Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 15

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 15

Ethical Eating- GM, meat, non-organic, chemicals, hormones...

I'm doing a debate on ethical eating, but I won't know which side of the moot my house will be given until the actual day.

What I'd like to know is, do you support ethical eating? In other words, do you selectively choose what you eat based on your beliefs or values?

If no, why not? Why are you endorsing the killing of innocent animals, cruelly? Why are you against GM? Hormones?

If yes, why? What is the big deal about GM? Do you still eat meat, but only "humanely" killed meat? Are you a vegetarian? Do you think the starving people in the slums should practice ethical eating in not killing the rats for their meals? Should we all boycott beef because methane is a greenhouse gas? SS✞^(Kay) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

An excellent read on this is Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma. It explores the issues in detail: Pollan both follows an Iowan steer from its feedlot to McDonald's and, in the end hunter-gathers a boar and morels. Very informative, very readable. PhGustaf (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your premise is flawed, as many would say that you definition of ethical is subjective. What has innocence got to do with livestock and why do you assume that killing animals necessarily involves cruelty? Evil is perpetrated only by man -- is the lioness evil when it catches a gazelle and crushes its trachea so as to suffocate it? That's not evil...that's instinct. Evil is purely motivation, and nothing can have evil intentions but man. So induced death is not, as a rule, evil -- but that's the way you seem to spin it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is a little simplistic. Everyone eats what they do because of a wide range of values, some of which may include ethical values (for example, I put a high emphasis on my food being cheap, and some emphasis on my food being good tasting, and a little bit of emphasis on my food being nutritious, and significantly less emphasis on how my hamburger was treated when it was alive). So you really have two issues to deal with:

1. To what extent do people consider ethical considerations when they choose what to eat, as opposed to other values?

2. What are people's ethical values when it comes to food? As DRosenbach points out, many people would not consider the mere act of killing an animal to be un-ethical (though some certainly do). Some people would consider GM crops to be unethical (for various reasons), while others would feel that the potential for increased yields outweighs the negative considerations.

Wikipedia has articles on many of the topics you are interested in, and it would probably be good to check them out, especially if there's a "controversy" section. (example: milk#Bovine growth hormone supplementation). Buddy431 (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Buddy, I wouldn't be so quick to wikilink 'those who consider killing animals unethical' to 'vegetarian' -- I eat no fish of any kind because I find them unpalatable, but that doesn't make me an anti-piscovorian according to your definition (which would likely have something to do with ethics). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

DR, I don't think anyone is trying to push a POV here. There are issues about the ethics of food, but they're not about to be resolved, or effectively argued, on this reference list. The OP asked for pointers to information about the issue, and has got some, so the list is doing what it's supposed to do. Myself I eat food, not too much, mostly plants. PhGustaf (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment was misunderstood -- I did not intend to appear as defending against POV. I was merely stating that even with the many errors already found in the OP's original proposition, yet another seemed to creep in with Buddy's link. The vast majority of mothers don't know enough about biochemistry to really know what a hormone is, and yet they might choose against hormone-supplemented milk not for any ethical reasons but because they might mistakenly assume that hormones would cause their child to develop autism. So the suggestion that anti-GM consumers necessarily have anything on their mind related to ethics is far from reality -- in fact, at least specific to GM, I never even considered ethics to be a thing to contemplate. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One argument I've seen for free range chicken and such is that those confined to cages accumulate stress hormones, which humans who eat them then absorb. I have no idea if this can be proven. But, if it can, that would be an argument which would appeal to those who don't care a bit about animal ethics. StuRat (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As for genetically modified foods, one argument is that they are basically untested for their health implications. For example, many GM foods are modified to be more able to withstand pesticides, which means they may have much more pesticide on them than others. Is this good for people ? StuRat (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your first comment isn't really correct. In fact regulatory requirements mean most GM food receive far more testing for health effects then foods produced via other techniques e.g. modern plant breeding (which nowadays often includes a large variety of things like chemical mutagens and radiation, modern plant breeding is definitely quite different from what we've been doing for thousands of years, unlike what some people seem to think). Now you can debate (somewhere else) whether the testing is sufficient, but the idea that they are 'basically untested for their health implications' doesn't really jive with reality. This dichotomy is a common complaint from those who are involved in research relevants areas [1], other interested observers, and it is something that is beginning to be addressed, for example, in Canada, plants with novel traits must be tested regardless of how they're produced [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several arguments to be made here (and note that I'm providing arguments for a debate, not passing judgment on whether they are correct or not). One is that genetically modified foods are not the same as those developed by breeding alone, and thus represent more of a potential risk, more in line with the risk from pharmaceutical products than foods, and should therefore be tested like meds. One reason for this is that foods produced by breeding are likely to have all the traits of the foods from which they were bred, which have been thoroughly tested for generations and are "Generally Recognized As Safe". GM foods, on the other hand, can incorporate genes from non-food organisms, even up to the point of producing drugs for the pharmaceutical industry. Thus, they should not fall under the GRAS category. There was a US Supreme Court ruling that says they should be treated the same as foods developed by breeding alone, but many people, perhaps a majority, disagree with that.

