Humanities desk
< January 4	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 5

Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence

Lionel's second marriage was to Violante in 1368. At this wedding were Jean Froissart and Petrarch and Geoffrey Chaucer. Is there details how Chaucer might have met these other two and what kind of literary ideas they may have exchanged among themselves?--LordGorval (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not, and it is not 100% certain that they were all present together. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer is said to have "passed at Dover" on 17th July 1368 and was out of the country for no more than 106 days. It is presumed that this means left the country but it could even mean arrived back. So it is considered possible that he may have attended or came upon the tail end of the celebrations but then again he may have gone no further than France. There are tantalising suggestions that Chaucer may have met either Petrarch or Boccaccio on his Italian journey of 1373 and the reference in the Clerk's prologue to learning the tale from Petrarch in Padua is sometimes seen as Chaucer's own history. As to what was learnt in those possible meanings, it was after this time that Chaucer began to write in a more Italian style rather than the imitations of the French style he had used before, he developed rhyme royal quite likely from Italian verse, and he drew inspiration from Italian literature. All of which could have been done without meeting the literary superstars and was likely in part learnt from the merchants in his home city before he even left the country. 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lance Ito's wife

how old would Lance Ito's wife Margie Ann York be. She is white, non-asian so looks like she is in the 50s, or she is about the same age as ito. One of my bus driver is japanese (FR US came over 1974) and he have a white wife born in New york and they both born in 1951.--69.226.34.161 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she already had a son from a prior marriage before she married Ito, and they married in 1981, when he was 31. I would say she would likely be of similar age, though I have no reference, she may be a few years younger, but not decades younger... --Jayron32 04:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this bio she joined LAPD in 1968, and in this it says she retired as Chief of LA County Police in Jan 2009. 87.112.68.96 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She may, of course, be older than him. It does happen. +An gr 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Lance Ito's wife join LAPD then she should be pushing 60s of age by now should be born in like mid 1940s.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman and CEO

What is the difference between Chairman and CEO of a corporation? Both the articles say they are the highest ranking administrator. Then where is the difference? For example the Chairman of Microsoft is Bill Gates and the CEO is Steve Ballmer. Does it mean that the owner of the corporation is called Chairman and the highest ranking officer employed by the owner is called CEO? --Qoklp (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how the corporate governance is structured, but broadly speaking the "Chairman of the Board" of a company is the chairman of its Board of directors, which is the group empowered by the shareholders to represent their interests. The Chief Executive Officer is the person whose primary role is to organize the running of the company. The CEO and Chairman of the Board are often combined into a single person, but this does not have to be so. Your idea that the "owner" is the chairman is almost right. The "owners" are the investors who own stock in the company, and the Chairman is the person who represents their interests (or presides over the body, the Board of Directors, who does). The CEO is an employee of the company whose job it is to run the company. If a company is a single-owner corporation, there is no need for a board of directors, since there is only one "interest". The owner would still be able to hire people to help him run his company. --Jayron32 06:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I would like to ask a follow-up question. Do the chairman and board of directors typically get paid a salary by the corporation for their work? If not a regular salary, then what kind of remuneration is typical? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 06:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hard to imagine a "chairman of the board" who was NOT a major investor in the company. Indeed, in many cases, "The Board" is the top 5 or so biggest investors, and the Chairmen ends up being the biggest investor of all, since voting strength is based on share strength. Thus, the Chairman has it in his self interest to maximize his own share value. This is different from the CEO, who is an employee, and thus is earning a salary... I could be wrong, but I don't think that board members are typically "paid" for serving on the board, unless they also hold executive positions. There are many companies in the U.S. where the board is also the executives of the company (thus the CEO and Chairman are the same person, and the CFO and CTO also serve on the board), so they get paid as employees but not necessarily as board members. I believe that in Europe this is not allowed by coportate governance regulations, and that executives cannot serve on the board. --Jayron32 07:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is how it should be, of course. There is a very basic conflict of interest between the chairman and the CEO, since often the shareholders will want something that the executives don't. The European separation between the two is a good example of corporate governance as it should be. I'd love to hear the arguments that are put forward in the US for not keeping the two separate. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chairman is not always a major investor - sometimes he can be someone appointed by the investors, especially if the investors don't acually have experience of running a company themselves. Historically a chairman was sometimes appointed as a figurehead to give the company credibility. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify some of this:

