Humanities desk
< June 3	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 4[edit]

Canada/US split border towns[edit]

I was reading some time ago about how border towns split between Canada and the United States create hassle for residents who must often clear customs on their way to and from a shopping trip. Wouldn't it make things a lot easier if the two countries just traded some land so that each town was entirely in one country and had only one road exit (which is where the customs post would be moved) to the other? If I lived in such a town, I'd demand this of both my MP and my Congressman. Neon Merlin 02:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neon might demand such a solution, but the people who learned that their property would now be in the other country probably wouldn't. In general awkward border layouts are difficult to resolve for this reason. Enclaves pose worse problems than towns with a simple border through them, and yet many of them persist today -- check out the Bangladesh/India entry in that article! --Anonymous, June 4, 2007, 04:22 (UTC).

Wikipedia covers everything: see Divided cities which lists towns split between countries all over the world, including Canada-USA. I read years ago that Rock Island, Quebec had a law enforcement problem with a single house that sat on the border, and an occupant who just would move jurisdictions by moving from one room to another. Because the border is an international one, extradition was the complication that prevented the two forces from working together. Bielle 05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read a (probably apocryphal) story about a drinking establishment that sat on the US/Canada border where the actual border was marked with a line down the middle, and if you were 18, 19, or 20 years old and wanted to drink alcohol, you had to stay on the Canada side. :) --TotoBaggins 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost the premise of Bordertown, except the line ran through the sherriff's office, or something. Adam Bishop 15:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Time magazine article linked off of, I think, the Derby Line, Vermont article, it has a couple interesting anecdotes, one of them involving a meeting at the public library where one person came in through the window and stayed on the Canadian side in order to not be apprehended by the U.S. police forces. Dismas|^(talk) 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite such anecdote is of an English-speaking town in Quebec, where the owner of a business on the border road mentioned he was thinking of putting up a billboard in New York so that it wouldn't have to be half in French. —Tamfang 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to move the border quite far to get rid of the problem -- if there's a city on one side of a border, a corresponding city on the other side will tend to grow, giving you back the divided city. --Carnildo 06:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is really not much different than border towns in U.S. states. Consider Kansas City. It is just as much in Missouri as it is in Kansas. There are problems - mainly around taxes and the lottery. But, law enforcement isn't much of an issue. If you are speeding in Kansas and try to run the border into Missouri to evade capture, you'll find that the Missouri side has granted the Kansas police to continue pursuit into Missouri until a Missouri patrol car can take over. There are some funny stories also. When I was young, there was a case where a guy purchased whiskey from McCormick's distillery in Missouri (just north of Kansas City) and took it home to Kansas City in Kansas. The police wanted to search his car and property for another crime, but couldn't get a warrant. When he crossed state lines with alcohol, he was bootlegging and they were able to stop him and search him all they wanted (and bust him for the larger crime, which was child porn if I remember correctly). --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Northwest Angle says: "Secession from the United States and annexation by Canada has been proposed by some area residents on occasion, but little action has resulted given the proposal's non-urgent nature, lack of popular support, and sovereignty rights of the United States." Adjusting an international border, even slightly, would be time-consuming, controversial and legally complex. -- Mwalcoff 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought secession from the U.S. was unconstitutional. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the sense that the winners write history. None of the Confederate leaders were ever tried for treason, because to do so would raise that constitutional issue. The Articles of Confederation (1777) say "perpetual" but the Constitution of 1787 does not; I assume that's because to make it expressly irrevocable would scare off some of the ratifiers. I reckon secession is among the "reserved powers" under the Tenth Amendment. —Tamfang 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, none of the leaders who established the new government under the Constitution were tried for treason either. The Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous agreement, but the Constitution claimed it was effective when 9 states ratified, and the new government was set up when 11 had -- in violation of the Articles. In due course the last two states were persuaded to ratify, ducking the issue, the winners now pretended it had never arisen. --Anonymous, June 6, 2007, 08:24 (UTC).

On another hand, there's nothing in the Articles (so far as I know) forbidding the member States to make other agreements among themselves, so long as such agreements do not contradict explicit provisions of the Articles. So I guess the States were in violation when they stopped sending representatives to the Confederation Congress? —Tamfang 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kainaw may be thinking of the provision that no change to the borders of any State may occur without the consent of the State(s) affected as well as of Congress. —Tamfang 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Douglass[edit]

Is there any more detail of Frederick Douglass speaking tour in Ireland in the 1840s? 80.177.38.137 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an account in his own words from The Frederick Douglass Papers at the Library of Congress: "Thought and Recollections of a Tour in Ireland" (Series: Speech, Article, and Book File---A: Frederick Douglass, Dated) (total of 18 pages) ---Sluzzelin talk 06:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was a temporary file. Go to The Frederick Douglass Papers' query site and type "Ireland" in the keyword box, then hit the "SEARCH" button. The fourth entry, titled "Thought and Recollections of a Tour in Ireland", is the one I was referring to. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Douglass was not the first black abolitionist to speak in Ireland; his tour in 1845 had been preceded by that of Charles Lenox Remond, who came four years previously. While Remond was there, Daniel O'Connell, the leading spokesman for Irish nationalism, organised the 'Great Irish Address', a petition urging Irish Americans to oppose slavery, which attracted some 60,000 signatures. So, Ireland was fertile ground for Douglass' tour, which took in some fifty locations, but the specific reason for coming when he did was in anticipation of the first Irish edition of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Also, Douglass had great respect for O'Connell, considered by many to be the leading European abolitionist. When he died in 1847, Douglass wrote of him "...the cause of the American slave, not less than the cause of his country, had met with a great loss."

Douglass' lecture tour began in Dublin in August 1845. The topic, curiously, was not slavery at all, but the evils of alcohol -"The immediate, and it may be the main cause of the extreme poverty and beggery in Ireland, is intemperance." But Douglass was also fully aware of what was happening in Ireland at this time-the beginning of the great Potato Famine-and of the various political injustices that had been perpetrated on the island-"They have been long oppressed; and the same heart that prompts me to plead the cause of the American bondsman, makes it impossible not to sympathise with the oppressed of all lands." He confined these thoughts, though, to his letters to William Lloyd Garrison, using his public platform to focus for the most part on the issue of slavery.

Speaking in Belfast in December Douglass singled out the Free Church of Scotland, led by Thomas Chalmers, for particular criticism. Chalmers had received large donations from the American slave-owning states for his work among the urban poor in Scotland, which Douglass argued should all be sent back. Although well-received in Belfast it ensured he met with a hostile reception from Free Church members when he came to Scotland.

Douglass continued to take an interest in Irish affairs up to his death in 1895, speaking on the theme of Irish Home Rule on the same platform as Charles Stewart Parnell. Clio the Muse 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Frederick Douglass and the White Negro, this documentary film tells the full story.

Anne Boleyn[edit]

Anne Boleyn was beheaded with a sword rather than an axe. Why was this preferable and why did the executioner have to be French? Judithspencer 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usual explanation is that execution with a sword is more likely to sever the head with a single blow, and therefore be more "merciful" and painless than repeated chops with an axe (Mary Queen of Scots took three blows with an axe). The usual method of execution in Britain was with an axe, so a swordsman was imported from Calais, where beheading was carried out with a sword (bbviously the skill of the swordsman plays a part in how "merciful" the execution is. The executioner didn't have to be French, but they wanted a good executioner, and no one in Britain had the requisite skills. - Nunh-huh 07:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mary executioner was especially sloppy, and spectators took note of "bad" executioners (see, for example, Jack Ketch). An executioner's axe was an immensely heavy object and should have severed the spinal column rather quickly, if it were aimed properly and delivered with force, but the human neck is meant to resist such blows. However, only a gentleman got a sword, while any peasant might have an axe, so there was a dignity in the sword. This is in addition to there being perhaps a low confidence in the native executioners (who would soon get a great deal of practice in the Marian and Elizabethan courts). Utgard Loki 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a condemned traitor, Anne should have been burned at the stake. The equivalent punishment for male offenders was hanging, drawing and quartering. However, in the case of those of noble birth, it was usual for sentence to be commuted, by royal prerogative, to beheading, a more 'merciful' fate. But, as both Nunh-huh and Utgard Loki have indicated, beheading with an axe could indeed be a gruesome and bloody affair: if you really want to know how bloody you would do well to examine the case of James, Duke of Monmouth in 1685. Decapitation by the sword was the practice in France; so this was presumably also the source of those most skilled in the technique. Also, the French method dispensed with the indignity of the victim having to prostrate themselves with their head on the block. Anne, so far as I am aware, was the only person in England to be beheaded in this fashion, the usual method being restored for the later execution of Katherine Howard. One small point of correction, Utgard Loki: no 'peasant' ever received the 'mercy' of the axe. If traitors they suffered the full penalty of the law. If convicted of lesser felonies they were simply hanged. Clio the Muse 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US bombs Switzerland[edit]

Why, and under what circumstances, did the Americans bomb Switzerland during the Second World War? Captainhardy 11:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a footnote in our article on World War II casualties, the Americans accidentally bombed Switzerland during the war causing civilian casualties. References given are two articles from Aerospace Power Journal, Summer 2000:

--Lambiam ^Talk 13:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents will always happen in war, and given Switzerland's proximity to several important Axis targets, I suppose that it is no great surprise that it fell victim to a significant number of misdirected bombing raids. But the problem became so bad that the United States and Switzerland were virtually in a state of undeclared war in 1944 and 1945. The victims were not just Swiss civilians, but American aircrew, shot down by the Swiss fighters. Perhaps the most notorious incident came in March 1945, when a B-24 Liberator, commanded by Lieutenant William Sincock and Lieutenant Theodore Balides, dropped its bomb load on Zurich, in the mistaken belief that it was Freiburg in Germany. As John Helmreich points out, Sincock and Balides, in choosing a target of opportunity, "...missed the marshalling yard they were aiming for, missed the city they were aiming for, and even missed the country they were aiming for." The Swiss reaction was to treat these violations of their neutrality not as 'accidents', but as specific acts of war. The United States was warned that single aircraft would be forced down, while bomber formations would be intercepted without warning. In a space of three days in July 1944 no fewer than 23 aircraft were forced to land by Swiss fighter formations. While American politicians and diplomats tried to minimise the political damage caused by these incidents, others took a more hostile view. Some senior commanders argued that, as Switzerland was 'full of German sympathisers', it deserved to be bombed. General Harris Hall even suggested that it was the Germans themselves who were flying captured planes over Switzerland in an attempt to gain a propaganda victory! Clio the Muse 00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this curious passage to Switzerland during the World Wars. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindertransport[edit]

I would like some more detail on the Kindertransport, specifically the experience of the children who came to Britain. Thanks. Captainhardy 11:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at World Jewish Relief. Their "Jewish Refugees Committee" is the descendant of the body that organised the Kindertransports and helped look after the refugees. There's further information at their website ([1]) and there was also a book on the subject, called (I believe) "Men of Vision". I find several similarly named works on Amazon and elsewhere; I've not a clue which one (if any) this was. According to the charity's site, there were 10,000 Kinder who came to the UK and four have become Nobel laureates, which is extraordinary. --Dweller 12:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book you are referring to, Dweller, is, I think, Men of Vision by Amy Zahl Gottleib, published by Weidenfeld and Nicholson in 1998. This deals with the attempts by the Anglo-Jewish community from 1933 onwards to save as many as possible from Nazi persecution, rather than the Kindertransport as such. For that specifically I would recommend Into the Arms of Strangers. Stories of the Kindertransport: the British Scheme that Saved 10,000 children from the Nazi Regime by M. J. Harris and D. Oppenheimer (eds.), and I Came Alone: the Stories of the Kindertransports by B. Leverton and S. Lowhensohn (eds.) The transports began in in December 1938 and continued until the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, by which time nearly 10,000 children had arrived in Britain. One of the key organisers of the scheme, Nicholas Winton, was later to be recognised as a 'British Schindler.' Clio the Muse 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another book that, in part, discusses the kindertransports from the view of a child is Joe Schlesinger's Time Zones: a Journalist in the World.. He was evacuated from Bratislava on one of the transports along with his brother, only finding out after the war that his parents had perished in the Holocaust. --Charlene 07:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the RMS Titanic[edit]

What I don't understand about the Titanic; this might take a while.