Another problem with GM foods is ownership. If not only the GM foods but any food ever produced from, or contaminated with, those genes then becomes the property of the manufacturer, you can eventually end up with a situation where all food on Earth is "owned" by a small number of corporations, such as Monsanto. This has particulary been a problem in Canada, where farmers who live near farms which use GM seed have been found to owe the manufacturer of the seed money, due to cross contamination. StuRat (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That isn't really true since extensive changes can occur due to mutation, and things like hybridisation with wild species, that have not been substanially consumed and a bunch of other things can occur with modern plant breeding that produces plants with traits that have not been thoroughly tested for generations. (I like to include a picture of a gamma radiation field not because I'm trying to say there's something wrong with it but because I suspect a lot of people have no idea this is part and parcel of modern plant breeding and would be uncomfortable with the idea in particular considering plants produced like this need no testing in most countries and know one generally knows what has changed in the plant other then something useful.)

Also some of the testing is designed to pick up minor problems that would likely not have been picked up even with 'generations of testing'. Finally the key point in what you said is can. Many regulations treat GM plants the same, whether they are cisgenic, are simply knocking out specific genes (e.g. FlavrSavr) or whatever. In other words, the issue as I mentioned in my original post is not so much about whether you should regulate GM crops at all, but whether it makes sense to include specific regulations that deal with any and all GM crops, regardless of what you've done yet include little or no regulation of other crops which to most intents and purposes substanially more often unknown new traits, coming from plants which have not been consumed for generations. ([3] is another interesting example I came across but forgot to include earlier.)

BTW, the second issue you mention somewhat conflates minorly related issues with GM (sadly a common problem in discussions involving GM). For starters plant variety rights have existed in a number of countries since long before GM which while generally allowing people to save seed for their own use often don't allow them to sell it to others. And while GM does allow the possibility of patents in some countries I'm pretty sure they're possible in some countries even without GM particularly with the wide availability of modern molecular biological techniques such as ability to identify useful genes and introduce them from related wild species into existing varieties without GM. And in particular it's an issue that, is largely distinct from the actual merits of GM. (If you disagree with whatever patents that are allowed, it doesn't in follow that you have to disagree with GM anymore that disagreeing with patents for software compression means you have to disagree with software compression.) Similarly for issues like Terminator genes (which some people feel should be compulsary for transgenic plants to avoid the transgenes getting into the environment) and other things that people like to say are a problem with GM (e.g. the overuse of roundup with roundup resistant varieties).

BTW as for Canada, I presume you're referring to Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, if so I suggest you read the article since I'm not sure if you understand the case correctly. But in brief, it wasn't a case where some poor shmuck farmer happened to be unknowingly growing GM crops due to accidential cross contamination and was liable but rather

Hidden for readibility since this is already long

on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffs’ Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffs’ patent. By selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffs’ patent. The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category. The appellate court also discussed a possible intermediate scenario, in which a farmer is aware of contamination of his crop by genetically modified seed, but tolerates its presence and takes no action to increase its abundance in his crop. The court held that whether such a case would constitute patent infringement remains an open question but that it was a question that did not need to be decided in the Schmeiser case.

