Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 18

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.

March 18

Employment Agency that employs Historian

Which employment agency in Canada that helps historians employ for their occupation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.69 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably none...if you have a degree in history you'll likely want to teach history in elementary school or high school, which means you need to go to teachers' college, or at university, which would require another degree or two. After that there are no "employment agencies" as such, just an extremely competitive and disheartening struggle to get hired, which you have to conduct all by yourself. What else could you do? Not much, that's why no one ever encouraged you to study something so impractical! Well, on the bright side you now have lots of analytical thinking skills, which are applicable to lots of good jobs, if you are willing to sit in a cubicle all day. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition to teaching, you could also use your expertise in History to write a book, but that's not an easy business to break into, especially for non-fiction. APL (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a degree, some jobs simply require that you hold a degree, never mind which? Also, you could be attractive as a tourguide or curator in a museum or elsewhere. Rfwoolf (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Being a curator also requires a specialized degree, but if you have an undergraduate degree in history, it would be a logical step to get a graduate degree in museum studies, library science, law, even journalism. People with equally impractical undergraduate English degrees also sometimes go into those fields. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Illegal to exist in some US states?

A classmate tells me that in certain US states, it would be illegal for him to even exist. What states might this be the case in, and why? (If it makes any difference, he has an overactive liver and an allergy to fluoride.) NeonMerlin 00:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What he's saying is gibberish. There are no states that I'm aware of that forcibly abort or euthanize people with medical issues. He could be referring to water fluoridation, but that still doesn't make much sense. Something to do with the way in which he was conceived, maybe? Still gibberish, always gibberish. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he is referring to his birth which required something disallowed then or now in some US states. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be the states of Confusion and Delusion (I believe George Bush was born in the latter and is a permanent resident). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

it is illegal to exist in certain altered states in the US. -Arch dude (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If your classmate is of mixed race, and was born before Loving v. Virginia in one of a number of US states, he may be claiming that he is the product of an illegal union (see Anti-miscegenation laws#Anti-miscegenation laws overturned on 12 June 1967 by Loving v. Virginia. 87.112.22.179 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Some other possibilities of illegal unions might be incest or underage sex. But in any of these cases, illegality (if any) of an act that created him does not translate into illegality of his existence once he is created. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What he means, AFAICT, is that he could in theory be arrested and imprisoned just for existing, any time he happened to be within the jurisdiction of those states. (This may, I suppose, include laws that are unconstitutional but haven't been struck down for lack of a test case.) NeonMerlin 07:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So this is a case where his existence per se is illegal in those jurisdictions, but thankfully the jurisdiction of those authorities do not extend to where he is currently... as opposed to his presence in those states (the state of presence, not the state of existence) being illegal? The latter would be fairly plausible in a lot of situations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, perhaps he has warrants for his arrest that are only valid in certain states. APL (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easiest to just ask him what the hell he's talking about, rather than having us speculate about it? --Tango (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's far too sensible for the ref desk =) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not too far of a logical jump to suggest that he is something that is illegal in a number of states. Perhaps he is coming out to you? In some states, I understand homosexual practice is still technically illegal. Steewi (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual acts are illegal in plenty of countries, but do any countries ban actually being homosexual? It's rather difficult to define, for a start... --Tango (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In California iirc it was once illegal to be an opium addict. —Tamfang (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Data Protection Act

I have a bebt to a bank that has been past on to a credit services agent to recover. is it legal to pass on my data like thisDerek2JJ (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, most likely, yes. You'll have agreed that the bank can do this as part of the sign-up to whatever the debt was, such as in the terms and conditions of a bank account. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly, yes. It will either be in the exceptions to the Data Protection Act or you'll have signed something agreeing to it. If you want to be absolutely certain, though, you'll need to seek professional legal advice. (You should probably seek professional financial advice anyway, if you are being chased for debts - try the Citizens Advice Bureau.) --Tango (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

aspie community and lgbt community

what are relations between the aspie community and lgbt community like? hostile? i read somewhere that some lgbts hate aspies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.56.133 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Um... are you attempting to create an Aspie vs. LGBT gang rivalry? Plenty of people with Asperger's are LGBT, or Q, or other. They're not mutually exclusive. And I doubt there are many people out there, gay or straight, who say things like "I hate Aspies." Maybe "I find people with Asperger's hard to deal with," but "hate"? That strikes me as a bit preposterous. --Fullobeans (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Aspie who wrote Born on a Blue Day is Gay. Rhinoracer (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of any significant connections between the LGBT and Aspergers communities. I expect the proportion of Aspies that are LGBT and the proportion of LGBT people that have Aspergers are approximately the same as in the general population (at least, I have no reason to assume otherwise). Similarly, I expect the proportion of Aspies that are homophobic and the proportion of LGBT people that are Aspie-phobic (a term which I don't think exists due to it being so rare) are the same as in the general population. --Tango (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

