Talk:Squire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

What about squires on the continent? What did they call them in France? Germany? Italy? They had them there, didn't they -- or something like them? --69.245.192.52 20:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes: the apprentice of a knight would be called a Knappe in High German or schildknaap in Dutch - related to the English "knave"; the later use is equivalent to the (in)famous Junker (jonker in Dutch).

--MWAK 12:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sidecar

Shouldn't we make a seperate page for the vehicle? Or at least move it down? I feal that having this information in a page generaly dedicated to the title of squire to be lacking a valide reason for its appearence.Dryzen 15:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A lot of over-lap with Esquire...

This article and the article on "Esquire" have an awful lot of over-lap. Should they be combined into one article, or should some of the information be more seperated out? As it currently stands, there's information here about the term "esquire" that isn't on the page for "Esquire," at all. The page for "Esquire" doesn't even mention "squire."

Nothing happened and this is true - both pages should be combined as one indeed. Blowup 09:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexist claptrap

OK, the subject's my opinion.

Here's the opinion I removed:

The ridiculous affectation of female attorneys in the United States using the title merely displays the extent to which too many Americans are ignorant of its origins and is as absurd as using the title "Lady" for a man. Lady attorneys must be content with "Miss" or "Mrs". If they prefer the style "Ms" (a title used to scorn the distinction of marriage) then they show that they are eschewing all formal titles anyway and thus need not be concerned with them at all.

Rudely PoV, archaically phrased and somewhat jingoistic; it has no place in an encyclopedic article.

Corgi 20:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It was all that you said and was rightly removed; still, I have to confess I secretly enjoyed it. --Jpbrenna 05:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)