Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 April 6

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.

April 6

Religious deaths

What religion is responsible (both directly and indirectly) for the most deaths worldwide in the last 10 years? Thecottonbud (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Define "indirectly". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Define 'responsible'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And explain how the question could be objectively answered for say the French Wars of Religion. Was the 'religion' responsible for the war 'Catholicism', 'Protestantism', or 'Christianity'? I'm sure that the Catholics would have held the Protestants responsible, and vice versa - while an outside observer might well opine that it was 'Christianity' that was responsible - or possibly 'religion' in general. Or possibly suggest that religion was largely a pretext for a war between competing factions amongst the ruling elite. There isn't going to be a meaningful single answer to such questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is also the very problem of defining "religion" to deal with. --Shirt58 (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Jedi, definitely. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Mammonism is a bad religion, both for killing and validiity. But don't forget that most of the "real" religions don't believe in death. When those types send their kids to war, they're not actually killing them, but sending them wherever.

May as well also define "last" ten years. We've still a few to go before the final decade. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Bad Religion, they claim "The Biggest Killer in American History" is American history itself, but that was in 1998. And of course, defining Bad Religion songs is for anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking

Are Japanese students taught about the The Rape of Nanking in school in the same kind of way that Germans are taught about the Holocaust? 61.90.38.41 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe they are. What little they are taught about the period seems to be along the lines of trying to balance anything bad they did with bad things done to them, when the reality was that they committed far more war crimes than were done to them. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Children are not taught about the Nanjing Massacres, as it does not concern them. They are more likely to receive education which is immediately relevant to them. Spending an hour in a classroom telling them about a massacre that happened many years before they were born (and is not even relevant to the Chinese young people today, except when the government wants to divert attention from real issues), would be like wasting time telling them about how the Mongols killed 2 million people in Nishapur in the 13th Century - irrelevant. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 08:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying (and do you know for sure) that the Japanese curriculum has no history course that covers WWII? If so, that seems to be a huge deficiency in the education system. Our article on the Japanese history textbooks controversy suggests what you're saying isn't true. If there is a history course that covers WWII, and it doesn't mention the Nanjing massacre, that's obvious and inexcusable whitewashing of Japanese history. The same article suggests this isn't the case either: "Despite the efforts of the nationalist textbook reformers, by the late 1990s the most common Japanese schoolbooks contained references to, for instance, the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II" --Bowlhover (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I taught in primary schools in Japan. The school books do mention it, but not in thorough detail, as the kids are still learning other things, which are actually more relevant to their lives. Did we, in the UK, learn at school about the bombing of Dresden? No. We were learning other things. There is only so much you can cram into a person's head in a short space of time. Never blame the kids for something that happened 70 years ago. It had nothing to do with them. 'Original Sin' is a ridiculous Christian concept. I didn't eat the apple that Eve gave to Adam. Don't blame people for stuff they never did. All of these Chinese demonstrations against Japanese schoolbooks being re-written is completely just to divert public attention from scandals, like the inherent corruption in Chinese government, the scandal of lead poisoning for children's milk, etc., the list goes on. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. You just said that children are not taught about the Nanjing massacre, but now you say primary school textbooks mention it? The OP wasn't asking specifically about primary school; he presumably meant to include high school, where the country's history should definitely be taught. Also, who was blaming kids for anything? You're using strawmen against imaginary opponents, because nobody was even trying to argue with you. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bowlhover, The article on the controversy linked to above does actually say 'elementary schools'. I was there in Japan at the time, and in China people were attacking Japanese businesses and destroying Police cars which were Japanese-made. It was big news in Japan, because people were thinking "What the hell is going on over there?". KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 03:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I find that an extremely misguided and short-sighted approach to teaching. Not to repeat platitudes, but "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". The purpose of school should not be to make tame functional robots out of children, it should be to enable them to think independently, to arrive at sound judgement, and to be able to continue learning for themselves. It's not about "blaming" the current generation for deeds of the past, it's about showing them relevant examples of what humans, under an inhuman system, are capable of doing, and thus to enable them to recognise dangerous tendencies in government and society in time to do something about them. Just as British schools should teach about the slave trade and the Opium wars, German schools should teach the Holocaust, Belgian schools should teach about Belgian Congo, and US schools should teach about slavery, the native American genocide, and, yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Kids don't have the capacity to weild guns, create concentration camps, or use nuclear weapons. If they want to learn about these historical hiatuses in the development of our species, then they will do, simply by reading about it. School is not for making them feel guilty about things that people they have never ever met did before they were born. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 11:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