From reading Livejournal,I imagine they both hate furries.hotclaws 17:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My first question would be: is there an Asperger community? —Tamfang (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Terms of contract...legal agreement

what is the role of terms of contract & the vitiating elements in legal agreement.Solit (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We seldom get something that sounds like a homework question at such an advanced level!

The role of terms of contract: the answer can be either very simple or very, very complex. Put simply, they define the obligations of the parties of the contract, as agreed by the parties. See Contract, especially Contract#Contractual terms.

For vitiating factors: unfortunately we don't have a vitiating factors article, but Contract#Setting aside the contract sets out the main heads. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Phil/theo equivalent of chemical resonance

In philosophy, theology and metaphysics, is there any concept that is analogous to that of resonance in chemistry, where the "canonical structures" are such concepts as monotheism, polytheism, atheism, materialism, mind/body dualism, reincarnation and afterlife? If so, what does it rely on (as resonance relies on electron delocalization) to be potentially valid without doublethink? NeonMerlin 07:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See Sokal affair. 75.62.6.87 (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Resonance in chemistry is purely an artifact of an incomplete model. There is no physical effect like resonance, it is merely a way to graphically represent real structures of molecules using conventional Lewis structures. It's a basic shortcoming of valence bond theory. There are many atomic models which have no real use for resonance as a concept, such as Molecular orbital theory, however, so it isn't a required part of chemistry. Its a drawing convention and no more. Resonance is basically heuristic, or a "fudge", done to help bridge the gap between real chemistry and the stuff we are taught in high school. It's not wrong to teach it, as long as in the end we draw the connection to reality. In that sense, there are some connections to all aspects of thinking, as heuristics work in every discipline, both scientific and philosophical. For example, in philosophy we can think of Rousseau's social contract as a heuristic device; he never meant we all "literally" signed a contract whereby we gave away our freedom in exchange for security. However, thinking about societal relationships in those terms is helpful in understanding the significance of those relationships. Likewise, Lewis Structures are very helpful tools in learning, say, the geometry of chemical bonds, its just that sometimes they don't always work, so we have to introduce fudges like "resonance" to make them work a bit better. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lindenfeld, in or near Brandenburg

According to this finding, there is such a place as Lindenfeld in Germany. (There's no page in this Wikipedia, nor in the German Wikipedia in which I can't puzzle out the search results.) It seems to be in the state of Brandenburg, less likely associated with the urban district of that name. Archival photos document a post-WWII group residence "in [or at] Lindenfeld" for 160 Jewish children, either orphaned or separated from their families in the Holocaust. It seems to have been housed in this building, which in this photo has a sign (partly obscured): "Autohallen Hot[el?]." I doubt it's part of the DP camp at Lindenfels, despite the similarity of their names. Any clues towards clarification would be appreciated by yrs. truly -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lindenfeld in Brandenburg is a settlement that belongs to the town of de:Bahnsdorf which is now part of the municipality of Neu-Seeland. It might help if you could provide a link which puts those photos in context - I couldn't find any hint to Lindenfeld on the Ghetto Fighters' House website. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks! As for the GFH website: a search on Key word = Lindenfeld gets 3 hits for the place I described above (two of which are hyperlinked in my original post), and Extended text = Lindenfeld yields 7 hits, that include those previous plus others that describe children in similar circumstances. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't get it. I go to the official GFH website and find a single Search box without options for "Key word" or "Extended text". Simply typing "Lindenfeld" gives zero results. It might help to able to reproduce how you found those images and to see what further information is attached to the images. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're so right: that field on the website's home page is misleading :-( I was inside the online archive, otherwise reached through the lefthand navigation bar. Here's a direct link if you'd like to try again with the fields and values in my reply of 10:18! -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

...although it may be Lindenfels DP camp after all. Further investigation to reconcile the discrepancies has already commenced. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Google map shows Lindenfeld in Brandenburg to be in a totally flat area next to a small airport, it being located in the Niederlausitz (part of the North German plain). The photo with the building depicts a quite hilly terrain. This may easily be the Lindenfels in Hesse, which is in the Odenwald, a low mountain range in Hesse, Baden and Lower Franconia. The relevant article states that the DP camp was housed in four hotels, but I could not find a photo to match the one you link to. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a modern photograph of the house in the first linked photo. Hence, it is Lindenfels. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

House of Commons: circumvention of unnecessary rules

The rule that precludes certain Crown officers from serving in the House of Commons is used to circumvent a resolution adopted by the House of Commons in 1623, under which Members are not permitted to resign their seats. In practice, however, they always can. Should a Member wish to resign from the Commons, he or she may request appointment to one of two ceremonial Crown offices: that of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds, or that of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. These offices are sinecures (that is, they involve no actual duties); they exist solely in order to permit the "resignation" of Members of the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for making the appointment, and, by convention, never refuses to do so when asked by a Member who desires to leave the House of Commons.

Why not just abolish the rule which says you can't resign? --94.212.39.7 (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A reason sensible people do not seek to solve things which are not problems, is because of foreseeable risk of unintended / unanticipated consequences. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tradition. People like having these little systems and rituals, especially ones that go back so far. The system works, so why change it? Gwinva (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the above reasons, there's the fact that getting anything done in the Commons takes time and effort. Parties would rather spend their resources on things they actually care about. Algebraist 21:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also the "principle" question vs. the "practical" question. In principle, a member cannot unilaterally resign. They stood for election, the people voted for them, and they have a duty to stay for the term they said they wanted to stay for. But they can arrange it so that they become ineligible to remain, which technically requires them to be expelled, actually. It's all the same thing in the end, sure, and this form of "expulsion" is miles away from being expelled for criminal/treasonous conduct, for example. But it's still expulsion. It's analagous to the fact that the British monarch cannot unilaterally abdicate. Any wish on their part to do so would always be acceded to, but it requires a change in the law, which is a decision of the parliament and not of the monarch. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Our article on legal fiction may be of interesting read. It directly mentions the "can't resign from the House of Commons" bit, and has lots of other cases and background info... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For what Wikipedia has, see Resignation from the British House of Commons, Chiltern Hundreds etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And despite all that, the terminology "resigned" from the House of Commons is widely used, and appears in many of our articles on such people, eg. David Davis (British politician). So, the pathway to resignation may be a little longwinded, but it still amounts to a resignation in the ordinary understanding of that term. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Advertising regulations

What are the rules (let's say in the US for simplicity) for advertising the "value" of a product that you are supposedly not selling at value? I'm sure everyone's heard on infomercials "All this, a $500 value, now yours for just $69.99!" So how much are they allowed to inflate the supposed "value" of their products? Does it ever have to have been actually sold at that value, or can they just pull the numbers from their posteriors? 99.245.16.164 (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If my memory around this is still current...in the UK the rules were that it must have been on sale for a period of 28 continuous days to be able to use a "was X price now Y". I think there may be rules around the minimum number of stores that must have carried it at the original price too. I'd be very surprised if similar rules didn't exist in the US. I can't find anything online but i'll try. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In South Africa for example, whenever we see informercials we see this BS. Usually these are American ads and American products (mass-produced in China). I don't think it's illegal, but we do have an Advertising Standards Authority where you could in theory complain, but I don't think people waste their time, normally complaints are lodged about things like advertising cellphones to children or something that is even more misleading. Part of the problems with laws is that some are "soft" and some are "hard". In other words there are probably advertising regulations that say something like "pricing that is deemed to be misleading is not allowed" - now this doesn't say "Don't claim you're selling your product at a heavily discounted price when the original price is a gross fabrication", but if someone did complain, they could reference that soft regulation and possibly win and get the ad pulled. Rfwoolf (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There is very little regulation of advertising in the US, and we regularly get ads for products which are total scams, like the foot pads that "remove all the toxins from your body" while you sleep. If the regulatory agencies aren't concerned with such total lies, they certainly don't care if the "original price" is exaggerated. There may very well be some laws on the book against it, but US regulatory agencies simply have no interest in protecting consumers any more. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Popes who abdicated

Pope Celestine V abdicated at the eve of 1300, a fact that also Dante recalls in the Divina Commedia. I know of no other pope who abdicated since then. Is it really so? Why it has become so hard to convince a pope to abdicate? --pma (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Papal abdication has Pope Gregory XII as the last one to leave office in 1409. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons is that they consider the papacy to divinely granted. That is, the deliberations of the cardinals in the conclave are said to be guided by the Holy Sprit, whose intercession they invoke at the start of every session. Since it's seen as more of a duty in many cases than something they wanted or even hoped for, they regard it is a life-long divine mission and not something they have the right to quit whenever the going gets tough. Although not hereditary, they are still monarchs, and monarchs are not known for abdicating very often. Any considerations of what would be best for the country do not apply to popes, since their "country" is the whole world. They are also head of state of the Vatican City, but that is a much less important role compared to their role as head of the RC church. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What percentage/population of the USA would be Asian-American, if Asians had been given the same immigration rights as Europeans?

What percentage/population of the USA would be Asian-American, if Asians had been given the same immigration rights as Europeans?

I realize this is a very hypothetical question. But taking into account the relative population of East Asia, transportation, events within China and other extraneous factors and comparing rates of immigration and settlement from Eastern/Southern Europe from roughly 1820-1920, what would you estimate the Asian population of the USA to be in 2009? Raw numbers and percentages would be appreciate, although to be honest Im more interested in the %. --Gary123 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Future history question

Will there ever come a time when even the most famous events of our contemporary times, such as the Holocaust or the 11 September attacks, will be considered legends whose details are lost in history? JIP | Talk 18:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite conceivably, yes... if the human race survives long enough. The question could be reframed: which will "die out" first, the human race or the records of the events? (Or, possibly, the capability to interpret the records of the events?) --79.79.186.226 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is possible, but I think it is unlikely. Now literacy is so widespread there are many many sources about famous contemporary events, I think it is unlikely they will be entirely lost. Some of the details may get lost or confused, but the fact that they happened will remain known (to historians, at least). That said, 9/11 isn't really that big a deal on the scale of things - it's one (rather large, admittedly) terrorist attack. If it weren't for the fact that it prompted the "War of Terror", it probably wouldn't warrant much more than a mention in a list of terrorist attacks in a textbook somewhere in 100 years time. --Tango (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it is comparable to the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in the early 20th century then? I mean, the event itself is not so important, but the fact that it gave rise to a larger event or state of things is. JIP | Talk 19:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good analogy. --Tango (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is the example of the Trojan war, which seems to have become a legend for a lengthy period. Whilst the reason for the Greek Dark Ages is not known, there are speculations of an environmental catastrophy.

