Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 February 12

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.

February 12

Guantanamo Terrorists

I was speaking to my friends and they alerted me to the fact that Terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay went on to rejoin Al-Qaeda. Is this entirely true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.148.193 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a few people on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees who later went and rejoined the Taliban, such as Sabi Jahn Abdul Ghafour. Whether this constitutes a serious security threat depends on your analysis. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than the side debate over whether they qualify as "terrorists", Mr. 98 has answered the question: Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The OP specified terrorists, so it's hardly a "side issue". You seem to think that any and every Guantanamo detainee qualifies as an enemy of the state, simply because the US government put them in there. A touching faith, for sure. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They didn't drop out of the sky into GTMO. If they're there, they were picked up for being enemy combatants in some way or another. You can debate all day long whether they should have been held this way. That's a different question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear to goodness,you are certain without having any facts arn't you?hotclaws 18:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The article on Ghafour can't even decide who it is about, which named detainee he was, or if he was released before or after being killed in Afghanistan, so no he hasn't. And the Taleban is not the same as al Qaeda, as anyone who hasn't been asleep for the last ten years should know. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

....and wether they were terrorists in the first place is questionable. They certainly were never convicted by a competent and fair court, and many were taken on flimsy grounds. That they are pissed off after the experience of several years of imprisonment with plenty of abuse is not really surprising. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice the IP said rejoin al-Qaeda. So they were enemies of the U.S. before GTMO. They can't use GTMO as their excuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you ignore earlier posts? The one right above yours made the excellent point that whether or not any detainee at Guantanamo is or is not a terrorist or "enemy of the US" depends on whether or not they were convicted on a terrorism-related charge in a court of law. Who says they are "enemies of the US"? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You think al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not enemies of the U.S.??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What, every single person who has ever expressed sympathies for either of those groups? Or do you have to be holding a membership card to be considered an enemy? Wake up. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So you sympathize with the 9/11 bombers? Nice. In any case, if the OP had said "detainees" instead of "terrorists", this would be a much shorter section. Although I wouldn't rule out that the IP worded it that way for the purpose of fomenting this debate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that there's a possibility that not everyone in GITMO is a terrorist. There are a number of high-profile cases that look pretty clearly like cases of mistaken identity, e.g. Khalid El-Masri. It is not exactly a precise science as to who gets into GITMO—there have been reports, for example, that "friendly" locals in Afghanistan have alleged Taliban/al Qaeda affiliations to people whom they didn't like, or had reason to benefit from being removed, or simply because there were rewards involved. We should be wary about completely abandoning the presumption of innocence—there is a good reason we don't have that as part of our "normal" legal system, and it is not completely clear whether terrorism warrants such an extreme response (far more people die per year from other criminal activity than from terrorism, yet we rarely deign it worthwhile to throw out legal protections in such circumstances). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Have any terrorists been released from Guantanamo Bay? DuncanHill (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Mr.98, GTMO detainees rejoined the Taliban. If you're asking were they "terrorists"?, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. There's no question they are enemies of the U.S. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article linked by Mr.98 about a former detainee who is said to have rejoined the Taleban can't even decide who the article is about, whether he was released before or after he was killed in Afghanistan, and does not demonstrate that he was a member of al Qaeda or the Taleban before he was in Guantanamo. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that even if you accept that the person in question was a member of the Taliban and then rejoined it again... that doesn't necessarily mean that his release was a bad idea. There are more factors involved than just "he was an enemy and he was released." Ditto even if someone was a member of al Qaeda. You can say that without sympathizing with the group or thinking that they are right. Low-level flunkies, or people whose primary concern is the localized conflict in Afghanistan, do not necessarily justify indefinite imprisonment without conviction. We should be careful not to simplify the issue into idiotic talking-heads positions (of whatever political stripe). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As with any inflammatory topic, sane people are easily pushed to extreme views in an attempt to get others to admit that there are exceptions to their extreme views. In reality, most people are actually centered between the extremes, even when pushed to make comments that are clearly not middle-ground. -- kainaw™ 15:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have gotten off track here. The list mentioned in the first answer lists some who have like Abdallah al-Ajmi who apparently died in a suicide bombing in Iraq. Typing Gitmo detainees into Google brought up the suggestion "Gitmo detainees return to terrorism". One of the first hits in the search shows Pentagon claims that "20% of released detainees returning to terrorism"[1]. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Which, if it was true in every respect (e.g., they were terrorists ahead of time, and then they went back), is kind of an interesting statistic. It could be interpreted to mean that 80% of those arrested were not terrorists to begin with (which is interesting), or it could mean that they assume all were terrorists or whatever to begin with, and the recidivism rate for those released is only 20%, which is probably better than most criminal recidivism. Of course, if you don't necessarily take them at face value that they were originally terrorists, or their metric, or whatever, then it gets more problematic. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Medellín v. Texas

Why hasn't this Supreme Court decision, which basically declared that America can ignore treaties if it feels like it, gotten the US kicked out of the United Nations? --76.211.88.21 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert but, according to List of United Nations member states#Suspension, expulsion, and withdrawal of members, it would require "the recommendation of the Security Council", and since the U.S., as a permanent member, has United Nations Security Council veto power, it looks to me that it could just block any such resolution (not that anybody would be silly enough to propose it anyway). BTW, no member has ever been expelled, not even a nasty state like Myanmar. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But couldn't all the other countries simply decide that, while the US technically has veto power, they're just going to ignore it and expel America anyway? --76.211.88.21 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In theory, maybe. However, the reason why the United States is able to ignore international law is the same reason why the other Security Council members will not expel it: It has the world's most powerful military, without which the United Nations would lack the power to enforce much of anything. Note that I am not defending the position of the United States, merely explaining it. Marco polo (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus, the UN was never intended as a governing body which compels member states to obey. it is a convention body that tries to get member states to commit to international norms. expelling a state would be counter-productive, since expulsion accomplishes nothing (except for a momentary pithy statement) and removes the possibility that the expelled state might in the future come to commit to international norms. --Ludwigs2 03:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus the US pays for a large portion of the UN's funding. Woogee (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing about that treaty (guaranteeing consular access to prisoners) is that it's the federal government which signed it, but in the vast majority of cases it's the 50 individual states which have to implement it -- and under the United States Constitution, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government can't really issue direct orders to state governments about how they conduct their law enforcement and judicial activities. At most, the Congress could decide to cut off certain supplemental funding to states (such as federal funds that used to be given to keep more cops on the beat in the Clinton years etc.), but the states actually obtain most of their funding from local taxes. AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, since then-President Bush was a clear supporter of Medellín, why didn't he simply issue a Presidential Pardon? --70.141.193.11 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bush probably used up all his "pardon this guy even though he's clearly guilty" cards. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Or, you just responded to a troll. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In practice the General Assembly could expel the USA by derecognizing its government, as they did with the old South Africa. Might I suggest the real reason is that the USA pays 1/4 of the budget? Peter jackson (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the U.S. plays such a major role in pretty much everything the UN does, it would be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Most UN actions without American involvement would be empty gestures. Money is not a primary consideration; the U.S. refused to pay its dues for a while as a protest and didn't receive anything more serious than a few complaints. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the article Medellín v. Texas that indicates "American can ignore treaties if it feels like it." It says treaties that are not "self-executing" require action by Congress to become enforceable domestic law. A better example might be the Nicaragua v. United States case in which the Reagan administration simply ignored an ICJ ruling, then vetoed a Security Counsel resolution demanding compliance. I suppose you could say that if the U.S. was ejected for failing to comply with international law, you'd have to kick out a whole bunch more countries who are even worse, such as North Korea and Iran. As far as I know, the UN has never ejected a country, although it has replaced recognition of one government with another, as in the China/Taiwan dispute. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Even so, the UN could have imposed sanctions on the US, as it has done to many others. Again, the reason why this doesn't happen is that the US is too powerful to mess with, hence "above the law".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well they've never imposed sanctions on China since it's been in the UN either, despite its various misdeeds, nor did they ever impose sanctions on the Soviet Union. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1. As I mentioned above, the General Assembly derecognized the government of South Africa (in 1974), effectively expelling it.
2. UN sanctions legally require the approval of the Security Council, where the above-mentioned powers have a veto. Of course the General Assembly could pass a resolution, but that wouldn't legally constitute UN sanctions.