1.)If the ship could carry 3,547 passengers, how come it left with 2,220 when it was allegedly the safest ship afloat at the times. Surely it would have been a sell out?

2.)How was electricity supplied to the ship, was this done through the boilers too, because as far as I'm aware - although i could be wrong - they only powered the propellors.

3.)Surely the White Star Line kept records of the amount of passengers on the list? If this is the case, how come historians find it so perplexing to fathom how many people survived. When on the Carpathia, the surviving crew must have made a list, so as to informed the deceased person's family.

4.)And most annoyingly of all, why did the thing have to go and sink. Why did the Captain ignore the iceberg warnings? Was it so they could get into New York City earlier?

Thanks for answering my questions guys, --Brent Ward 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the other three, but I can answer question 4. I just watched the Titanic movie with DiCaprio and Winslet, and I think the captain just felt so good about himself. With over 20 years of experience out at sea, he probably just thought that he could manage it. Does that make sense?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The movie Titanic does not necessarily present a faithful historical account of the captain's motives, and cannot be relied upon to answer question 4. The screenplay may contain fictional modifications and fabrications introduced for dramatic effect. No film camera or other equipment was present on that fateful night to record his thoughts. As captain Edward Smith died that night, he was not available later for giving a report. The captain had not ignored earlier warnings, setting a more southern course, and may have been unaware of the strength of the danger because more recent warnings had not reached the bridge (see our article on the sinking of the RMS Titanic). --Lambiam ^Talk 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The movie Titanic is highly suspect in many ways. One historian said (in exaggeration, of course) that the only thing he got right was that the ship sunk! James Cameron took a standard and rather trite love story and glommed it onto a horrendous tragedy. He changed around characters, making Thomas Andrews, for instance, the main designer of the ship, and deleted others. He brought a late 20th century sensibility to the relationship between Jack and Rose (they might have had sex but she'd never have posed nude for him - the mechanics of her clothing would have made that impossible). He didn't even do enough research to realize that there had been a J. Dawson on the real Titanic - a middle-aged stoker, whose family was shocked and disgusted to find his gravesite desecrated over and over and over and over again by fangirls. It's rather annoying that the deaths of 1,500 people, including dozens of babies and children, is now mainly known because of a trite, hackneyed love story. --Charlene 06:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On question 2: Per Encyclopedia Titanica the ship had four main 400 kilowatt 100 volt DC generators, with electric lights and electric heaters in the cabins and electric elevators. There were about 10,000 light bulbs on board, operated at about 100 volts. Emergency lighting was powered by separate emergency dynamos.

The power was Direct Current, and the dynamos were powered by steam from the boilers. The two emergency generators produced 30 kilowatts each, and were located 20 feet above the water line, with pipes to allow operating them from any of the boilers. The emergency lighting included 500 light bulbs throughout the ship as well bridge lighting, mast lighting, arc lights, the Marconi apparatus, and of course the boat winches. Switchboards allowed the emergency power to operate boat winches and elevators as well as emergency lighting. Sources are unclear as to whether the wiring included both an outgoing and a return path, or only one conductor with the hull as the return path.

There could have been a set of batteries to back up the emergency generators, but I have not found a references for that. The Marconi room had a low power backup apparatus with its own batteries which could continue if the mains power on board failed. The dynamo crew kept the lights on until the ship broke apart. Thomas Edison demonstrated in 1880 that lights could be operated underwater. A hot bulb suddenly immersed in cold water might have shattered from thermal shock, but if it did not it could have continued to glow as long as the voltage remained on. The dynamos probably kept operating until the steam pressure failed during the sinking. There were 50 individual main circuits, each with its own circuit breaker in the gallery at the top of the dynamo room, which being towards the stern would not have been submerged until late in the sinking. Light fixtures seen on the wreckage today have shattered glass, so the pressure may have smashed them during the descent to the bottom.