The last note is an important issue. AFAIK, it remains an open question, in other words the only thing we definitely know is that if you intentionally collect, save and use seeds that you know you need a license to use in Canada, then yes, you are liable for infrigement. (I don't think it takes a lawyer or a lengthy court case to figure out this was likely, the only real issue may have been whether the patents were valid but as I understand it that too had already been tested.) Again whether or not you agree with the basic idea of patenting doesn't come in to it since what's being discussed here is whether there's an evidence accidental contamination of your field somehow leaves you liable.

Anyway I don't really want to continue this discussion any longer, but suffice to say if you really want to consider GM crops, you have to consider the wide variety of possibilities, the potential problems from each, the differences between real world non GM plant breeding and the variety of GM possibilities, and also avoid thinking something you feel is wrong with certain GM varieties or with certain possibilities or practices associated with GM means GM is bad (no it means those things are bad).

Of course a lot of this applies more generally, e.g. when considering how 'bad' something is, compare it to the alternatives, for example, the use of fungicides may have negative effects, but are these worse then Aflatoxin and other mycotoxins that may result with certain food products if you don't? Are the copper compounds used to produce many organic foods better for human health or the environment then the fungicides used for non-organic foods? Is it better to go for high yields at the expense of weeds and other things which may add to biodiversity leaving more land or low intensity techniques while allowing more weeds and biodiversity on the fields? Of course, as in most things of this sort, there'll be cases with competing interests, if something has an overall benefit to human health but also an overall negative effect on the environment how do you balance that? If it's beneficial to the consumer but harmful to the producer, who could be in some poor country what then? (And that surely leads into the obvious problem of whether in the long run it may be better for the producer as they get richer.) And a key question what research is there on all this to support your ideas and how strong is the research? (In particular don't fall into the trap that natural=good.)

Nil Einne (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Brevity isn't your strong suit, is it ? Certainly "natural" alone doesn't mean it's good, since arsenic and many other toxic substances are natural. But "we've been eating it for centuries" does tend to mean it can't be all that bad, or we've have noticed people dropping dead by now. So, anything substantially "new" should be thoroughly tested before it's fed to people. If some of the breeding practices in use now also create completely new foods, then they need such thorough testing, too. StuRat (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

An argument against organic foods is that they use manure as fertilizer, which tends to increase the risk of bacterial contamination with E. coli and other contaminants, and water run-off also tends to pollute the streams and lakes nearby. StuRat (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll pick up on a point started above. My ethics and values are to make sure my family eat healthily and well. My circumstances may dictate whether I buy, for example, Tesco's Value packs or Tesco's Finest range. But there is also an ethical component here: by shopping at Tesco's, am I making a decision not to buy from the local shop, or from the local farm shop, or to not grow my own vegetables (a far cheaper option as far as money goes)? There is much, much more to eating "ethically" than just considering how meat is farmed. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Any discussion regarding the ethics of food would have to consider the issues raised by fair trade and Slow Food movements, self-sufficiency ideals, and ideas on sustainable living. There are food miles to consider, versus the carbon footprint and pollution and deforestation caused through food production. Think about intensive farming versus mixed farming (no WP article, unfortunately), local food, food cooperatives. Also consider religious thoughts on halal, kosher, fasting (etc). "Ethical" eating must also consider concepts of greed (and taking more than your share of resources); the obesity epidemic and other food-related health problems (and how our food choices impact on a country's economy and health system).... It's a far bigger topic than merely "eating animals". Gwinva (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Communism

