Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 12

= June 12 =

Democracy
Do classical understandings of democracy still inform modern western democratic practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.87.207 (talk • contribs)
 * Have you tried our articles on Athenian democracy, Democracy, List of types of democracy and History of democracy? A  ecis Brievenbus 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. It offered no clear answers hence why I asked the question here.


 * Can you imagine answering, "No?" If not, why not?  Geogre 02:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The question assumes that classical understandings of democracy informed modern western democratic practice at one time, which some might debate or disagree on the degree to which the classical informed the modern. The reference desk is not a soapbox, and it would be difficult to provide an answer without getting into a debate. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The key thing you'll need to get your head round in your essay is that the word "democracy" is crazily variable in its interpretation. Many a society has called itself "democratic" but would fall foul of a modern man-in-the-street's understanding of democratic. Brievenbus's list of links will be very helpful. --Dweller 08:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a nice example: German Democratic Republic --Dweller 12:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to distinguish between direct and indirect democracy. Direct democracy was democracy as the Ancient Greeks understood it - which these days, is relatively rare.martianlostinspace 10:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ancient Romans practiced a form of indirect democracy, so indirect democracy would have been one "classical understanding" of democracy. That said, it is doubtful whether "classical understandings" of democracy ever informed modern practice.  There has not been a continuous tradition of democracy since classical times.  Therefore, even if the record from those times influenced the shape of modern democratic institutions, this would have been on the basis of modern understandings of those classical institutions.  On the other hand, to the extent that modern democratic institutions were modeled on classical democratic instutions, some modern practices still follow classical models.  There is considerable evidence that the framers of the United States Constitution, influenced by Montesquieu, drew on Roman history for examples of representative democracy.  The terms republic and senate themselves are derived from Roman (Latin) terms. While these Roman institutions may have served as models for institutions that still feature in democratic practice today, they do so based on modern (specifically early modern) understandings of those institutions.  Marco polo 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Mercedes Lackey map
Does anyone knows where I can find (preferably online) a map, or collection of maps, of Velgarth? Foxjwill 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Per, "the maps by Larry Dixon ... are printed in the front of many of Misty's Velgarth novels. There is also a partial map in The Valdemar Companion (pp. 205-210). ... Kerrie Hughes has written a delightful piece, "A Travelers' Guide to Valdemar and the Surrounding Kingdoms", in The Valdemar Companion (pp. 81-108)." The post, from 2002, also speaks of "efforts [that] are underway to make the entire map of the known realms of Velgarth available as a poster." A  ecis Brievenbus 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Constituent service and proportional representation
In countries with single-member legislative districts, such as Canada, the UK and the US, legislators are supposed to serve as a link between their constituents and the government (i.e., state). For example, if someone in the U.S. is having trouble with his Social Security payments, he can call his member of Congress' office to get help. Constituent service is considered an important part of a legislator's job -- and important to his or her re-election prospects.

In addition, people can call "their" legislator to give their opinions on issues of the day and urge the representative to vote one way or the other.

In countries with proportional representation (other than MMP), who serves these functions? Whom do Israelis, Slovenians, South Africans and the like turn to when they want something from their government? -- Mwalcoff 03:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of the American angle on this question, I'll assume we're dealing only with the House (single member Congressional districts) rather than the Senate (2 members per state).

Please forgive me if I am giving a foolishly simple answer to your question, but would common sense dictate that if you have multiple legislators representing you, then you pick your favourite/least busy, etc. and go to them? Obviously, party allegiance comes into play - you might be represented by several parties, and not like them all.martianlostinspace 10:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but how do you choose when you are in a constituency of 120, as in Israel? -- Mwalcoff 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting question. Membership in a party would give a constituent more clout in a system of proportional representation, since a party member might be able to  affect a given parliamentarian's future career chances.  In turn, the parliamentarian might be more likely to represent the party member's interests as a "constituent".  Still, I wonder whether proportional representation weakens parliamentarians' sense of duty to their constituents, since it isn't as clear-cut whether a given citizen has power over an individual parliamentarian's service in office.  It would be interesting to hear from someone with knowledge of both systems.  Marco polo 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In New Zealand we have MMP. I find that even my constituent MP can be unsympathetic to our local issues (eg a motorway through our neighbourhood) for party policy reasons, so the list MPs of other parties are useful as "shadow" MPs for various electorates or for focusing on these issues with a more sympathetic attitude and policy . Mhicaoidh 00:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm a Congressional Intern working in a Constituent Services office of a Rep. I won't say any names (I may be breaking an ethic rule without trying), but the office I work for is considered one of THE best in all of Congress.