Peter jackson (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just at news articles from 1974 in the Google News Archive and it turns out the US, France and UK vetoed a Security Council resolution to expel South Africa from the UN. The General Assembly voted not to accept the credentials of the country's delegation to the assembly in 1974 and the following years, but the country formally remained a member of the UN. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I was saying. Peter jackson (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the GA could have done the same to the US theoretically, although I guess it still would have remained in the SC. Also, the GA could have symbolically condemned the US in a resolution; yet it's never happened - even during the Cold War, when the US' power was more disputed, US actions in Vietnam and elsewhere were generally left without comment, whereas the USSR was condemned for Hungary and Afghanistan. (official archives of GA activity, official archives of SC activity)--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement powers of the European Union

As an American, I sometimes find the European Union baffling. Can someone who is more knowledgeable about it explain what powers the EU has to compel Greece to cut its budget deficit? EU leaders have said that 1) that they will not allow Greece to go bankrupt and that 2) their loan guarantees are conditional on Greece cutting its deficit sharply. What if the present Greek government tries to enforce sharp austerity measures but is forced from power by popular unrest and replaced with a government that refuses to make the cuts? What can the EU do, if anything, to enforce austerity measures if allowing Greece to fail is out of the question? If Greece is in fact able to blackmail the EU into funding a deficit over which the EU has no control, what is to stop Spain, Portugal, Italy, or Ireland from doing the same? Marco polo (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As per our article, EU laws supersede national laws, whether they are binding legislation, regulations, directives or decisions limited to a particular issue. According to the Maastricht Treaty Convergence criteria, members adopting the euro (which Greece did) should meet inflation, fiscal and interest rate targets. The fiscal target is a deficit-to-GDP ratio of no more than 3%; Greece’s is -13%. Enforcement comes from national parliaments passing national laws, regulations, etc. requiring compliance with EU laws, regulations, etc. Should the current government fall, and a subsequent one refuse to reduce the deficit (by whatever means), it would be in violation of its own laws. Those laws could be changed, but then the country would no longer meet the Maastricht Treaty requirements. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So the key question is, supposing an EU member absolutely, unequivocally refused to abide by that treaty, what would the EU's options be? Drop them from the EU? Initiate an embargo or other trade sanctions? Send an invading military force? Do nothing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Article 126, the consolidated version (the others are unreadable) provides for this. After a tour along all EU institutions (as usual), the actual enforcement powers come down to the following:

As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision taken in accordance with paragraph 9, the Council may decide to apply or, as the case may be, intensify one or more of the following measures:

• to require the Member State concerned to publish additional information, to be specified by the Council, before issuing bonds and securities,
• to invite the European Investment Bank to reconsider its lending policy towards the Member State concerned,
• to require the Member State concerned to make a non-interest-bearing deposit of an appropriate size with the Union until the excessive deficit has, in the view of the Council, been corrected,
• to impose fines of an appropriate size.

The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decisions taken.

User:Krator (t c) 14:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so there are various penalties, all of them monetary. Makes sense. The EU has no army, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, kind of. It's called Eurocorps. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The EU is not a state therefore has no legal basis to establish a military force. As with everything it does the individual states that are members of the union enact the EU directives in their own law. There are instruments that allow member states to contribute to an EU taskforce, although in practice it's dual-roling of existing NATO commitments with the NATO commitment taking precedence. Member states act on behalf of the union, rather than the union acting on behalf of the member states. The Lisbon treaty enshrines elements of that with a common foreign and defence policy that's intended to be complementary to member states foreign and defence policies, rather than superseding them.

As each member state enacts the directives using it's own law there can be significant differences in what those look like in practice, particularly given the mix of Common and Civil legal systems in use. A number of instruments exist to mitigate for those differences, but again adherence to them is enshrined in the member state legal system. Probably the best example would be the European arrest warrants, that empower the policing system in a member state to act on behalf of another for detention purposes even if the offence committed isn't arrestable in that country.

The EU is fundamentally an economic entity and the majority of the directives are related, albeit tenuously at times, to easing transactions and assuring commonality of standards. There two flaws in that; member states implementing the directives in ways that mitigate against that objective and some of the directives have very little to do with economic transactions and reflect a tendency towards interventionism exacerbated by nationalism within the member states.