Inappropriate ref desk question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you support communism? 199.8.158.159 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC) That's a wholly inappropriate question for the reference desk. We do not so surveys. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Does who support communism? Wikipedia as a whole doesn't have any political opinions, we aim to write everything from a neutral point of view. Individual Wikipedians can have whatever opinions they like. Some support communism, some don't. --Tango (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)This is a reference desk and so we do not give you our own opinions. Wikipedia has a wealth of relevant information at Portal:Communism - I suggest you read up there and make your own mind up. If you already have a good understanding of the topic and wish to discuss with others, I would recommend an online forum which you could find through google. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 199.8.158.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Before taking the IP's question too seriously, check out his other "contributions". Obviously pushing an agenda, and this section should be removed or boxed, as with the last guy that started a communism-related megillah. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Is it relevant then to note that David Lee Camp receives donations from health care companies? Sounds like guilt by association. 199.8.158.159 (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Joe McCarthy's ghost says: That's all just a weasely way of saying "Yes!" The correct answer is "No, sir! I stand by true American values: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC) See, I told y'all he had an agenda. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Also, accepting big bucks from health care companies and then opposing anything that would erode their profitibility is not "guilt by association", it's Congressional business-as-usual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ecclestistic court decision on Indians having souls

Please provide information relating to a Roman Catholic ecclestistic court decision that Native Americans posessed souls. Your opinion as to whether the decision discouraged slavery of Native Americans would be appreciated.

I am in a senior citizen's class studying Constitutional issues. Slavery is one topic. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.105.180 (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See Sublimus Dei. --Tango (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk doesn't do opinion. Woogee (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonagenarians who died before 1900

Presumably this would be an exceptional feat before the advent of modern medicine, the social safety net etc. I'm looking for a list, or just any individuals you can think of, who meet these criteria. Thank you. PS Nona = 90. Vranak (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't as uncommon as one might think. The lower life expectency of earlier generations was due in large part to a) infectious disease b) childhood illness and c) childbirth dangers to mothers. If you could avoid these three, you would likely live just as long as you do know (in fact, probably longer, due to modern diet and sedentary lifestyle and increased incidents of heart disease). We actually had this question asked a few months ago (I think it was centenarians, but a similar question). The article List of notable centenarians has not many, but still some people who died before 1900. A quick perusal turns up architect John Chessell Buckler, musical composer Surdas, explorer Jean-Frédéric Waldeck, jurist Sampson Salter Blowers, Roman General Marcus Valerius Corvus, British Admiral Provo Wallis, cellist Giacobbe Cervetto, singer Teresa Saporiti, statesman Joseph Frederick Wallet DesBarres, statesman Richard McHeffy, banker Moses Montefiore, Cicero's wife Terentia, Pope Agatho, Saint Anthony the Great, cleric Jorge da Costa, chemist Michel Eugène Chevreul, physician Edward Augustus Holyoke, etc. If we lower our requirements ten more years, we could likely turn up a LOT more. --Jayron32 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic answer, thank you Jayron. Vranak (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of medieval examples - as Jayron said, if you live past childhood, you have a good chance of living as long as anyone today. The only things that would be more likely to kill an medieval adult than a modern one were battle and disease. Usama ibn Munqidh, Pope Celestine III, and Enrico Dandolo are some others. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and List of longest reigning monarchs of all time might be useful - Pepi II Neferkare is the most ancient nonagenarian, apparently. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My husband and I are both researching our family history, and we both have ancestors who died in their 90s, others in their 80s. What brought average life expectancy down was infant mortality. Basically, if you got past the first six months of life you stood a reasonable chance of living as long as any "modern" person does. What I'm saying is, why do you think such people had to be notable? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well in my readings on famous historical figures, I'm not sure I've ever come across one who made it into their ninth decade. There is of course a long long list of modern figures who have. Vranak (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Could that be because historical figures are not really doing anything interesting at that age? Still, There were no popes that lived past 90 from 1500 until Leo XIII who died in 1903, so there is probably something to this. 80s did not seem uncommon through that time frame though. Googlemeister (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, historical figures don't have to be doing anything interesting in their 90s to be worth reading about. Vranak (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Grandma Moses published her autobiography at age 92. She was still painting and selling her works into the 1950s, which would have been in her 90's. --Jayron32 20:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Enrico Dandolo mentioned above by Adam Bishop, sacked Constantinople at age 90, something I've just promised myself to do when I reach that age.John Z (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to start talking to the Turkish government and get them to change the name back. Right now the city is called Istanbul. Googlemeister (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pepi II Neferkare! -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (Oops, didn't see he was already mentioned in a multiply-indented comment above...) AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got our church burial records in a database, and of 442 people who died before 1900, 10 were aged over 90. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