If you were to paint a rather grim scenario of global warming (which seamlessly follows the Cold War, the concept of MAD and nuclear winter) you may envisage a future society of tribal subsistence cultures, which may have lost all historical knowledge (plus literacy and science). Whilst the RD is not a venue for speculation, there do exist forecasts which would imply that the foundations of current cultures will be altered radically in the foreseeable future. There is also the possibility of a mass extinction, which would make the question somewhat academic. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope future historians can tell the difference between real newspapers and The Onion. And I hope they can tell the difference between movies and footage of the World Trade Center being demolished. APL (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. I hope so too! --Tango (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A large part comes down to the storage. Just because MPEG/MP3/AVI/DVD/CD etc. are standards at the moment doesn't mean in 500 (or even 50) years time these won't be formats that are only readable by the most antiquated of machines, many of which will have long since been upgraded/replaced . The BBC have had much trouble trying to read data that is less than 50 years old because it is in a language/format that has now (almost) entirely disappeared. There's an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7886754.stm) about it, and a wikipedia article Keeping Emulation Environments Portable too. I suspect that the biggest events will be documented across enough medium that they remain, but things that maybe we consider 'massive' in the current day could end up being lost. ny156uk (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that unlikely. Copying and conversion of data has become much easier since the days when data storage cost $0.10 per byte per year. --Carnildo (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Programming/encryption languages 'die' - that much is true and in the future it is inevitable. In 100 years time thing such as jpeg and MP3- industry standard file formats - are realistically going to be replaced with newer versions. The future technologies will build in some backwards capability but only as much as is economically viable/productive to do so. Therefore data we take for granted today is only going to survive in the future if the societies of the future find it worthwhile. That may be true for the biggest events, but the more 'niche' items may be lost in the changing digital world. Just because 10 million copies of something exist is not a guarantee that it will survive - even if the effort to create another copy is minimal. Digital data carries with it just as many archiving/maintenance issues as the paper format it replaces. As others have noted the 'big' informaiton stays because it is cross-media, mass-cultural knowledge - but we will lose a very high % of current digital information/data we store due to neglect. ny156uk (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. On planet Vulcan where everyone acts completely logically and with perfect foresight this would never be a problem. Here on planet Earth, the problem of a Digital Dark Age is very real. Paper, parchment, and stone archives last a long time because they require more effort to destroy than to keep. Digital archives require effort to maintain over archival periods of time. (many centuries.) APL (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That was needlessly snarky. A paper archive also only needs to be destroyed once, while there can easily be millions of digital copies of a thing. Compare, say, many of the songs in the Carmina Burana versus that delightful video of a chimp picking his bum, smelling the finger, and falling out of his tree. The Carmina could have been lost to the world due to a single fire or careless act of housecleaning, whereas videos on the internet are spread throughout the world, in several file types and on various kinds of media, from servers to hard-drives to DVDs. Matt Deres (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A Digital Dark Age by itself would not threaten to erase the historical record of the Holocaust or the September 11 attacks, since those events are documented in tens of millions of non-electronic documents. By the end of the 20th century, even fairly insignificant news events left a paper trail far larger than the major events of antiquity, and so those events are safe from a Digital Dark Age. We are really just at the beginning of the digital age, so who knows how well the historical record of future events will be preserved in hard copy. —Kevin Myers 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Civilisations collapse. The Romans were a literate culture with lots of written records, but after their empire fell the preservation of them was patchy. If modern civilisation were to one day collapse, the same thing could conceivably happen, and future historians would have to reconstruct the events of recent centuries by cross-referencing incomplete documents, and current ancient historians have to do.

Imagine, in such a situation, a historian finding reference to a Winston Churchill publishing a novel in 1896, another to a Winston Churchill seeing action in the Boer War, another to a Winston Churchill commanding a battalion in the First World War, another to a Winston Churchill leading Britain during the Second World War, another to a Winston Churchill being Prime Minsister in the 1950s, one to a Winston Churchill being an MP in the 1980s. We know there were three Winston Churchills, and that all but the first and last references refer to the same man (the MP in the 1980s was his grandson, and the novelist was an unrelated American) - but without that information our future historian would be very confused. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Romans were pretty much the only major literate culture of their time, and contact with what other such cultures there were would have been limited due to slow methods of communication and travel. I don't think there were many non-Romans writing about the Roman Empire (I'm sure there were some, but not many). That means when the Roman Empire collapsed was records were left were those few Roman records that were saved. In modern times everybody knows what is going on everywhere in the world, so if the USA, for example, suddenly collapsed and all its records were destroyed, you could rely on the records of the UN, Reuters, local news media from the rest of the world, various other governments, the Internet Archive, etc., etc. In short, there is far more redundancy of information now than there was 2000 years ago. --Tango (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you mean they were the only major literate culture in Europe. Algebraist 15:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point - I should have said "that they could have had any significant contact with". (Although, to be honest, my knowledge of ancient history isn't what it could be... I may be forgetting an empire or two!) My point stands, though. --Tango (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The 'digital dark ages' are probably over the top in making the key point. People think that because something is A) digital and b) exists in 1000s of locations that it will last for infinity. History suggest that we need to take a more active approach. The same is true of building-conservation - in the UK we have eras of buildings where we have very few still-standing examples. Not because they are from 500 years ago, but because they are relatively new and so we ignore the risk of losing them. Here's a book about it (http://www.donhead.com/conservation_modern_architecture.htm). Technology is an enabler for keeping historic records easier, but it is not a solution in itself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely why I see a fundamental dilemma between digital and physical information. Digital information has the advantage that it can be exactly copied as many times as you wish with pretty much no effort, but also has the disadvantage that without the proper means to decode it, it's useless. Physical information, on the other hand, has the advantage that once it's there in the first place, accessing it is no problem at all (we've been doing it for millennia now), but also has the disadvantage that it only takes one disaster (like a fire) to destroy it forever. JIP | Talk 23:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Secretary-General's nationality