All of the perpetrators of The Rape of Nanking were children themselves once. Maybe if they had been made to feel a bit guilty about things they wouldn't have grown up to be such awful people. 117.173.22.50 (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The teaching of history, as with all subjects, is a layering approach. As you get older they give you more details. Also, pure education is overrated. The murderers in ISIS were well-educated. Lot of good it did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

But Kage, then why ever bother to teach any history at all? --147.85.186.6 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Here in the southeastern US, the main group of people you hear saying that children don't need to learn about slavery and Jim Crow (our centuries long Nanking) are white supremacists, followed by their friends who don't know any better, followed by their friends who don't know any better. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with KageTora's claim that the event "is not even relevant to the Chinese young people today". It is taught in schools as part of Chinese history, as far as I remember my students telling me. I don't know China inside out, but I'm fairly clear on this point. Whatever else Kage says about demonstrations is separate, but sounds like too much POV to me. IBE (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We are leaving out an important question here... what level of education are we asking about? There is a huge difference between what is appropriate to cover at the primary school level and what is appropriate to cover at the university level. Depth of coverage also changes as the education level increases. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The simple answer to the original question is no. The Japanese, unlike the Germans, have never reached a consensus that their conduct during the Second World War was morally wrong (see Vergangenheitsbewältigung), and so there is no sharp focus on Japan's moral transgressions during the war, again unlike in Germany, where Germany's immorality during the war is a focus of the history curriculum. One key difference between Germany and Japan is that, although the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg was horrific, Germany was not exposed to the terror of the atomic bomb. This experience allowed some Japanese to maintain a feeling of victimhood. Another is that, while the Nazis were largely discredited in Germany, Japan's prewar elite largely retained its status after the war. Marco polo (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Did the Japanese have a system in place whose purpose was to exterminate an ethnic group consisting of millions of people? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, but they did murder millions of people. Most people would consider that morally wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The article says 300,000 at most. Do China or Russia take responsibility in their history classes, for the mass murdering committed by Mao and Stalin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

300,000 is the total for Nanking, not for Japanese murders during the war. Rmhermen (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that's another story; see Russian Schools to Teach Putin’s Version of History. Alansplodge (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Millions is a total for the war. See Japanese war crimes#Mass killings. Are you suggesting that if they only murder a few hundred thousands at a time then it isn't morally wrong? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No. And millions of their own died in combat, as Japan paid a heavy price for their aggressions (as did Germany). My question was whether it was a systematic slaughter, as with the German Holocaust, or was it just anyone they felt like killing (as with Stalin). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It sounded like a rhetorical question in objection to a post saying "The Japanese, unlike the Germans, have never reached a consensus that their conduct during the Second World War was morally wrong". I don't think you should have to be as bad as Nazi Germany to admit you were morally wrong. Millions of murders should be plenty. See Japanese war crimes for more details of what they did. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Politicians like to whitewash the past. We have some of that in America, as some are pushing to minimize the references to the civil rights movement, in public education textbooks and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? The article I linked to, Japanese history textbooks controversy, implies students are taught about the Nanjing massacre. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's review some of the reasons a nation should face up to it's own history of genocide:

1) As said before, to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

2) So they can understand and negotiate with those who are the survivors of the genocide. In the case of Japan, being able to understand the Chinese mindset would be very helpful in any negotiations. The same is true for North and South Korea, the Philippines, and everywhere else the Japanese massacred civilians.

3) Without understanding Japanese behavior prior to WW2 it's impossible to explain why just about everyone attacked them. This could lead to paranoia that the world is out to get them and isolationist policies based on that.

And, to be sure, it isn't just Japan that has this issue. It's even illegal to talk about the Armenian Genocide in Turkey, for example. This has been a stumbling block to them joining the EU. Of course, more recent genocides deserve more attention in the education system than ancient ones. In particular, the point where there is nobody left alive who remembers the event is probably where it can go to a lower priority. In the case of Japan, that's still several decades off. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

But then by the same token, should not students in the U.S. be taught of the internment of Japanese Americans as part of the history of World War II?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We are. At least, I was. --Trovatore (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