rise if the third world

please tell me the reasons behind the rise of the third world†↔# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.6.5 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In what sense has the third world risen? Are you asking why emerging economies have emerged? --Tango (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Or if you were interested in the rise of countries grouped according to one of the other meanings of Third World, you could look at our article. Marco polo (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you mean to ask why European countries gave up their colonies in the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, and Oceania in the decades after WW2, contrasting with the nineteenth century when Europe seemed to dominate much of the world somewhat effortlessly, then there could be several reasons for this, including increasing western education among the native elites of the colonies, changing political views at home, etc. But one of the most important factors was probably the cumulative effects of WW1 and WW2 in lessening the overall predominance of Europe in the world... AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple leadership questionnaire

Hello. Could you please direct me to a basic leadership skills/abilities assessment questionnaire along with its scoring method? I have spent a lot of time on google, google scholar and online journals but I am just getting specialised or excessively large questionnaires. Thanks very much for your help. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Name in Khmer

What is the name of the Long Beach Unified School District in Khmer? http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/Khmer/ has the name, but the text cannot be copied. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have the correct character-set add-on to your browser, you could use the Wikipedia article Khmer script to work it out. Since many people do not have this character set loaded into their browser, it is likely why the website uses gif pictures of the text rather than the actual characters. If you see a bunch of question marks or squares when you view the article, you'll have to add the character set to your browser. --Jayron32 19:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My browser successfully displays the Khmer text. The thing is that I cannot make out where the "Long Beach Unified School District" part begins and where it ends... WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Women and music, throughout the ages

A Lady Standing at a Virginal

I have not been able to find an article on this topic. A painting by Vermeer had me wondering if limitations on women's activities also largely extended to the recital of music. Vranak (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in "polite society" in English-speaking countries, young women of "respectable" families were generally expected to take up instruments that they could use to melodically accompany themselves while they sang, partly as a practical matter (since much music-making was solo). This meant most often keyboard instruments, sometimes the harp, occasionally the guitar or guitar-like instruments. Such young women would have played mostly somewhat informally for their own family members or their family's invited guests, or in other families' houses where they were invited guests (not really at "recitals" as we would think of them today). Not sure that other instruments were "limited" as such, but I would assume that they didn't fit in as well with the social purposes of music-making by young women of the middle and upper classes at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Vranak (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In the C18, see the only "semi-public" career of Vittoria Aleotti and the girl orchestra conducted by Antonio Vivaldi. In the C19, eing a woman constricted the careers of Fanny Mendelssohn and Clara Schumann.--Wetman (talk)

I know that in some tribal societies women sang, drummed or used small handmade instruments (like flutes). Often this was accompaniment to collective labor (gardening, weaving) - collective labor often fell on women in tribal groups, whereas men handled more solitary, wide-ranging tasks. of course, tribal histories (which were often passed on through song) were the more-or-less exclusive property of men... This is going to vary widely by culture, however, since the behaviors of women are often the focus of intense public scrutiny: a properly moral woman in the Elizabethan era was expected to play and sing; a properly moral woman in traditional Muslim culture would never touch a musical instrument. --Ludwigs2 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In some cultures (especially in New Guinea) women were forbidden to touch flutes. Here's what I can find on the subject with a quick Google search [4] (though it seems to contain more advanced anthropological discussion of symbolism than basic description of the social customs of such societies). AnonMoos (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

One extraordinary female composer and musician, from a very long time ago, would be Hildegard of Bingen. PhGustaf (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language names of school district

The following names of Fairfax County Public Schools are needed to be placed in text on here:

• Arabic: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/arabic.htm
• Chinese: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/chinese.htm
  • It may be 費郡公立學校 - Would anyone mind confirming if this has all of the characters of the district's name in Chinese?
• Farsi: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/farsi.htm
• Korean: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/korean.htm
• Urdu: http://www.fcps.edu/otherlanguages/urdu.htm