 * From the dozens of Americans I help each day on a plethora of issues, they come to a Congress person based on the following reasons (and in no particular order): 1) Party loyality/previously voted for him/her/Geographical closeness 2) advised to contact Congressperson by another agency/friend 3) Recent legislation/scandal makes them correspond with us to share their opinions 4) Went online/recieved a phamplet explaining Constituent Services 5) Desperation (not joking). From an American perspective, and from someone who does this 9-5, its mostly voting loyality, and how easy it is to contact said Congressperson. I assume this would apply to other nations as well. 68.100.173.112 00:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My experience with both federal and state legislators is they almost always prefer to hear from people who live in their district. If someone from another district has an issue, that person is usually passed along to the member who represents that person's district. Because Congress and all U.S. state legislatures (except Nebraska's) are bicameral, everyone has at least two members to choose from. -- Mwalcoff 01:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As a lawyer and former Senate Committee staffer, my strong belief is that most politicians care whether you are a constituent. When it comes to legal work, I frequently get in touch with the staff of the chairperson or ranking chair of a specific committee. When I needed help with a Social Security problem, I made sure I was in touch with every representatkve I had plus committee chairs who had jurisdiction over Social Security. My political leanings and actual activism scream Democrat. No Democrat helped me. My U.S. Senator did not even acknowledge my letter. The Republic Senator who embarassed me came to my rescue. His intervention saved me from the street. Well, I sure told everyone in existence, especially Democrats. Besides jurisdictional concerns such as relevant committees, a politician running for broader officer might want to win credentials outside of her/his original district. Some representatives don't see constituent work as important while others are called Senator Pothole. It depends on the individual public official.75Janice 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)75Janice75Janice 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ICJ jursidiction over legl status of Taiwan
I've read some interesting public international law arguments regarding the legality of Taiwan in the article, "legal status of Taiwan". As a purely legal issue, I assume the ICJ is the appropirate forum to seek resolution. However, since Taiwan is not recongized as a state by the UN, can the ICJ still have jurisidiction over the matter either by contentious issues or advisory opinion? I realize this is a complex issue involving many factors like relevant treaties, state conducts, etc. But I am more concerned with the procedural aspect, i.e. is it technically possible. If so, can Taiwan then use the ICJ opinion, assuming its favorable, to support its application for membership.154.20.106.220 11:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)ML


 * See the International Court of Justice and jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice articles for information about its jurisdiction. The gist though is that a state need not be a UN member to be a party to a dispute, and just because a state is a member of the UN, doesn't necessarily mean that the ICJ has jurisdiction over the dispute.  Based on that set of jurisdiction, I'm not seeing how the ICJ would get jurisdiction.  And in order for there to be a case, Taiwan would likely have to bring suit against a state to get the case heard, likely China.  But the only way I see China being in such a suit is if they consent to it, which is a laughable position since they don't recognize Taiwan as a state.
 * Assuming even then that Taiwan somehow could get into the ICJ (against almost all odds) and somehow get a judgment in their favor, there's just one little catch to getting in as a member state. According to United Nations member states, the Security Council must recommend a state's membership.  And of course, China happens to be on the Security Council, and being a permanent member, has a veto.  So as to your question, is it technically possible, assuming China were to somehow consent to a suit, Taiwan were to somehow win a suit, and China for some inexplicable reason were to abstain from the Security Council vote.  I don't know what the probability of that is, but I'm not sure I have a number small enough for it. –Pakman044 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in reality there is little chance for this scenario to occur, due to political factors. But if Taiwan can estalbish legitimate legal rights, it would still be a step foward. At the very least, a Chinese veto would be unjustified and contrary to international law. While the realists may think this is irrelevant, diregarding the rule of law, or the appearence of rule of law, can cause significant political backlashes.154.20.106.220 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You've got the order of things reversed. Only states can be parties to the Court's statute – which is required before a state can make an application to the Court. Before Taiwan could become a party, China, as a member of the Security Council, would, according to Article 93 of the UN Charter, first need to agree with Taiwan's becoming a party. Therefore, in doing so, China would then already effectively have recognized Taiwan as an independent state. --Lambiam Talk  12:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but when I check the ICJ website it states that it is sometimes possible for non-member states or non-state entities to be a party. That's why I am asking how would this be done procedurally, if possible.154.20.106.220 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Advisory opinions may be sought by five United Nations organs, and additionally by sixteen specialized UN agencies authorized to seek advisory opinions with respect to legal questions within the scope of their activities. These organs and agencies do not thereby become parties to the case, and the Court's opinions, unlike its judgments, have no binding effect. For the rest I only see statements on the ICJ's website confirming what is stated in our articles on the matter and what was written above by Pakman044 and me. --Lambiam Talk  17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Japanese army uniform
Hi, the guy on the right is a Imperial Japanese Army general and Japanese prime minister wearing pretty ribbons on his shoulders. Does anyone know more about the origins and meaning of these ribbons? (This question has been asked before on Talk:Imperial Japanese Army Uniforms, but no answer came up so far.) --Fb78 11:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You would probably have a lot more luck asking on the Japanese wikipedia. ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo for Non-Japanese Speakers handles enquiries in English.  Neil   ╦  13:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the Japanese Wikipedia is the best forum to ask about this. A person in his position is likely to have many foreign decorations in addition to the Japanese ones. There are people interested in orders and decorations who might be able to recognise them from the picture. I'm not particularly into that sort of thing, but (when looking at the image in full resolution) the one in the lower right (our right, his left), just above his arm, can be identified from the inscription as the Order of Pius IX. This page has a picture confirming the identification. Pharamond 08:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do know that the star towards the middle of his chest (to our right of the sash and almost just above the insignia on the collar) is the Knight Grand Cross (Civil) of the Order of the Bath of the UK (GCB) and so is the collar. Just to the right (our left) is the Grand-Officier's star of the Légion d'honneur of France. The medal just to our right of his neck with a rosette on the ribbon is another part of the insignia for a Grand-Officier (or Officier, without star) of the Légion. The GCB was probably awarded for his time as PM, as it is Civil Division. The Légion was probably also awarded for civil duties, but he might have received it for military service, as long as he was fighting with France. I do agree that the star on our lower right is that of the Order of Pius IX.

Canadian Universities
I am currently an undergraduate student looking into possible grad schools and I was wondering about Canadian Universities. I've learned some from reading articles on here about them, but there is one thing I can't seem to find. Does anybody know how Universities in the US view PhD's from a Canadian University, such as UVic? For example, would it be more difficult to get hired at an US University with a PhD from a Canadian School? Are salaries for Professors at Canadian Universities comparable to those at an US University? Any help is appreciated! Thanks!
 * This may not help, but I have talked with a few of my professors at the Uni I go to in the USA. Many of them did their undergraduate degree and sometimes even masters elsewhere, but an awful lot of them came for their Ph.D in the US. On another note, a relative of mine from Canada mentioned that med school in the USA and Canada are quite different, and someone who recieved an MD from a Canadian school would have difficulty attaining a position in the USA. Good luck with your Ph.D--GTPoompt (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding veterinary medicine, all four Canadian veterinary colleges are accredited by the AVMA, and therefore graduates are eligible to work in the US without any further certification. --Joelmills 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It...depends. It always does, and it does here, too.  If you're doing English or History, some of the Canadian schools are regarded as highly as the best of the US schools (Toronto for medievalists is monstrous, McGill for literature and history is great).  In general, in the humanities there is no preference at all for US degrees.  In the medical sciences, though, it may well matter.  Utgard Loki 16:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And the vast majority of medievalists in Toronto are American. Adam Bishop 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides that, the Canadian universities are very prestigious -- in Canada, a university is what we in the States would consider any colleges except community colleges and trade schools; a college there is what we call a trade school. A good source to find out about Canadian Universities is Maclean's -- it's akin to NewsWeek and also has a Universities edition. Foxjwill 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The University of British Columbia is very well-ranked (see this list of Nobel laureates on their faculty), and Vancouver is one of the most beautiful and liveable cities in the world. --TotoBaggins 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A side note on medicine and science: any US lab or school receiving funding from the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health must demonstrate that no US candidates are qualified before they can hire a non-US citizen. Sometimes, a Canadian degree can even mess one up.  Additionally, board certification for practicing medicine in the US is extremely picky, and British doctors, Canadian doctors, and even Japanese doctors (where their system was based on the American model and is even more grueling and intense) are not allowed to practice in the US without having to repeat their residencies.  This doesn't apply to Ph.D.'s, of course.  Geogre 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's very common for Canadians with advanced degrees to work in the U.S. More than 1,000 Canadian doctors are practising in the U.S., which is a major reason behind the physician shortage in Canada. -- Mwalcoff 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

the klaxons
hi guys does anone know which one is which? i mean....i want to match their faces with their names...haha. thank u.


 * In this picture they are identified "from left to right". --Lambiam Talk  22:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

thanx a lot!:D

zafka
In the book, The Razor's Edge, by W. Somerste Maugham, written in 1944, a drink was mentioned called zafka, I think. What is it?


 * Hi, there. If this is the drink that Elliott Templeton orders then it is, from memory, Zubrowka, a Polish vodka flavoured with bison grass.  In The Razor's Edge it is used to lure Sophie MacDonald back into alcoholism.   Anyway, as a drink, it is superb with caviar or smoked salmon!  Clio the Muse 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And mixes well with apple juice. (I am obviously lacking Clio's sophistication) Cyta 08:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)