So was I. Also note that Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#Reparations_and_redress talks about attempts to make up for this incident. I'm not aware of the Japanese making any comparable efforts, despite their mistreatment of civilians being far more brutal and widespread. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I was taught about the internment of Japanese Canadians in Canada. We also discussed the Native American genocide, the expulsion of Acadians, eugenics, voting restrictions, etc etc. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I grew up in and live in the Southeastern US. We were taught some about the internment, but more about slavery and Jim Crow (even as in elementary school), since that was a bit more along the lines of "we better not do this again, and should discourage others from behaving similarly." Some of my peers even went on field trips to go pick cotton with their bare hands, which got plenty of kids to immediately go "ok, all slavery is wrong forever, even if there's no cotton picking involved." Claims that such history isn't relevant to kids is an excuse ultimately started by people who want to repeat those mistakes (main group opposed to teaching about slavery and Jim Crow? white supremacists). Those excuses might get repeated by people who don't know better, but they start with and are rooted in justifying rape and murder.

I'm even pretty sure that a number of my peers were introduced to the concept of rape through learning about slavery. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The slave trade and Britain's role in it are taught in British primary schools [1]. Alansplodge (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar - there is no reason to teach children from the age of six (i.e. primary school children) about what happened in WW2. There are lots of other things they need to learn. If they want to know, they can do it at university, and then tell other people. In the UK, when I was in high school, we weren't even taught that it was the British that invented concentration camps (South Africa, Boer War). There are only two things I remember from High School history class - one is that the Magna Carta was signed by King John (in Liverpool - which turned out not to be true), and that the vikings didn't have horns on their helmets (oh, and one more thing - the teacher always wore the same suit). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 05:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, the OP asked about students, not specifically primary school students. There is no reason why high school students should not learn about their country's history, and in any case, the OP was asking about the actual situation in Japan, not your personal opinion. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I do apologize, Bowlhover for not stating that I lived in Japan for ten years. This is not personal opinion, this is personal experience. I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I know what I am talking about. If you find it difficult to understand what I have said, then I suggest that if you are really interested, do some research before attacking a fellow Wikipedian. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 10:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The OP would need to clarify, which he won't be doing anytime soon, as he's now on a 60-day block as an open proxy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Some odd comments about what would be taught in the UK - we learnt about the Rape of Nanking at O Level when I was at school. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't do history for GCSE (which we start at age 14). Most of the history I learnt since has been taught by myself. Previous to that, we didn't learn much about wars. I didn't know where Nanjing was until I actually went there at age 20. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 04:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What history, if any, do you think should be taught in schools? Iapetus (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

What age are we talking about? Six year olds are still learning to read and write. You mean high school? Look, for most kids, they are only learning in order to pass their final exams, so they can get into university. What happened 70 years ago may be of interest to some (but completely irrelevant for any kind of job - all it does is get an understanding of why the Chinese 'randomly' get angry at Japan), but they will find that out by themselves. I shall reiterate - there is only so much that you can cram into a person's brain in a short space of time. Lessons in Japan are approximately 40 minutes each. Then they have to learn other stuff. Filling kids with guilt about what other people did is not a good education system. You can mention what happened in Nanjing, but you don't have to terrify them with the horrific details. They will learn by themselves, by the magnificent inventions of TV and YouTube. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 12:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Valuable natural resources

What are the top five most valuable natural resources? In other words, if a country wanted to be rich, which five natural resources would it desire to have under its soil? 78.146.100.146 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Google the subject and you will get a good range of opinions. The general answer would be based on "what does the given country have that other countries are willing to pay big bucks for?" That's going to vary by country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Water, forest, wind, sun, and carbon-based energy source. They can all generate electricity, but they are not all underground. There is also geothermal energy source, but I think that is more of a modern invention. 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A mine full of tritium, diamond, painite, californium 252 and antimatter will pay for itself pretty much instantly. As far as we know, though, antimatter isn't underground, and three others are very rare. Not what any one country will have, but what it'd want. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A mine full of antimatter might not get you the results you'd want, but you'd be past caring at that point. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering if "pay for itself instantly" was some sort of ironic metaphor. --Trovatore (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd assumed the Hypothetical Kingdom would be rich enough off the first four (all now artificially scarce) to implement some spiffy new procedures for the tricky stuff. But yeah, wouldn't be great in the real world. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

See also The Ballad of the Northern Lights, by Robert W. Service. --Trovatore (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In the short term, see this and similar lists, generally featuring oil, gas, coal, various minerals, etc. In the long term, see Natural capital which could include arable land, water supplies, biodiversity, etc. Another interesting read is this World Bank report that suggests the ability to manage resources sustainably may be as important if not more so than any one natural resource. Taknaran (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Aye. A Thneed is a thing that everyone needs, but unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing's going to get better. It's not. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that some resources tend to be more of a curse than a blessing. Fossil fuels, for example, tend to make a small number of people very rich, who are able to get control of the fossil fuels by bribing the government, which results in a corrupt government and a poor and oppressed population. Other mined resources, like diamonds, can pose similar problems. Farming, on the other hand, tends to result in a more equitable distribution of wealth and power, as it's difficult for a small number of people to control all the tillable land. StuRat (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

How far apart were English towns and fiefs in the early 19th century?