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a fundemental reason why the English wikipedia needs the foreign language names in the text of the article? If there are articles in foreign language Wikipedias on the subject, then an interwiki-language-link should suffice; there isn't really much of a reason for someone reading english Wikipedia to know what the name of the Fairfax County School District is in Urdu, is there? --Jayron32 20:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is intended for commons categories, Jayron. For instance I used the reference desk to get texts for Commons:Category:Houston Independent School District - if you want you can read the previous thread about that discussion here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_March_8#Name_question. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. In that case, you probably stand a better chance of getting language help at the languages reference desk or Wikipedia:Translation. The translation project is perused by people who speak various languages and are good at translating. Furthermore, you may be able to find a specific wikipedian to help by perusing Category:Wikipedians by language; each language is listed as "user XXX" where XXX is the 2 or 3 letter ISO code. For example, Category:User km is a list of Wikipedians who self-identify as speaking Khmer. That would probably net you better results than asking at the ref desks. --Jayron32 20:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll try the languages ref desk first, and I'll see what happens from that point :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What would have been the historical effects if Hitler had been successfully assassinated?

I know the answer would vary depending on exactly when and how it happened, but if Hitler had been successfully assassinated at the height of his power (not necessarily in the 20 July plot), what would the effects have been? It's a standard time-travel/alternate universe story idea, where Hitler is assassinated and the Second World War/Holocaust either never occurs or isn't as bad as it was. But it struck me today that surely the German armies' (initial) successes had to be ascribable to Hitler's advisors/generals, at least in part, and an assassination of a widely beloved leader probably would have spurred Germany on to more war, not less. So what are the likely effects of a successful assassination? (if anyone knows of a book, article, or website on this topic, please post it!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.163.175 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a series of books titled What If? which are collections of "alternative history" essays by prominent historians. You could start with those books and see if the topic is covered. The study of Counterfactual history is a serious academic attempt at working out answers to these sorts questions (to be contrasted with the term "Alternate history", which are usually considered to be non-academically rigourous works of fiction). Our article on Counterfactual history actually uses the "What would have happened if Hitler had been assassinated" as an example question often answered by the field. You could follow external links from the Counterfactual history article or doo google searches for the term to help you along. --Jayron32 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

just IMO, It's unlikely there would have been much historical effect - the Reich was a state bureaucracy that had its own internal impetus and would have carried on in much the same fashion until it was defeated, regardless of who was present at the helm. The only exceptions I can think of would have been for things that Hitler insisted on over the objections of his advisors - possibly the decision to invade Russia? It would have dramatically altered the outcome of the war if the Germans had left the Russian front alone. However, I doubt that was solely Hitler's decision - the Nazi's had a long-standing expansionist policy, and it seems likely they would have attacked Russia eventually, regardless (either that, or an expansion into north Africa or the middle east, but north Africa and the middle east had almost nothing to offer at the time, whereas the Russians had an advanced economy and an already developed industrial base that made them both a threat and a prize). --Ludwigs2 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooo, thanks for the links, Jayron! I didn't think realize there was even such a thing out there... awesome. And Ludwig, that's kind of what I was thinking. Presumably the people under him would've been good enough leaders to take his place, right? I mean, if they weren't good leaders, they wouldn't have become his seconds-in-command. (or whatever they were called. Minions? Underlings?) It's just that in books/movies/whatever, they always have Hitler's assassination has having this huge historical effect. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The importance of leaders is generally overestimated. A leader who is outstanding in some particular way (e.g. a military mastermind, or a great orator) can have a certain amount of impact, but in general leaders follow the inertia of the system more than they lead. The Nazis would have done pretty much what they did with or without Hitler. People focus on leaders because it's a lot easier to blame a person for something bad. If we didn't blame Hitler, who would we blame: The Nazi party? arguably true, but not satisfying. the German people? satisfying, but not meaningful. Human nature? meaningful, but unsettling. You should read Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem where she basically argues that all of the things the Nazis did weren't evil per se, but just a thoughtless A leads to B leads to C leads to... kind of process. --Ludwigs2 22:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That said, Hitler personally made some decisions that, in hindsight, drastically changed things. On top of the invasion of the USSR, I would add the decision to stop attacking British airfields and to focus on terror bombing in London (the outcome of the Battle of Britain may have otherwise been very different) and the decision to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor (a decision that still befuddles me - perhaps others could explain why it was done) being the two that come to mind. I'm not saying having someone other than Hitler would have changed these events, but I think it certainly could have changed them. Even relatively late in the war, removing his meddling in ground level operations could have had large consequences. For example, I think a lot of his top generals recognized the war was lost and favoured a negotiated truce with the West. Had this happened, the whole post war Eastern Bloc could have been very different.

