Humanities desk
< September 20	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 22 >

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.

September 21

French language requirements in Canada

Given that both English and French are official languages in Canada, I've been wondering:

What kinds of jobs in Canada require the knowledge of French in addition to English?
Are there any geographic areas (other than Québec) where it is nearly impossible to get a respectable job if one does not speak French?

128.2.247.20 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. jobs with the federal government. jobs in Quebec. 2. yes, all areas of the country.69.156.126.17 (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your second question, 69.159 must be joking, because you can be Prime Minister even if you don't speak French...I suppose it depends on your idea of "respectable job", but the vast majority of Canadians couldn't put more than two sentences together in French, so it's almost completely irrelevant that French is an official language. And for your first question, 69.159 is not quite correct either. Federal jobs ideally require both French and English, but in practise that is often not the case. If you took the required amount of French classes in high school they'll probably consider that fluent enough, even if you can't speak French at all. If you are working a federal job in Ottawa, especially one that would deal with Quebec frequently, then yes of course a fluent knowledge of French would be required; but if you are working a federal job in, say, Calgary, there is a 0% chance you will need French. New Brunswick, and parts of Ontario and Manitoba, do have French-speaking communities, and French is also an official language of New Brunswick. But still, federal jobs that deal with Quebec are pretty much the only ones where you would need French. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a student of Canada, I think Adam is basically right, though my sense is that proficiency in both French and English greatly increases a person's chances of promotion in a federal job simply because proficiency in both languages increases a person's capacity to deal with all provinces in the country. The same is true to a lesser extent of private-sector jobs, or at least client-facing jobs, in companies with a nationwide presence. But a lack of French does not make it "nearly impossible to get a respectable job" in most parts of Canada. Even in Quebec, at least in the city of Montreal, it is possible to have a "respectable job" without much French because of the still sizeable Anglophone community there and the widespread knowledge of English among Francophones. For example, a psychologist with an English-speaking clientele could get by without French in Montreal. He could employ a bilingual administrative assistant to handle government permits, contractors, and such. The same is true of professors at McGill University. Marco polo (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oops sorry, wrote yes when meant no. you can get a good job anywhere with only english. only in quebec with only french69.156.126.17 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I thought it might have been a typo. I agree with all of the above, I'm in Calgary and very few of the people I know speak passable French and most are employed (although not by the federal government). One place it might come up, however, is immigration. It used to be the case that if you spoke French (and/or English) you got "points" or whatever on your application, along with other desirable attributes (family in Canada, job lined up etc). That is why my English parents claimed to speak conversational French on their application and then waited with bated breath to see if they (and their O-Level French unused since the mid 1970s) would get called on it when they got here (it wasn't).

As far as I know that's still the case, but it may have been changed. TastyCakes (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingualism is also an asset if you're looking to work for the province of Ontario, which offers some services in French. Lots of jobs that require you to deal with people from across Canada, such as public relations jobs for a national company, often require French proficiency even if the position is located in an area of the country without a large French-speaking population, such as Toronto. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefields Used More Than Once

Are there any battlefields in history on which a major battle has been fought at some point, thereby making that place world famous primarily for that reason (e.g. Waterloo, Verdun, Ypres, Hastings, etc.), but then have had another battle fought on the same site in some later (different) war, giving rise to such naming method as 'The 2nd Battle Of [such and such] ([Name of War])' or some such? I believe there would be, given the fact that battles are generally fought on ground which has strategic importance to the overall war, but cannot think of a single one at the moment. I am not just asking for European battles, however, and would like to know about battles in other regions of the globe. TIA! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many second battle of ... entries in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how many of these were fought on exactly the same ground, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tagishsimon, however, these would all appear to be battles within the same war as 'The First Battle of ....', and therefore not quite what I am looking for. It would make sense that there would be a number of battles fought on roughly the same ground as each other within a war, as offensives and counter-offensives unfold. What I am specifically looking for is battles fought over the same ground in different wars, possibly even between different combatants, yet called by more or less the same name. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I looked through a lot of those (but not all, I'll admit), and I couldn't find any that met KageTora's criterion that it be a different war. Battles of the Isonzo gets up to #12, but again they're all the same war. If you don't insist on the "second battle of XXX" rubric, but just battles in the same place in different war, then there are three Battle of Basra entries, for three different wars. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best example of this is the Battle of Thermopylae, which has four completely different battles. Perhaps also Siege of Jerusalem, which has numerous different sieges, some of which do not involve the Jews at all. There are many more, these are the first two that popped into my head, but I'll look for some more. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about the Battle of Brentford (1016) and Battle of Brentford (1642), but they may have been a couple of miles apart; our articles are not clear, and IIRC the location of only one of them is marked on OS maps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Megiddo is another one, and Battle of Baghdad. (The Middle East will have a lot of these.) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The two battles of Bull Run, for instance, or of Sedan. Battles very often occur at such-and-such a place for a reason (strategic importance, etc) and thus are likely to recur. And think of sieges. There have been any number of sieges of Rome...Rhinoracer (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two battles of Bull Run took place during the same war, though. Siege of Rome works though. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston, SC was a major battle in both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. I don't think either one was referred to as "The Battle of Charleston," but I just typed "The Battle of Charleston" into Google and it gave me two suggestions: "The Battle of Charleston Revolutionary War" or "The Battle of Charleston Civil War". As for the location of the battle, both were land-to-sea battles in the Charleston Harbor. -- kainaw ™ 12:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you allow sieges then there's loads: Siege of Rhodes (disambiguation), Siege of Syracuse, Battle of Carthage, List of sieges of Constantinople, Battle of Kiev, Siege of Chartres, Siege of Paris... there's more at List of sieges, but I can't be bothered to go through them all. Hut 8.5 12:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Lots of information for me to look into there. I should have specified that I wanted non-siege battles, though, as they were obvious candidates from the start, but I'll look into them, too, as some of the lesser known sieges may be of interest and of use in what I want this information for. Thanks! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list of disambiguation pages starting with "Battle" might help, although you will still have to check them all to see if they are from different wars. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what you are looking for, but John Keegan in his book The Face of Battle considers three battles as representative of three eras of warfare: Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme; fought five hundred years apart but within a few miles of each other. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were Battles of Yorktown in both the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkirk has been the scene of major combat at least 6 times. In general I would think that you could pick just about any field in the Belgian/Dutch and surrounding area and there would be a good chance that battles had occurred there more than once. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean like the Second Battle of Old Pierre's Field, The One With The Cows In, Down By The Stream. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed in the disambig page are the two battles of Chaeronea: the first (Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC)) and the second (Battle of Chaeronea (86 BC)). Ericoides (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that just about every square inch of China, between the Yellow River and the Yangzi River, has been fought over many, many times. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Army

Does the Mexican Army have a national march? if so is it Zacetacas by Genaro Codina. ?86.1.246.190 (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)archie.g[reply]

I've moved this over from the Help Desk. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the United States Navy Band, it is. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]