A great site with reprints of some vintage articles is [2] where you can find an article from "The Electrician" of 1911 about the electrical systems. (Edison 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does the figure 3547 come from? That doesn't sound right. I think it was filled to capacity, but I would believe this figure to be somewhat inflated.martianlostinspace 17:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says 3,547

I recall reading that there was a coal workers' strike around that time and it wasn't certain how many ships would be able to sail, so people were reluctant to make travel plans; and in fact the Titanic would have sailed with even fewer passengers if it hadn't taken some people that were booked on another ship whose departure was canceled. Sorry, I can't remember the source to be able to cite it.

As to the inaccurate knowledge of the number of people on board, I believe this is for two reasons. One is the possibility of last-minute passengers (after all, the ship wasn't full) and another is possible confusion about people who may have been counted as either passengers or crew, such as the ship's band.--Anonymous, June 4, 2007, 22:33 (UTC).

sorry.martianlostinspace 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, records just weren't kept as well back then as they are now. This was a time when the borders were relatively open. I don't believe that ships shared their passenger or crew manifesto with the authorities. Third-class passengers had to disembark at Ellis Island, but first and second class passengers generally just got off the boat. Also, at least one crew member jumped ship in Queenstown, and some that were scheduled to make the crossing spent too much time at the pub in Southampton and missed the sailing. Some names were written down twice and others were written down incorrectly. (And since at that time everything was hand-written, some crew and steerage passenger names were not accurately transcribed.) There were also a few passengers travelling under assumed names, which at that time and given the lack of border controls was possible.

martianlostinspace is right in that the coal strike was the main reason why there were so few passengers. Not only were people reluctant to make plans, but many immigrants from further east weren't able to get to Southampton or Cherbourg because their boats were stranded back east. What's more, many of the immigrants who were in Southampton waiting to cross had tickets issued by Cunard or other companies, and wouldn't be able to transfer to a White Star liner such as Titanic.

Some experienced travellers preferred not to board a ship on its maiden voyage. This wasn't generally due to fears the ship would sink, at least not according to contemporary reports, though. A maiden voyage was somewhat like a shakedown cruise; little things often went wrong. I think it was an older version of the Oceanic that had problems producing enough hot water on its maiden voyage!

Also, April was not a popular time to travel. Leisure travel had its seasons, just as it does now.

If you're interested in going into this in further detail, I strongly suggest the book "Titanic: Triumph and Tragedy" by Eaton and Haas. --Charlene 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Titanic did have to provide a count of passengers and crew to the British authorities because it was an "emigrant ship", meaning it could carry at least 50 passengers. I copied the details of a book once, but did not note which book it was. Note that only boardings are shown, so passengers getting off before New York would be included. And as Charlene says, there would be various sources of error as the statistics were compiled by hand. --Anonymous, June 5, 2007, 23:12 (UTC).

                          Southampton   Cherbourg    Queenstown
   Cabin passengers
     "Adults" (12 years and upwards)
        Married
           male               52            29            0
           female             52            29            0
        Single
           male              196            51            5
           female            101            58            2
     Children between 1 and 12
           male               10             3            0    
           female             12             2            0
     Children under 1 year 
           male                4             0            0
           female              0             0            0
     Total.................. 427           172            7
Equivalent # adults ........ 412           169½           7
(under the applicable law)

   Steerage passengers
     "Adults" (12 years and upwards)
        Married
           male               25             4            2   
           female             25             4            2   
        Single
           male              314            59           50   
           female             74            18           54
     Children between 1 and 12
           male               22             7            5   
           female             28             7            0   
     Children under 1 year
           male                3             3            0   
           female              3             0            0
     Total ................. 495           102          113
 Equivalent # adults ....... 464            92½         110

   Crew
      Deck Dept.          73
      Engine Dept.       325
      Stewards' Dept.    494
   Total ............... 892
   Equivalent .......... 892

