| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
I find myself partly in Xavier's camp. Fossil locations should have latitude, longitude, a map, and a geopolitical location name. Not everyone will be happy with the geopolitical location, but it at least gives the reader a starting point for understanding where the fossil was found. Through time, the unfortunate connotations of a specific geopolical name may change, and what is offensive to one reader/reviewer may mean very little to another. Some of the Russians I know are still displeased with the new CIS versus to older USSR (despite glastnot). Another point, not made in the earlier discussion, is that of spelling/name of a country or place in the native language versus the Anglicized version. These are often quite different. Are both correct? My vote is for 1) lat/long locations, 2) a site-specific map, and 2) a geopolitical location name of the author's choice. Let us show both common sense, respect, and tolerance for our fellow scientists. If Xavier choses to be a Catalan and locate his find in Catalonia, so be it. Yes, sometimes the author might chose a name that I disagree with or find mildly offensive or "wrong", but I will respect his/her choice. Hopefully the peer reviewers and editors will not discard otherwise acceptable papers because of a Country name! Sandy Leo -----Original Message----- From: Xavier Panades I Blas [mailto:cogombra@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 7:15 AM To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk Subject: Re: paleonet Palaeontology versus Geography versus Cultural Respect Versus Politics I disagree with Bruno Garnier as borders between countries move, so, what is the point of respecting them. Recently, Bosnia was part of Yugoslavija for example. Instead of, geographical borders do not change! I also remember sometimes ago there was a similar discussion on IBERPAL@LISTSERV.REDIRIS.ES, and the person that started the discussion was expelled unfairly from the list because he he belonged to one of the "nations, tribes or races" that Europeans do not care about them! respectfully, Xavier Panades I Blas, Ms Please, send letters to: Fuhlrott-Museum / ARCO-Nepal Auer schulstr. 20 D-42103 Wuppertal cogombra@hotmail.com Tel. 0049 202/563 2636/4891 Fax 0049 202/563 8026 Student from: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Fakultät für Geowissenschaften Luisenstrasse 37 Zi. 223/I 80333 München,Germany ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Bruno GRANIER" <brcgranier@wanadoo.fr> Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk> Subject: Re: paleonet Palaeontology versus Geography versus Cultural Respect Versus Politics Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:29:12 +0100 (MET) My feeling is that there are official international borders between countries and we do not have to care about so-called "nations, tribes or races" ... For instance, Bosnia is Bosnia (if you just want to say one part of it is part of the Great Croatia or the Great Serbia, you put yourself into "Great" trouble), Padonia is not a country, Europe is a super-country, Palestine and Israel are countries ... Paleontology should not care of "ancient civilisation/nations/not to say cultures" when dealing with present-day geography ... The concept "one nation = one country" is just a facist ideal! I remember sometimes ago there was a similar discussion on IBERPAL@LISTSERV.REDIRIS.ES Niko you are right: we should probably stop the dicussion right there. Cheers, Bruno >Messsage du 11/03/2003 13:02 >De : <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk> >A : <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk> >Copie à : >Objet : Re: paleonet Palaeontology versus Geography versus Cultural Respect Versus Politics > > Latitude and longitude provide an objective, non-cultural/political > means of locating points upon the Earth's surface. > > Duncan McLean > > _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself with cool emoticons http://messenger.msn.co.uk
Partial index: