 years younger.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you're asking in what year she was born. "Will be" refers to the future, to something that has not yet happened.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 69.229.240.187, you could ask her office – there is an email address available on her website. P.S It would be great if you could add all these birthdates that you are collecting to the relevant articles! Best, WikiJedits (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * E-mail will be tough. Plus black women usually may not like people asking the ages. On my computer, I don't know how to set up so I can see my e-mail from my computer. Any e-mails sent goes to my dad or mom's computer. They check the e-mails sent. They will get mad at me wen I have suspicious e-mails, since they say to not ask about anybody's birthday. Jakaya is about 58 right now and he is turning 59 this year, the Salma looks young on images, then she should be born in mid 1950s?--69.229.240.187 (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking back at the history of the Salma Kikwete article, it was always a one-line stub and was quite rightly redirected to the Jakaya Kikwete article. However, in one of the previous edits, someone did try to add her to the "1963 births" category.  How reliable that information is, is impossible to say and it could easily have been vandalism.  None the less, looking at photos, she does appear to be younger than her husband, though I'm unsure if she looks as much as 13 years younger.  It is probably still better to ask directly at the contact info supplied by WikiJedits.  Astronaut (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw it. It was add 1963 birth cat by an IP. IP is not vandalising, actually it was made by good faith. 1963 I would probably call it, she seems to be much younger.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Que Sarah Sarah?
Is Sarah still the Duchess of York even though she's divorced from Andrew? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. She kept the title of Duchess but lost the Her Royal Highness upon divorce. Fribbler (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If Andrew were to re-marry, what title would his new wife carry? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The same, although she may go by a different style to avoid confusion, similar to how Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, doesn't use the style "The Princess of Wales", even though that's what she is, because that title is too closely associated with Diana. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that why? I thought it was to keep low-key because the marriage is controversial – an informal way of making it morganatic, in style if not in law. —Tamfang (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Technically, she's Sarah, Duchess of York but not the Duchess (nor HRH). If Andrew remarries, the lucky girl will be HRH the Duchess. —Tamfang (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is the song title properly Spanish (que será) or Italian (che sarà)? —Tamfang (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Learning to sing
I would like to learn to sing. To be honest, I do not think that my voice is perfect for singing, but it is neither truly awful. Perhaps it is also difficult to judge one's own vocal capabilities – nobody likes to hear her own voice. I do not want to take singing lessons, but would prefer to learn the tricks by self-study. Is there perhaps any book on the topic? Below are some quick facts about me. Perhaps this is a question more appropriate for the Entertainment Reference Desk, but it would feel wrong to post it there, for music is so much more than mere entertainment. Thank you. --81.227.64.210 (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sex: Male
 * Age: 21 years
 * Nationality: Swedish
 * You could start by posting a video of you singing. F (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Record yourself singing and play it back. It is not easy to hear yourself sing while you sing.  You have to record it and play it back to really hear it.  Then, work on anything you hear that sounds bad.  Singing is a physical skill and, like all physical skills, improves with practice. --  k a i n a w &trade; 12:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't go to show like "Schweden got talent" without asking for a professional opinion.--Mr.K. (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Karaoke! TastyCakes (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to do this privately, a couple of friends have claimed to me that playing karaoke games on a video game console has helped them maintain notes and find the notes, because you have visual feedback right in front of you. Tempshill (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The arts centre where I go juggling has a class called "Find Your Voice" which teaches people the fundamentals of singing. The class also would help with confidence, as they sing to each other.  I'm in England, but I'm guessing similar classes run world-wide.--81.136.174.160 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Take some lessons is the obvious answer. There are always lots of good performers in every town who try to supplement their income through teaching.  If you want a book to read, I like "Set Your Voice Free" by Roger Love, but I'm just an amateur and have no idea what experts think of that book.  I have the impression that its suggestions are not exactly conventional.  207.241.239.70 (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Election results in Sweden?
When can we expect the results from the European Parliament election, 2009 (Sweden)? Which websites would you recommend I check? thanks F (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The website of the official elections authority is, and on all previous elections that I can remember, they start publishing results district by district there mere minutes after the polling stations close. If you understand Swedish you can read more at . As they write there, preliminary results are expected before 11 pm. Since there are only 18 seats in total, it should be obvious quite soon how the breakdown of seats end up per party (1 seat per 5.5%), while the votes per individual will not be counted or revealed until one or two days later./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rapture
How do we know the Rapture hasn't already happened and we are the descendants of those left behind? Is there any way we could prove the event didn't occur long ago? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't part of the punishment that those left behind are aware that they weren't worthy of being taken to Heaven? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No more than we can prove Russell's teapot. Livewireo (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair points, I guess what I'm getting at more is this: Is there any more "evidence" (documents, scripture, etc.) which specifies the Rapture is still yet to come versus it already have happened? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Rapture is the name for a set of beliefs common to Christian sects. Beliefs are not susceptible to proof in any meaningful sense; if there were "evidence" then the matter would not be one of belief, but one of fact. Your question cannot be answered except within a specific belief system. I refer you to the article and to the writings it highlights for what claims are made for the belief. // BL \\ (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about this, but the Rapture was not actually mentioned anywhere in the New Testament or the Old Testament. It was an idea created later that has no basis on Christianity or anything else, in fact. However, if it was a possible thing, we (left behind) would have no idea that it had happened, as we would be condemned to live our self-centred lives here on Earth while we watch wars and famine and pandemic diseases wipe us out. The idea of the Rapture is partly that people who are obsessed with themselves will remain. People who care for others are the ones who will be 'taken'. Sort of contradictory, really, because in a time when people need help, the people who are willing to help disappear. But anyway, that's what it is supposed to be. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read the Rapture article which goes into quite a bit of detail about which groups support which exact interpretations - and which exact verses of the New Testament they are based on. Rmhermen (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is off-topic and belongs as a separate question, but I was under the impression that the people who subscribed to the idea of the Rapture didn't think caring for others was necessary or sufficient to be saved (and thus 'taken' in the rapture), but that rather believing in Jesus (in a very specific way) was the thing. Have I just been thrown off by some vocal groups? I thought those who emphasise the importance of caring about others tend not to believe in the Rapture. 89.168.96.79 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any connection between these two beliefs. Groups with varied intrepretations of the Rapture participate in charity, sometimes even working together. Rmhermen (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there are differences of opinion about what "caring for others" means. A lot of people that strongly believe in the rapture spend their time "witnessing", basically trying to convert people and thus "save" them. They probably consider that caring for others. I've heard it claimed (I've never researched it enough myself to have an opinion) that Mother Teresa was more interested in caring for people in that way than in the more mundane ways we would expect. --Tango (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet, it seems all currently active sects view it as a future event though so there must be some reason why it's universal within the believing groups. Why do think this? Or is there some group out there who does believe it has already occured?TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "The worst's already happened, and there's nothing you can do about it" doesn't help to extract (tax exempt) revenue from your believers. (Which is why anyone who believes in this is unlikely to find enough followers to organise into a religious movement. An epicurian dining society, maybe, but not a religion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Much to my surprise (though why anything in religion should still surprise me, I cannot say), there are sects who believe that the full Millenium occured in A.D. 70. This | article sets out the differences between  Preterists and  Hyper-Preterists or   Full Preterists and covers the degree to which each faction believes that The Rapture is in the past. I cannot comment on the reliability of the information. // BL \\ (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Rapturists could kiss my Left Behind as a token of brotherly love. Edison (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Way to turn the other cheek Ed. But seriously, if a bunch of people up and vanished, all at once, don't you think other people might notice and perhaps comment upon it?  65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Can you really take this whole belief seriously, though? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, some people do, and I guess they're entitled to their beliefs. What's faith or belief to one person is absurd stupidity to another, and vice-versa.  Live and let live, I say.  If this was a matter that could be proven or disproven, then it might be worth discussing the evidence; but it's not in that category, and virtually no religious beliefs are in that category. --  JackofOz (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that few tried to answer the question, most of the answers were just soapboxing their own views and trolling around. So to answer the question, let us assume, that the Rapture would occur exactly, or at least similar to how the mainstream Christian (and maybe even Muslim - they too believe in the return of Jesus) denominations describe it. According to the definition of Rapture, it would be a final and irrevocable event, with all left behind being endlessly tortured. There are people who think life on Earth is like in Hell, but as still a lot of people can find joy and happiness, I can assure you, that no Rapture has happened as of today, and we are certainly not in Hell. If we were, we would know it. What is the goal of a punishment if those punished do not realize that they are punished? --131.188.3.20 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well one could argue that endlessly pursuing salvation post rapture would be a rather tormenting punishment. And of course, if people were aware that it had already happened they wouldn't bother so we may be intentionally kept in the dark to suffer eternally... TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That creates a paradox, because if you don't think the pursuit is in vain, it will not be a tormenting punishment. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it had to make sense! &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The commentators here seem to be taking it for granted that those left on Earth after the Rapture are automatically doomed. I do not think that is the common belief among those groups that talk most about the Rapture, who generally believe that the Rapture comes before the Tribulations.  What would be the point of the Tribulations in that case?  Just a warm-up exercise for Hell, sort of ease people into it? --Trovatore (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Address of Emmy Rossum
Where can I find the e-mail address of Emmy Rossum? (No, this is not a joke.) --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably nowhere, but if you sign up for a 14 day free trial at, you might be able to contact her publicity people. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can send her a message through Myspace if you have an account http://www.myspace.com/emmyrossum. Eiad77 (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit more interesting. But can you be sure that it really is her Myspace account (indeed, her name is quite well-known, and, as I understand it, anyone can create a page at Myspace)? Also, does she read the messages herself, or are they read by an employee? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is linked from her official website http://www.emmyrossum.com/ (icon on the left) Eiad77 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chances are any mail you send to Emmy Rossum (electronic or otherwise) will pass through the hands of a personal assistant. Only mail from people she knows is likely to go straight to her. If you're interested in contacting her as a fan, MySpace or through a contact link on her website is best, the same if you're after media information or permissions for fansites, etc. If you want to ask her out, it's more difficult, but that's still your best bet, short of going to the same parties as her. Steewi (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Too bad, for I have a rather important (or, at least, interesting) message for her. (And no, I am not a "fan" – of course I think she is a truly wounderful actor and singer, but I am not merely a "fan", if you understand what I mean.) --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I simply mean that I am not a stereotypical "fan", that has visited all her performances, bought all her CD's, seen all her movies, used all my free wall space for posters, and so on, and simply want an autograph or somthing like that. I am neither a "fool" that has fallen in love with the actor, and believes she would marry me. In fact, I have only seen her in one movie; otherwise, she is completely unknown to me. Instead, I simply want to discuss a matter with her, not as an actor/singer, but as a normal person. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, you are not some kind of stalker :-) That is illegal and likely to lead to restraining orders and perhaps jail time if you are caught.  Astronaut (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr Astronaut, what do you think of me? :) --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no simpler way? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. Unless you are a member of the media (ie. magazine/tv reporter), it's unlikely you'll get a chance to interview her, in any capacity. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Det var inte vad jag ville höra. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, fortunately, I am not seeking an interview. I just want to ask her something. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

UK Councillors/local councils by party
Hi, is there a list anywhere of the total number of councillors and councils belonging to each party in the UK?

I've looked at the local election results pages on Wikipedia, such as United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2007 and [] but simple mathematics tells me that these sort of pages only show the number of councillors/councils that are up in that specific election, not the total numbers.

So does anyone know where I can find a list of the total number of councillors and councils each party controls overall?

(nb. I realise this will change in a few days in any case) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The comment at the bottom of this blog has the figures, but doesn't seem to state a source. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This site provides what you're after, sourced from the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors
 * http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm
 * Dalliance (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The title of a book from my childhood
I'm trying to identify a children's novel from my childhood. This story shares a few elements with The Secret Garden in that there is a walled garden/park which is closed because of painful memories. The story differs in that the wall itself is hidden in the woods, and contains a larger area, which was frequented by the parents of the protagonists decades before the time in which the story is set. Some tragic incident (a death, perhaps?) led to the sealing of the garden/park.

Any ideas about what book this might be? Or suggestions of better forums to post this questions? Thanks! JamesLucas (" " / +) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If there's no answer here, the old "Stumpers" list, rechristened "Project Wombat", is very good for such questions. You can join that list here. - Nunh-huh 14:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oof. Don't know if I'm willing to face horrifying LISTSERV memories from the mid-90s just yet. Thanks for the tip; I'll stash if for reserve use. JamesLucas (" " / +) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds a little like Tom's Midnight Garden, but based on the plot summary I don't think it's it... -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)