The chief executive officer is the leader of the management team. He (or she) reports only to the board of directors, and all or virtually all of the other employees report, directly or indirectly, to him. The CEO title is usually combined with that of the chairman of the board or the president. If the chairman of the board is not also the CEO, he or she may be referred to as a "non-executive chairman," and monitoring the CEO and the rest of management is considered a major part of his duties.
A corporation is owned by its stockholders. The chairman may or may not own stock. A corporation must have a board of directors even if it is owned by a single individual, in which case any other directors largely serve simply as advisers. In the case of a public company like General Electric, where the shares are owned by a large number of investors, the board of directors represents those public investors in monitoring management.
Directors usually do get paid for their service as directors, although this may not be the case with, say, a small family corporation. However, if a director is also a member of management, he or she may not receive any additional compensation for serving as a director. John M Baker (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Median compensation for directors in the 200 biggest U.S. companies was $190,000 in 2007, not including compensation for work on board committees. Source: [1] -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's statement makes the articles sound like Samuel Johnson's definitions of "garret" and "attic" as "the highest room in the house" and "the room above the garret" respectively. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who decided to count decades beginning with "0"

Wikipedia's listing of the centuries and decades lists the first century AD as begining with the year 1 and going till the year 100. It notes that there was no year "0". This is correct. The listing for the first decade counts only nine years, 1 through 9, and the following decades and centuries begin with the year ending in "0" and ending in "9". What did you do with the missing year? Why are you now part of the herd mentality that miscounts decades, centuries and millennia? Do you just go along to get along or are you interested in accuracy?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.35.160 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the ongoing discussion here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of accuracy, but of convention. Do you say "eleven" instead of "oneteen"? Why is it "fourteen", but "twenty-five"? Wikipedia documents the exiting conventions, it does not aim to right past wrongs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this question... is 1990 in the eighties or the nineties? 87.112.68.96 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia usually counts centuries and millenia from 01 to 00 and decades from 0 to 9, but there may be exceptions in some articles. A decade is a period of ten years. Decades are usually not given an ordinal number, for example the 1990s are not called the 200th decade. It seems most sensible to follow the common convention that the 1990s are 1990 to 1999 and similar. Many of our readers would be confused if we didn't do what they are used to from everywhere else. The 10s have a note but it seems unneeded for modern time. Wikipedia is more interested in the terminology generally used by reliable sources than what a given individual considers most correct based on their preferred argument. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Common names. We don't rename the Hundred Years' War because it wasn't exactly 100 years, or millipede because it doesn't have 1000 legs, or Bill Clinton because it's not his given name, or North Korea because the official translation is Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or Rome because it's Roma in Italian, or Alzheimer's disease because others had described it earlier (see List of examples of Stigler's law), or Fermat's Last theorem because he (probably) didn't prove it (see List of misnamed theorems), and so on. The English Wikipedia is written in English which is a human language and not mathematics. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-stated. As a parallel, consider someone's age. Once they hit 20, they are likely to say, "I'm in my twenties." The wouldn't feel the need to wait until they're 21. Yet we don't have a year 0 either, unless you want to count the time in the womb. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, that person would not, and could not, say "I've entered my 3rd decade", until they complete their 20th year and reach their 21st birthday. (Which, ORly, may have something to do with why the 21st birthday and not the 20th was the age of adulthood in days gone by.)