In Pride and Prejudice, I remember Elizabeth walks about five miles from her father's house to Netherfield Park. That may imply that the physical distance is really not that long, and that the distance between one English manor house to another English manor house is within walking distance, as long as the walker is willing to spend several hours and take into account of dirt and obstacles. Is the "five miles" the same five miles as the one that Americans use? Since when did England use the metric system and abandon the customary system? 140.254.136.157 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Five miles is not such a long walk, really. A healthy adult can walk that distance in an hour and forty minutes. Before the advent of bicycles and cars, people routinely walked that kind of distance. The distance between English manors would have varied, but in most areas they would not have been more than a couple of hours' walk apart. Distances would have been shorter in areas of fertile pasture and cropland and greater in areas with barren uplands and moors. English miles are the same as American miles. Distances on roads in the United Kingdom are still indicated in miles. The British government adopted a policy of movement toward the metric system in 1965, but the changeover has been no more than partial and has not been enforced in many areas. As a result, the system of imperial units is still in wide use. See Metrication in the United Kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a long walk at all. My mother used to tell me how she used to have to walk three miles each way to school every day, back in the late 1920s/early 30s. Even in my day, in the 60s and 70s, you were only given a free bus pass if you lived more than two miles from school and were under 8 years old, or more than three miles away if you were older, as it was considered reasonable for kids to walk that far (I had a bus pass when I started primary school, had to pay the childs' fare between 8 and 10, and my secondary school was just over three miles the other way when I turned 11, so I got a pass again. At least those practices quickly made you very competent at using public transport (from a lot of questions asked on places like Yahoo Answers I get the impression that most kids nowadays are so dependent on Mum and Dads Taxi Service that they have no idea how to use buses and trains), I remember frequently travelling around 4 miles on my own to the local town when I was 8 or 9 (of course, it helped that my eldest brother was a bus driver, and all the other drivers knew who I was and kept an eye on me!). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

English manors (the term "fief" is medieval) were often less than a mile across (in southern England at least) and there could be more than one manor in a single parish. The southern English countryside is very densely populated and visitors from outside Europe often remark that they've only just left one village (by car) before they find themselves in the next one. Walking five miles without passing through a settlement of some kind would be unusual, unless you were making a concious effort to avoid civilisation.

Although we have different pints, gallons and tons to the US, we have the same linear measurements. Sadly, everything we buy has to be measured in the metric system except milk and beer, for which we have an exemption from the European Union on cultural grounds. We're still clinging to miles on the roads though. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A fit adult walks at about 3 miles per hour. I have no reference for this but concentrated human settlements (not hamlets) appear to have been 6 to 8 miles apart. Just as foxes and other critters have a territory, are ancestors seem to have a six to eight mile territory. Even modern man that lives (in say) Los Angeles and has to commute, he still spends most of his social life in a 8 mile radius. Male youths are a little bit different. They may frequent sorties further afield. An instinctive throw back perhaps, to look for mates that their blood is not related too. --Aspro (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I found this 1 inch to 1 mile map of part of Hampshire (Jane Austen's home county) dating from the first decade of the 19th century. It shows that settlements are closer than the 6 miles User:Aspro quotes above, although admittedly many of them are quite small by today's standards; it shows that the cathedral city of Winchester is not much bigger than a modern village. Alansplodge (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That map shows a lot of hamlets which I specifically excluded. Also, I was talking about average. Some areas obviously would had greater or lesser hamlets growing into villages. It is apparent in literature too. In Lark Rise to Candleford; Lark Rise is eight miles from the nearest market town of Candleford. I think it might have something to do with humans spacial awareness. It even reflects into the modern day where the London Black Cab drives are required to show proficiency in "The Knowledge" [2]. I.E. A six mile radius of Charing Cross. It is hard-wired into us and early settlements followed that pattern before the population exploded.--Aspro (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Pillars of the Earth (a novel set in medieval England) mentions a rule about how far apart marketplaces were supposed to be. IIRC they were supposed to be 20 miles apart, so you'd be within 10 miles of the nearest one, a third of a day's walk. The idea was you'd spend a third of the day walking to the market, a third of the day at the market, and a third walking back home. These days in terms of getting to school, 3 miles by walking is time-consuming but by bicycle it's pretty quick and easy (I did that for a while). 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Which countries or cities are using biodegradable shopping bags?

Can you provide me with a list of countries or world cities which give out biodegradable shopping bags to shoppers? Is India and China using biodegradable bags? Please provide a source of reference. Thanks. 173.33.183.141 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The United States. There are biodegradeable shopping bags in the United States. Some stores use them. 140.254.229.128 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Back in the olden days we called those "paper". Recent reports cast doubt on the ability of plastic to degrade as claimed.[3] Rmhermen (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking about biodegradable plastic shopping bags? You might find the information at http://www.allaboutbags.ca/aroundtheworld.html to be helpful.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If we recycle plastic bags, that be would good for the environment. Do mixed recycling facilities collect and recycle regular plastic bags? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not so much in the US, that I've seen. But many grocery stores accept those bags for recycling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Currently China and India are not using biodegradable bags. In 2008, China banned ultra-thin bags, which were thinner than 0.025 millimeters and imposed a fee on all other bags. China is currently working to put regional recycling in place because the Chinese tend to shop daily due to a lack of refrigeration. The ban is reported to be effective in reducing bag usage by 66% although compliance is inconsistent across the country. In India the problem surrounds a national litter crisis due to an ineffective waste management system. Authorities have tried to implement bans on plastic bags but the bans are consistently disregarded. Many cities have made the move to ban single-use plastic bags such as Honolulu, Hawaii, Austin, Texas, San Francisco, California, and countries such as Taiwan, Rwanda, and Macedonia. Italy and France have made efforts to mandate the use biodegradable plastic films and ban the use of non-biodegradable plastics. This website provides a list of different countries and their stance plastic bag usage. http://www.allaboutbags.ca/aroundtheworld.html Other sources include: http://www.ivieinc.com/the-past-present-and-future-of-single-use-plastic-bags/ http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17027990 Amro237 (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, around here "paper or plastic" was a standard part of grocery checkout. Paper bags fall apart if they get wet, plastic doesn't biodegrade. Supermarkets here sell fairly sturdy re-usable bags inexpensively and those work well, except for the issue of already having one and forgetting to bring it. They are useful though, so I don't mind having a lot of them. Biodegradeable plastic bags are pretty terrible, particularly for trash/compost bin liners. Besides being flimsy to begin with, they actually decompose while in use, so they fall apart when you try to empty the trash. I haven't figured out a good alternative. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Chinese (PRC) law

I'm doing a little bit of background research for a project and I'm trying to understand what laws exist in the People's Republic of China regarding medical research, specifically related to indepedent ethics committee review of clinical research. I'm 99.9% sure that it happens, since it's a common global practice under the Declaration of Helsinki. I've done a few google searches, and one mentioned a 2000's-era "Good Clinical Practice Act" that talked about research subject protection. The law may not explicitly mention ethics committees (IEC is the common global term, especially in Europe; the US calls them IRBs). Is there any place to find a copy of this law in either English or in a machine-translatable format? 150.148.14.8 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that searching for the original law means you have to understand simplified Chinese. This website looks promising. A Chinese-English dictionary may be helpful. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

ETA: I found two more sources that may be of use to you. The articles are written in English. Excuse the typo in one author's name.

• Wang, X., Liang, Z., Huang, H., & Liang, W. (2011). Principles of ethics review on traditional medicine and the practice of institute review board in China [Chinese]. Chinese Journal Of Integrative Medicine, 17(8), 631-634. doi:10.1007/s11655-011-0820-1
• Wahlberg, A., Rehmann-Sutter, C., Sleeboom-Faulkner, M., Lu, G., Döring, O., Cong, Y., & ... Rose, N. (2013). From global bioethics to ethical governance of biomedical research collaborations. Social Science & Medicine, 98293-300.

The first source is concerned with traditional Chinese medicine and the ethics and laws that deal with them. The second source is concerned with proposing ideas that may aid in ethical considerations in medical research legislations. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. 73.19.23.200 (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)