In general, I think Hitler differs from the type of leader Ludwigs is describing above: unlike a modern world leader, Hitler was really the ideological and political driver of his party. He created it, not the other way around, and if he was assassinated before 1933, I think it's quite possible the Nazis would never have become the ruling party. While later he may have been bound by the system he created, the effects of his personal decisions were (I think) undeniably far reaching, right to the end. TastyCakes (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read much history that discusses the German (originally Prussian) culture of "Hero Worship" preponderant at the time. When a man is a hero brand, his idiosyncrasies become increasingly relevant and the resulting culture can be pulled well off course by those who are trying to make their way to the center of that culture. In life, Alexander the Great's hero brand led an eventually unwilling army throughout the known world and all the way to India. In death - his influence dispersed - it took forty years of war for his hangers-on to sort out violently where to go next.NByz (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's a list anywhere of what specific decisions were all (or mostly) Hitler, as opposed to widely supported by all of his generals? That'd be interesting to see... or if you just know which they were, that'd be good too. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a line of thought out there called "No Hitler, no Holocaust" (coined by Milton Himmelfarb) that's pretty self-explanatory. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

possible, but unlikely - the anti-Judaic sentiment was built into the Nazi ideology. plus, I've read arguments that claimed the holocaust was simply a natural progression: a bureaucracy charged with handling "aberrant" populations that was caught between increasing numbers of inmates and decreasing resources. if you have ten people and ten million dollars to spend you treat the people well, regardless of what you think of them; if you have ten million people and ten dollars to spend you open yourself to unsavory options. --Ludwigs2 06:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Number 3 on this Cracked article claims that the Nazis had no chance at all at defeating the Soviet Union. Page 2 makes the claim that Hitler was very lucky, and utterly incompetent. Perhaps the war would have gone better without him. Vimescarrot (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A previous discussion here[5] "What if WWII hadn't happened" includes a reference to Great Man theory. Other poor decisions by Hitlert that spring to mind are; the "stop" order at the Dunkirk perimeter, the pointless Battle of Stalingrad, failure to release the Panzer divisions from the Pas de Calais on D-Day and turning the Me 262 into a bomber instead of using it as a fighter earlier. Alansplodge (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Who was the editor of the Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands

Who was the editor of the Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands, the autobiography of Mary Seacole? He or she is identified only by the initials W. J. S. Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone knows. The author of this note in 2008 calls W. J. S. "the unidentified editor" in a context in which the name would surely have been supplied if it were known. Deor (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected as much, but agree that N&Q would be likely to reveal the information if known. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Angry or depressed at a disapointment?

What determines if someone becomes either A) angry or B) depressed as a result of a disapointment? I expect it may be determined by personality or the situation. Some people are perhaps more prone to one than the other. 92.24.26.120 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Our disappointment article is surprisingly well supplied with references to literature on the subject. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The article does not answer or address my question at all. The article is not very good as it only just barely mentions anger (one or two words: "others mire in frustration") as a responce to a disapointing event, and seems to presuppose that the only responce to a disapointing event is depression, yet experience shows that anger is also common responce. 92.24.26.120 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

When I studied psychology 30 years ago, I was taught "depression is anger turned inwards". In other words, anger is the original feeling, which we are prevented from expressing (maybe because of conditioning, or social norms), and which becomes internalised as depression. Does this help? By the way, I've just tried googling this saying, and there are countless references to it. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A topic similar to the above, where different people respond in different ways to adversity, is psychological resilience. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate at all, TammyMoet — anger is a normal human reaction, whereas depression ranges from an adaptive mechanism to a DSM disorder. To the original poster, sorry if you didn't find the sub-links in the disappointment article useful. The obvious OR answer would be that I would agree with your observation, but I don't have a good reference. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)