Hold up a minute, I think everyone would call that their 20th birthday, not their 21st. (It is, of course, their 21st birthday counting the day of their birth as number one; but that's not what our species does). Until the day which we call the 20th birthday, the person will be called a 19-year-old, and no way would admit to being in their 3rd decade. The day after they turn 20, they are in that decade. Sussexonian (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is "everybody except 1.2 billion Chinese", or at least that's what learned from the very reliable juvenile adventure novel Big Tiger and Compass Mountain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the absence of the year 0: that's usually cited as the fly in the ointment, but what person in their right mind who was devising a new era would start out with anything but Year 1? As Bugsy says, humans start with year 1, not year 0. Books start with page 1, not page 0. The first day of each month is not the 0th of the month. So, why would anyone expect the first year of an era to be year 0? The very mention of this supposed lack still baffles me. I understand that there's a discontinuity with the previous era: it finishes at 1 BC, not at 0, which is inconvenient for those who want to represent time periods spanning the era change on a continuous number line. But blame that (if blame there must be, which is dubious) on whoever came up with the BC system and called the last year of that era "1 BC" and counted backwards. If it was necessary to have continuity, the last year of the previous era should have been called "0 BC". Don't make it the fault of the Christian Era and pretend it was somehow supposed to have had a Year 0 and someone stuffed up, because that wasn't the case at all. (There was also a discontinuity of 10 days between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The day after 4 October 1582 was 15 October 1582, and the dates 5-14 October 1582 simply do not exist, except in the proleptic Gregorian, which has only arcane and esoteric applications. That's never bothered anyone.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that - surely it's high time the Give us back our eleven days campaign was revived. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the Mayan calendar things often start with 0... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And look what happened to them. Their world ended, and it ended a long time before 2012. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the obsession with 10s is pretty arbitrary, anyway. It happens to correlate to the number of fingers on our hands, but other than that there's no great reason to think that those date spans are useful ways to carve up time. We could carve it up into 12s, 16s, whatever. It is entirely arbitrary and maps onto no actual historical or natural phenomena other than our fingers. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true, but it's beside the point of the issue at hand. Had we had a 17-base system, people would still be arguing when a "decemseptade" begins. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a tendency to group things together, and to shoehorn them if necessary. Grouping things by decades, centuries and millennia to distinguish them by "character" in some sense. Hence the often-referenced "1960s" or "the 60s", which really began about 1963 or 1964 and ended about 1974 or 1975. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do troubled British football clubs face tax bills?

Surely they aren't generating profits, so why are they often wound up due to the tax bill? Thanks. 67.243.1.21 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VAT and employer's national insurance contributions. A well run business keeps money aside as the trading that incurs these happens, so that when the bill is due they've got the money in hand. But football clubs are often not very well run. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus there are often cases where a business claims something is a valid business expense, but the tax man disagrees. Or the business thinks that, by clever bookkeeping, it can defer a tax liability into the subsequent year, but the tax man disagrees. And when the taxman disagrees (and particularly when their opinion is sustained by a court) this generally unravels several years of the now-shown-wrong accounting practice, which often means several years worth of taxes (the thing the club thought it could save but couldn't), interest, and penalties all become instantly due (with the interest continuing). A number of business owners claim the taxman is particularly intransigent when it comes to payment schedules. UK insolvency law, which treats the taxman as a special (first-come) case before other creditors, often makes it in the taxman's interest to petition to wind up a business in circumstances that other creditors wouldn't. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply-put, VAT is not on profits, but income. And even small clubs that are not profitable have lines of income, such as sales of programmes, merchandise etc. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth FC apparently owes £10m in PAYE (income tax deductions taken from wages), National Insurance, and VAT [2]. --Finfindiscotheque (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... it'd be my guess that the PAYE and NI contributions will be a massive share of the £10m, given the ridiculous wage bills Premier League clubs (and others) are carrying. --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also they are required to pay tax on profits that will/may be generated next year on tne basis that they will probably be the same as the profits made last year. IE pay the tax before the profit is made. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous famous writers like Salinger and Pynchon