   Total actually on board 1814            n/a          2208
   Equivalent # adults     1768            n/a          2147

And to add to my previous comments, some passengers missed the sailing due to illness, transportation problems (one couple missed the sailing because their car broke down on the way to Cherbourg), and the like. There were also some passengers who boarded in Southampton and debarked in either Cherbourg or Queenstown, among them Francis Browne. There was confusion at the time as to exactly who had debarked and who had missed the boat, since records weren't kept as well as they would be today. Also, some of the names of the personal servants on board the ship were not known for some time, since they were only listed on tickets as "and maid" or "and manservant". --Charlene 07:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In those days, if I remember correctly, the minimum regulations for lifeboats were 12 lifeboats. Unfortunately, the builders of the Titanic utilized a loophole in the law: the law didn't mention what size boat the specific law was for. So to save money, coupled with a feeling of invincibility, there were very few lifeboats on the Titanic. bibliomaniac 1 5 An age old question... 00:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is partly right and partly wrong; see RMS Titanic#Lifeboats for a better discussion. It is also irrelevant to the original poster's questions. --Anonymous, June 5, 2007, 04:57 (UTC).

What are the "Isles of Ken"? (Beatles, Dead Can Dance, other)[edit]

At the end of the Beatles song "One After 909", John Lennon plays the opening of folk song "Danny Boy" to the altered lyrics "Oh, Danny Boy, the Isles of Ken are calling..." -- So, what are the Isles of Ken, what did it mean, where did he got that from?

Searches done:

Wikipedia at One After 909, Danny Boy, Ken, and via search engine, obviously.
All of Google (web, books, scholar, newsarchive, groups, blogs, even the images...) was to no avail for me about "Isles of Ken", "Isle of Ken", "Ken Island", "Ken Islands", or even "Isles of Cain" -- The only occurences of "Isles of Ken" seem to be those 1970 Beatles lyrics, and later 1988 Dead Can Dance lyrics (either quoting the Beatles, or referring to the same arcane source).
Searching for / "isles of ken" -"ken are" -"ken we" / weeds out most Beatles and Dead Can Dance lyrics pages, leaving me with only a few pages without useful content.
No more results at Altavista/Yahoo or Live.com

Some negative results:

Is there something obvious I'm missing, a wordplay, a phonetic joke, or is it slang, arcane, or nonsensical?

Thanks. 62.147.39.62 19:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "ken" means range of sight or understanding, akin to German kennen - to know, to be aware of. I'd venture guessing that's what Lennon had in mind. Dr_Dima.

Dictionary.com: "ken ... –noun 1. knowledge, understanding, or cognizance; mental perception: an idea beyond one's ken. 2. range of sight or vision."[3] The Isles of Ken may be beyond our ken. The name also occurs in the lyrics of the song Ul(l)ysses on the album The Serpent's Egg of Dead Can Dance: "For the Isles of Ken we are assailing /Just like Ul(l)ysses on the open sea / On an odyssey of self-discovery". --Lambiam ^Talk 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a loooonnnnng shot, but ken is also Fifer speak for ''''know'''' as in ah ken whit ye mean = I know what you mean and fifer's (generally) speak fast so the phrase i'll (I will) might sound like isles granted John was from liverpool and their accent sounds bugger all like a fifer's and it would make the line mean = I will know are calling, bit like ah sed it wiz a lonng shot, ken. Perry-mankster 12:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always late but never without merit. This http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/awp/oa909.html page suggests that the line is "The Odes of Pan are calling." which does not make much more sense except Pan used pipes, but it does sound more like what is being sung to me. meltBanana 13:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PEER RELATED ARTICLES[edit]

I AM LOOKING FOR PEER RELATED ARTICLES ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE

I assume that you mean peer reviewed articles, and you will not find them on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia was designed to replace a peer reviewed project. If you go to http://scholar.google.com and use Google Scholar, you will have better luck, but, honestly, you should not be at such a rudimentary state at this point. Geogre 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia´s targets in Western Europe[edit]

"If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists, will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response. What kind of steps? We will have to have new targets in Europe": Putin, today. Just out of interest, can anyone here conjecture what the principal new targets would probably be in this case? (or is it purely bravado with no substance?). Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be referring to the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic that the US are looking to build. [4] Recury 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That, and probably Euro Disney, that bastion of anti-Russian sentiment. --24.147.86.187 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker Vs. Des Moines[edit]

Hello, I have a question that I hope someone can help me with. I am writing a thesis paper (7-10 pages) on Tinker Vs. De Moines, Supreme Court Case in 1969. It was about students protesting with arm bands in school about the war. I know the background, circumstances and basically the case, I have reseached it out but i have a problem. My thesis is "The Tinker Vs. De Moines was the case which stated the way for a student to protest in school legally." For this paper we must use any primary sources...Here is were I get stuck. I can't find hardly any.. Although minus the court transcript... Can you help Thanks, Jeffrey

Have you read our article at Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District? Check the external links at the bottom. Corvus cornix 23:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the transcript is probably your best primary source for a paper like this, unless you have access to things like newspapers from the time (which is easy if you are at a university, but it sounds like you are not). My suggestion: make your thesis a little more tailored to the arguments in the case or the way the ruling was established, that way your paper can be about how it was argued (and thus your primary source can be the transcript without any difficulty). A good generic thesis structure of this sort might be: "The key issue in Tinker v. Des Moines was not X, as one might expect, but actually Y." Of course, the hard work comes in trying to figure out X and Y. Read the transcript of the decision carefully, try to outline as you go through exactly what the argument is and its structure, and the odds are a somewhat more interesting and specific thesis will jump out. --24.147.86.187 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious primary source for a paper on a court case would be the judge's opinion itself. Or, in this case, opinions, since this case had a majority opinion, two concurring opinions (additional views from judges in the majority) and two dissenting opinions (views of the judges who were against the decision). If you've never read a judicial opinion before, you might want to have someone more familiar with law help you read it. -- Mwalcoff 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Cuba[edit]

Flag of Cuba

do the colors on cubas flag stand for any thing? thanks --Sivad4991 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on the Flag of Cuba, designed by the poet Miguel Teurbe Tolón, the three blue stripes represent the sea that surrounds the island of Cuba, the two white stripes symbolize the purity of the patriotic cause, the red triangle stands for the blood shed to free the nation, and the white star in the triangle stands for independence. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such "symbolism" in heraldic colors is usually made up after the fact. More likely imho, it mainly means "not the same as Puerto Rico". —Tamfang 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The design of the Puerto Rican flag was inspired by the older Cuban flag. For obvious reasons they chose not to make the flag identical, but on a gliding scale from "the same as" to "not the same as", I'd say it rather leans to the side of sameness. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, I assumed (unconsciously?) that the one more similar to a more famous flag came first. —Tamfang 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you much --Sivad4991 23:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so obvious that the flags of different countries would be different. The flags of Indonesia and Monaco are identical for all intents and purposes. -- JackofOz 01:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more impressed if you were to show me identical flags for two entities not separated by most of the length of Eurasia. —Tamfang 04:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I failed to impress anyone, but that wasn't my motivation. Just stating facts. The impression I got from your previous post was that you were saying, obviously no country would ever be silly enough to copy an existing flag of another country. I agree it would be silly to do that, but Indonesia did it anyway. Cheers. -- JackofOz 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insert "knowingly" and "nearby or prominent" as appropriate, and you'll come closer to my intended implication. —Tamfang 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the next-most-similar pair are Chad and Romania. See the Gallery of confusable flags for other candidates (including many non-national flags). --Anonymous, June 6, 08:28 (UTC).

Whoa. Good gallery. —Tamfang 20:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing if the designs happen to come out identical, each arrived at by its own historic process of development. It's another thing if the designers of the flag for one country, using another flag's country as "inspiration, then choose to copy the design without any change. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of "He's So Fine" / "My Sweet Lord". According to folklore, George Harrison took some other song and turned its melody upside down, thereby backing into HSF by accident. One could fancifully imagine that Indonesia did that with Poland's flag. —Tamfang 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]