ALR (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What about Eurocorps? 78.147.202.148 (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, that in the above, it reads "the council may decide to apply." That can only happen with large majorities. The army question isn't really realistic, I believe, if you look at the possible majorities in the Council. User:Krator (t c) 14:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As a UK citizen, the way I see it is that the EU has become more or less a country. The old countries within it are like the States in the United States. Many laws are European wide, there is a European parliament, even a European president (big pity the first one wasnt British - it was really stupid of the opposition party leader to wreck that, or at least seem to be), and Europeans can live and work anywhere in the EU they like. Of course I'm using "European" as a shorthand to mean the EU - Switzerland is not a member. By the way, the EU GDP and population are higher than that of the USAs. 92.29.136.128 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The EU lacks a police force, so it can't actually enforce any of its laws. They are enforced by the member states. If a member state decided to disobey an EU law, they couldn't be forced to do so. Throwing them out of the EU is as strong an action as they can take (the other members could take military action, but that isn't actually going to happen). --Tango (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You could say that about the states of the United States. There is a EU police force, its divided up into countries. I do not know if some country's finance minister could or would actually be arrested for breaking EU economic policies or laws. I think in actually fact regulation is done by financial penalties - in effect fining the country or reducing any money they get from the EU. If the country did not comply with that, then I suppose they would have effectively left the EU, and I expect they would as a result get a credit rating like that of Zimbabwe, be shunned by investors, and go into economic melt-down. I understand there is a Eurocorps who could I suppose go in an arrest someone in an extreme case. 92.29.62.115 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You could say it, but you would be wrong. In the US there are state law enforcement officers (police) and federal law enforcement officers (the FBI). There are also state courts and federal courts. --Tango (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one European court and, if you didnt know, a lot of central EU administration. I presume national police forces would comply with orders from the EU even if it involved taking action against people within that country. There is also Interpol although this seems to be world-wide. 78.147.202.148 (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The nations of the EU have effectively bartered away sovereignty for a few shekels (euros). --Nricardo (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all well and good when many are making money. Beware the dark side, the simmering nationalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Particularly as you appear to be neither European, nor living here, that is a trollish statement. 92.29.62.115 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As a UK citizen, I see the situation very differently from the view of 92.29.136.128. I see the EU as just an association of sovereign countries, with no power whatsoever except that which is agreed and formally ratified by the parliaments of constituent countries. Yes, BB, there is simmering nationalism throughout the EU! And to Nricardo I would say: some countries may have bartered shekels, but we retain solid (we hope) sterling along with our sovereignty! Dbfirs 11:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One can only wonder why the UK joined the UE at all. Flamarande (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The economic advantages inherent in free trade and free movement. --Tango (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For senimental reasons its a pity the Commonwealth could not be formed into something like the EU - there would have been major movements in population as a result, including lots of British people moving to Australia or New Zealand. But I suppose it was not feasible. 92.29.62.115 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The EU started as primarily a free trade area. A free trade area scattered throughout the world wouldn't make much sense. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the EU is scattered throughout the world. French Guiana (in South America), Guadeloupe & Martinique (in the Caribbean) & Reunion (in the Indian Ocean) are all parts of France & the EU. (I think some other distant territories are also included in the EU.) Thus the EU produces its own bananas & imposes tariffs on imported ones. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So as a British person could I simply move to any of them, no problems? 78.147.202.148 (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd undefeated German commander in World War I?

As the article states, Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck "commanded one of only two German colonial forces of that war which were not defeated". I don't know about a second force; what/where was it, who was its commander? --KnightMove (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the edit summary provided by the editor who added the information, it was Hermann Detzner's force in German New Guinea. Apparently, Detzner was even celebrated as "Lettow-Vorbeck der deutschen Südsee" ("Lettow-Vorbeck of the German South Seas"), see Spiegel online. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That being said, I recommend reading the featured article on Detzner (or, if you read German, as KnightMove does, Jürgen Ritter's article I linked to). It is a stretch to lump the two together as "one of only two", and, as hinted in the article's title, the "Lettow-Vorbeck of the German South Sea" quickly became the "Münchhausen of the German South Sea", once the confabulating nature of his accounts was revealed. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a children's book that ...

... includes fungi that destroy buildings after having been accidentally released from a lab the father of the main characters works in (or so I remember). Might also include magic, less unspecifically a couple (wizards, perhaps) who's son was bewitched/gone. Possibly an english book. Sorry should I be wrong here. Any ideas? Thnx in advance, --G-41614 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly The Fungus That Ate My School by Arthur Dorros? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sierra Leone painting

I'm looking for an image I've seen in many places in Sierra Leone. Usually its a painting, sometimes a mural. There is a man, hanging from a vine tied to a tree branch over the river. In the river, crocodiles. On the bank of the river, lion. Winding down the vine, is the snake. Gnawing on the vine is a rat. This guy has a pretty big problem, and no one to help him. I would like to have a link to the image, and if anyone knows the story that this popular painting depicts, that would be interesting too. Thanks if you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It is likely based on a religious story. I heard it once and I don't remember it. There is a guy who God promised to protect. He ends up in what is certainly death, but he doesn't lose faith. The crocodile and the lion fight. The snake catches the rat. The guy walks away just fine. I wouldn't remember it at all if it didn't remind me of a joke my grandfather (a preacher) told me about a guy who is on top of his roof with flood waters rising. A big truck pulls by, but he says he will stay because God will save him. The waters rise. A boat pulls by, but he says he will stay because God will save him. Waters rise. A helicopter comes by, but he says he will stay because God will save him. Waters rise. He drowns. In Heaven, he asks God why he didn't save him. God complains that he sent a truck, a boat, and a helicopter. What more did he want? -- kainaw™ 14:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's like that cool picture of a guy who has a big snake wrapped around him and some other dangerous animal close by, and he's struggling with the snake on train tracks, and the train is approaching. Rimush (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Philosophers and translations

It is often said that many philosophers use words that have no analogue in languages they are translated into. For example, Hegel's Geist, which loosely indicates "mind", "spirit" or "soul". What I do not understand is why we, as English readers of Hegel's translation, suffer? Surely the word itself is irrelevant if it is attached to a specific idea or meaning that can be grasped by anyone with the ability to reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.255.225 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is truly untranslatable (e.g. incommensurable), then that means the concepts won't translate, not just the definition. Whether that is the case in any given area is up for dispute. If an English speaker cannot really understand Geist in the sense that Hegel meant it, then how can they really understand Hegel? Such concepts are not just a one-to-one mapping of the world onto language (e.g. chair, table, dog), but involve complex abstractions that hypothetically take a lifetime of living in a culture to truly understand. (There is a lot of reason to doubt that language concepts are truly incommensurable, though. It might take some time to deeply understand it, but I do think a non-German speaker can eventually get the point of Geist if they are given some explication and examples. But so would go the argument.)

An example:It is often said that in Soviet Russia, the concept of "privacy" was almost impossible to explain to anyone living there, because it was truly alien to their experiences. If that is the case, how could a Soviet Russian truly understand a philosophy that used the concept of privacy as a central tenet?

Another example—even a concept like "honor" can be tricky, if we think we know what it means. Can an American really understand how another culture might consider a loss of "honor" to be sufficient for suicide, other than thinking that the other person is crazy (i.e. belittling the belief)? The difference of understanding in such a case is great enough for me to consider that one could not really understand the other in any meaningful sense—it reflects a profound difference in culture upbringing, potentially an unbridgeable one. It is not a case of just "defining" the word or even the behavior, but really be capable of living it. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In good translations the translator inserts a note when a word in the original language is problematic or are meant to have several meanings in the original text. However it is not always possible to discern when an author deliberately wants a word to indicate several terms, so no translation will be perfect. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Philosophers tend to use everyday words with special non-everyday meanings, and to understand their philosophy you need to understand the sense in which they are using that word: whether you are reading Hegel in German or English you need to understand what he means by the concept "Geist", which has a specific and distinctive meaning for Hegel that is distinct to what "Geist" means either for other philosophers or to ordinary Germans. As Saddhiyama says, it is important when translating philosophy to take account of the special meanings the philosopher attaches to different words, to be consistent, and to preserve distinctions in the original language. --Normansmithy (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think philosophers sometimes just make up words. Isn't Heidegger's dasein an example? Peter jackson (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, "dasein" is a normal German word denoting (roughly) the state of being (as opposed to "not being"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Though he certainly does give it a more-than-standard definition. Philosophers don't "make up words" so much as take existing words and assign generally different definitions to them, e.g. paradigm, discourse, genealogy, etc. Of course, occasionally they do make up words, or make compound/complex words that didn't really exist before (e.g. biopower). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Greek word Arete is often translated as virtue, and yet, in Greek, a knife can have arete. One for one translations rarely capture the whole meaning of words. -Pollinosisss (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This focus on 'words' is a bit misleading. Philosophy in any language is an attempt to explain a novel idea (i.e. an idea that is not already part of people's conventional understanding of the world), and so it usually has to use analogy to things people do know, or allegorical references to cultural tropes, and then reframe them to make the novel idea make sense. It's hard enough within the philosopher's language to understand the meaning, because you have to stretch your mind to use common knowledge in a different way. It's much more difficult in translation, because you have to relate the common knowledge in the original language to some equivalent common knowledge in the translated language. 'Geist', for instance, was an evocative word for 19th century Germans (who had a long history of devout christianity blended with a intellectual philosophy). for Americans, philosophy is almost entirely secular: they have no intellectual place to put the concept of 'Geist', and will reduce it either to new-agish spirituality or to some flat material psychology, neither of which can capture Hegel's original sense. --Ludwigs2 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy and his leg

Which Kennedy lost his leg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.200.138 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Edward M. Kennedy, Jr. -- kainaw™ 15:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone at least 50th cousin to everyone else

Reading the discussion about "British royalty mostly descended from the fifth-century Saxon King Cerdic?" posted yesterday led me to Pedigree collapse and its statement of "Some geneticists believe that everybody on Earth is at least 50th cousin to everybody else." As far as we know, the Native American inhabitants of the most isolated parts of the South American rainforests have been separated from the Andaman Islanders for much more time than is necessary to produce 50th cousins. Therefore, how could this be true? Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All it takes is one of the members of the isolated group to move out or someone else to move into the isolated tribe. After marriage or just sex, the entire isolated group is part of the current worldwide family. Therefore, it is hard to find an isolated group that is truly isolated and has been for, say, the past 25 years. -- kainaw™ 17:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is a woman impregnated every time there is sex? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article Most recent common ancestor (interesting read!) has a discussion of this, as well as time estimates for the last common ancestor, and links to academic papers discussing the subject. Jørgen (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is an interesting article. It puts the estimated MCRA for all humans at somewhere between 1BC and 6000BC. If we assume an average generation length (ie. average age of mothers when giving birth) of 20 years (it's more than that these days, but I think averaged over the last few millennia 20 years is plausible) then 2000 to 8000 years corresponds to 100 to 400 generations. That would make everyone at least 100th to 400th cousins. If we restrict ourselves to Western Europeans (and their colonies) then 50th cousins is about right. --Tango (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Even so, there does appear to be some biological evidence that there was contact between the Americas and, for example, Pacific Islanders in the pre-European colonization past. There are sweet potatos native to New Guinea and parts of Polynesia, for example, and the only reasonable explanation for how they got there is that they were carried by people. It is somewhat uncertain as to whether these were carried to the islands by Native Americans traveling west, or by Proto-polynesians landing in South America and carrying them back. Either way, however, generally anytime there is significant contact between people groups, there is sex. So if sweet potatos made it to New Guinea, it is likely that some South American genetics made it there as well. Once we reach those areas, its not many leaps to get back to Europe between groups that have well documented historical connections (Say New Guinea-> Philipines -> China -> India -> Greece). There's also documented historical contact between North Americans Natives and Europeans as early as 1000 AD. (L'Anse aux Meadows and other sites documenting the Norse colonization of the Americas) . --Jayron32 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Suicide rates for various occupations and lifestyles

1) Which occupations have the lowest suicide rates? 2) How do the suicide rates among various social classes compare? 3) Is the suicide rate among celebrities truely higher than that among non-celebrities, or is that just an artefact of their passing away being considered more newsworthy? 92.29.82.48 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer question 1, President of the US has a suicide rate of exactly 0 (and has maintained that rate for the last 200+ years). Tough to get lower then that. Might not meet the definition of an occupation though rather then a specific job title. Googlemeister (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I imagine the death-by-homicide rate is astronomically higher than any other job. Vranak (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

On that first item, for what it's worth, this link at the American Psychological Association website says, "Occupation is not a major predictor of suicide and it does not explain much about why the person commits suicide." Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Pope. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but that job has a dreadful mortality rate :-) Alansplodge (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

According to our article Epidemiology of suicide, suicide levels are highest among the retired, unemployed, impoverished, divorced, the childless, urbanites, empty nesters, and other people who live alone. The article is silent about suicide rates among the employed. I can add to this, regarding employed people, that the highest suicide rates are found among physicians, see this study, which also finds high suicide rates among female nurses, intermediate suicide rates among police officers, and low suicide rates among theologians. There are more details from what appears to be the same study here. Although the article is in Norwegian, it should be possible to read the tables with this translation:

Translation to Norwegian of key words in tables
Lege=physician Tannlege=dentist Sykepleier=nurse Politi=police officer Andre akademikere=other academics Øvrig befolkning=rest of the population Antall=number selvmord=suicide personår=person year utdanning=education menn = men kvinner = women etter alder=by age tiårsperiode = ten years' period.

--NorwegianBlue ^talk 16:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In many cases, "career politician" would be a good way to describe the occupation, at least in the USA — someone like Robert Byrd has been in full-time political office for decades now, and he's held the position to an age far greater than that at which most people retire. Overall, American career politicians have a very low rate of suicide; R. Budd Dwyer is the only exception that I can think of. Nyttend (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)