If they really wanted to be anonymous, why didn't they use a pseudonym? --Quest09 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image the media likes to give of them is "reclusive", not "anonymous". And when the media says they're "reclusive", that mostly just means they don't like talking to the media - there's no evidence that either lives in alone cabin in the forest, talking to no-one. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without speaking to these particular cases, It is not unlikely that some writers have begun by publishing under their real name, and only then discovered that they dislike some of the drawbacks of fame that they had not anticipated. Probably rather more writers begin their career under pseudonyms, for various reasons but sometimes to avoid their less accomplished journeyman works from adversely affecting their hoped-for mature reputation under their real name. Some writers become so renowned under a pseudonym that they adopt it as their legal name. Salvatore A. Lombino legally changed his name to one of his early pseudonyms "Evan Hunter" because he thought it more commercial and achieved some literary respect with it, but became even more successful under another of his noms de plume, Ed McBain. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a counter example, see Cordwainer Smith, whose identity was unknown for a long time, and is still a cause for gossip in some circles still. Steewi (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Passenger Ships/ SS BUTNER and SS PATCH

In about 1956, as a Army Brat of five; I traveled from the US to Germany aboard an old passenger ship the SS BUTNER. In 1959 my family returned to the States aboard the SS Patch through "the worst hurricane in fifty years." From the pilot house I personally witnessed a mean sea state of 70' seas with many 90 footers present! At 8 1/2 years old my memory was indellably imprinted with memories of that voyage. After running with the storm, having abandoned course for many days; we put into drydock for a week at Liverpool England to check the ship over for damage before proceeding to NY,NY. I have often wondered about those two great old ships and particularly about that storm. What information is available to refresh my memory and fill in the blank spots. My dad was a Captain at the time and served as Provost Marshal aboard the SS Patch in charge of four prisoners He held in the ship's Brig (which was down in the hold on the lowest level - those four tough guys bawled like babies to get out of there - to no avail!). Dad's name was Capt. Alton T. Phipps. He was accompanied by my Mom, Eva B. Phipps; My sister Sharon and myself, Mark. What can you tell me of those two vessels and those voyages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.68.128.9 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if your SS Butner is USS General H. W. Butner (AP-113). The profile fits fairly well; troop transport ship which in 1959 may well have been doing Europe - New York work. Can you give us dates for the 1959 return for the meteorological question? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Down in the "Later service" section, the article says that the General H. W. Butner plied a "regular schedule from Brooklyn, New York, to Southampton and Bremerhaven" from sometime in 1952 until 1960, so it does seem a likely candidate for a 1956 U.S.–Germany crossing. Deor (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "USS Patch" turns up many relevant hits, including mentions by servicemen who traveled on it to or from Germany in the '50s and '60s. For the hurricane, you may want to look at the article 1959 Atlantic hurricane season. (If the ship ran into the hurricane in the mid-Atlantic, as is suggested by its seeking port in Liverpool rather than continuing to the United States, Hurricane Hannah seems the most likely prospect. Was your crossing in late September – early October?) Deor (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be Hurricane Flora if it was earlier in September. Googlemeister (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah was much more intense, though—125 mph winds vs. Flora's 75 mph—which seems to fit the OP's description better. Deor (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but in the middle of the ocean, 75 mph winds would still be a sight to behold, although a learned person would not call it the strongest in 50 years I suppose. Googlemeister (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a picture of the USS Patch here. --Xuxl (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, we do not have Patch on List of United States Navy ships: P. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First commissioned as USS Admiral R. E. Coontz (AP-122)[3]?, it's a redlink.—eric 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

civil appeal motions

When an appeal court takes a long time (past the extent of an injunction for instance) to render a decision is there a deadline or if not is there a motion which can remind the court of the need for a judgment to be rendered... or is this not the route to go? 71.100.15.198 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