Does the Secretary General of the United Nations travel on a diplomatic passport issued by his native country, or does the UN issue passports for their own use? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The UN issue passports so their diplomats and other staff can be seen to be completely independent of their home nation. See United Nations Laissez-Passer. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If their home country has compulsory voting, I imagine their being the UN Secretary-General would not exempt them. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends. Australians who are overseas on election day don't have to vote. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Countries with compulsory voting don't usually require you to cast a positive vote - you can explicitly abstain (or submit a spoilt ballot if that's the only option). What you aren't allowed to do is not vote simply because you couldn't be bothered to go to the polling station. If the Sec Gen doesn't want to get involved in local politics (which they generally wouldn't) they could abstain (or, at least, claim to have abstained - if it's a secret ballot they can't actually prove it). --Tango (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You certainly can't just abstain in Australia, although there are some categories of people who are exempt. Submitting a spoiled, blank, indecipherable, vandalized or otherwise unacceptably informal ballot (such as voting 1 for more than one candidate) is what many people do who would not have turned up at the polling place if they didn't have to. I wasn't aware about Australians overseas not having to vote, so thanks, PalaceGuard. Seems there are 2 categories: those o/s for up to 12 months don't have to vote, but may do so if they choose. Those o/s for longer periods or indefinitely cannot vote, even if they want to. In both cases, simply being o/s is not enough to be put into this category; they have to submit paperwork to register their absentee status, otherwise they'll be fined for not voting. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they can do it retrospectively by proving that they were overseas at the time, after they receive the fine? I was in a curious situation once, where I was overseas on election day, but the local embassy closed their polling booths before election day. Of course, I wanted to exercise my democratic right so I cast an early ballot before I left the country. Had I gone there without realising that the embassy booth closed early, my understanding is that I could avoid the fine by explaining myself afterwards. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Arabic hospital icons & imagery

See Saudi Arabian Red Crescent Society

Are there any taboo signage, logos, icons or imagery associated with Arabic hospitals? In the USA, I often see a red or green cross symbols to signify a medical facility. What symbols are used in Arabic countries? Are icons on signs that feature ℞ understood universally? How about icons of pill capsules? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is the Red Crescent, known in many other places as the Red Cross. Gwinva (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Taboo"? I can't think of any reason a hospital sign would be taboo. APL (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

℞ is certainly not universal. It is not widely used in Britain, and I don't believe that many people would understand it here. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, the quality of this image is quite terrible, but check out the image on the right. For more info on the symbol of the Red Crescent symbol, see this. ←Spidern→ 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle

To what extent was Charles de Gualle a French nationalist? I have always considered Gaullist policy to be fairly intrinsically nationalist, but was surprised to find absolutely no mention of him in the French Nationalism article on the French wikipedia (en doesn't have one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.236.44 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism is one of those terms that it is really hard to pin down as a concrete idea. It's one of those terms that, depending on the context, can be used to mean so many different things. At its core, Nationalism means "a belief system that places an emphasis on the nation" or some such, its such a broad idea it could mean ANYTHING. Sometimes, its meant to represent patriotism and love of one's own country; under that definition it would be hard to find any world leader in history who could be said NOT to be a nationalist. It other contexts, it is used to mean jingoism or isolationism. For some movements, it means the desire of a people to form an independent country (Quebec Nationalism, Kurdish Nationalism, Basque Nationalism) and in others it means a sort of "kick out the ferners" jingoism, like Germany's "National Socialism" of the 1920's-1940's. Keeping in mind that De Gaulle tended to be somewhat isolationist in his views on international politics, like in 1966 when he pulled French troops out of NATO command, it would not be unreasonable to think of him as a French Nationalist, given some definitions of "nationalism." However, you would be wise to find references which state such before making any changes to articles to reflect that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think of him as being first and formost a patriot. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Í

Is patriotism not a right wing form of nationalism? 92.9.236.44 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all patriots are right-wing? Many people would find such a suggestion offensive. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No I am suggesting all patriots are nationalists. It may be unbeknown to you but nationalism has a meaning apart form the connotations of modern nationalist parties. See the French revolution for a particularly well known outpour of liberal left wing nationalism. Think before you accuse me of being offensive. Gosh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.126.130 (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)