That would depend on the jurisdiction, of which there are literally thousands (and in the case of the USA alone, at least 51). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then if it is jurisdictional related then can it be broken down into two groups... one group where a such motion is available and necessary and another group of jurisdictions where it is not? 71.100.15.198 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The traditional common-law remedy was the writ of mandamus, and it still exists in some jurisdictions. However, it would be unlikely to be available for an appellate (as opposed to first-instance) decision, as there's already been a legally-binding ruling on the issue; the courts have done their duty, even though the first-instance decision may be overturned. Of course, if your question is about a case that you're involved in, you'll have to consult a lawyer - we're not allowed to offer legal advice here. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a theoretical case - not even a case record to site. In theory the petitioner lied to the court which was evidenced by the testimony of one of her witnesses. In addition the testimony of the respondent was cut short and off by the lower court judge. The law itself also provided an exception for a valid reason for the respondent's actions, which rendered the law inapplicable. Hence an appeal was justified and pursued. However, petitioner's objective, which was to harm the respondent's reputation, was long since met before the term of the injunction had expired. For this reason there was still need to pursue the appeal. In theory a decision in his favor would allow the respondent to seek damages. The purpose for study of such theoretical cases is intended for clarifying the law such as in developing a table as stated above to show the differences in the law and rules of procedure from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and to help dispel the notion that, "The law is a trade secret and the public process a business owned and operated by the legal profession." Wikiquotes, by showing that self-representation is in fact a viable option, as proof. 71.100.15.198 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The way such a case would develop is obviously very jurisdiction-dependent. In England (and Wales) you probably wouldn't be able to raise the petitioner's lies on appeal (Ladd v Marshall) and you _might_ be able to start an action at first instance for abuse of process before the appeal was decided (Grainger v Hill). Theoretical cases are sometimes useful, but finding an actual precedent is a great deal more helpful to the litigant. Tevildo (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on either of these cases? I think I know what my duty is. Tevildo (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Justice delayed is justice denied.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq's war of independence

I had a cultural anthropology teacher who told us that Iraq was the first British colony to gain independence from Britain. And they did so using force rather than peaceful means like India. I tried looking on wikipedia for this, but I didn't find anything. Is this true? ScienceApe (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty absurd. Our article British Empire states that Britain didn't gain control of Iraq until 1919, whereas the USA gained their independence at the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War, which was somewhat earlier. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although technically, The USA was 13 colonies, not just one. Googlemeister (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now before everybody jumps on the bandwagon, I believe that it is true that Iraq was the first EASTERN colony to gain independence, sometime around 1929-ish. Wrad (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Mandate of Mesopotamia (not strictly a _colony_) came to an end in 1932 - until 1920, the area which is now Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. Your teacher may have been thinking of Afghanistan, which achieved independence from the British Empire following the Third Anglo-Afghan War in 1919. Tevildo (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It should also be noted that Iraq wasn't independent before 1919 either. It was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire from about 1350 or so, and before that as part of the Mongolian Ilkhanate from 1250 or so, and before that as part of the Arabic Abbasid Caliphate from 850 or so, and before that as part of the Iranian Sassanid Empire and other Iranian/Persian empires before that, and ancient states such as Assyria, Babylon, Sumeria, and Ur. Iraq has really only existed as an entity since the 1930's. when if was formed out of the British Mesopotamia, which was more properly a "Mandate" or a "Protectorate" than a "Colony" (the British didn't try to send people to populate it, they were given the responsibility of protecting it militarily). --Jayron32 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan was not strictly a colony either up until 1919. The very fact that there was an Afghan army to fight the Third Afghan War attests to that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, the British made up the boundaries of Iraq, without taking proper account of the inhabitants, as mentioned in 20th century history of Iraq. Thanks a lot, guys. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, although there was an American army to fight the Revolutionary War. Afghanistan, after the Treaty of Gandamak, was effectively a puppet state of the Empire - nominally autonomous, but subject (explicitly) to British control. Tevildo (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt's status at different times has always been rather murky to me. Perhaps she could qualify as the first (or one of the first) eastern British possessions to gain independence. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British colonies very rarely suddenly became independant one day, most gradually attained increasing self government and separation from Britain over many years. The Germans tried to get the Iraqis to fight against us, in about 1942 I think. 148.197.114.158 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post WW2 many colonies certainly did become independant in one day, often at midnight[4][5]. Also, see the article on the Anglo-Iraqi War of 1941. Alansplodge (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Benjamin Disraeli said in a speech to Parliament on 5 February 1863: Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]