Humanities desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

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.

June 17

Why do Guyana, Suriname & French Guiana have smaller populations?

The South American Spanish-speaking countries have huge population in the millions. But the three Guianas have less than one million people in each of their countries. Why do Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana which are about the size of some U.S. states, have very small populations? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The land and climate in those three countries are quite inhospitable. It's no coincidence that the French established their infamous Devil's Island penal facility in French Guiana. Neighboring areas in Brazil and Venezuela have very low population density as well. --Xuxl (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical rainforests predominate Suriname, Guyana, and French Guiana. It goes without saying that this sets significant limitations on human settlement. The vast majority of people in each of those three countries live along the coastline, which is more hospitable than the inland regions. There's also some historical context to take into account. The regions that border northern Brazil were basically seen as no man's land in the late 1700s and early 1800s; the French and Dutch empires did not want to stir up a hornet's nest by encroaching too close to Portuguese territory. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Teller, giving bomb secrets to Israel, security clearance, prosecution?

Hello, the wikipedia article says Teller gave advice on nuclear weapons to Israel. Was, and should, this have been considered espionage? Was there, and should there have been(in the legal sense of espionage), an effort to take away Teller's security clearance and or prosecute him? Thanks.--Rich Peterson76.218.104.210 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Should" questions are beyond the purview of this board. I can't speak to the "was". Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In "should", I meant given the laws of of the United States at that time, would there have been expected to have been a prosecution of Teller? I should have said it that way, I guess.76.218.104.210 (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds specifically? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the original question, indicating I am seeking knowledge, not providing it. Why do you expect me to know all the arcane details of United States espionage law and the grounds a prosecution might be based on? Nor do I expect you to know, it's great if you do, but fine if you don't. But if you don't know, don't feel bad about it, and please don't heckle me with quibbles about grounds or "should vs could" as a substitute for your lack of information.76.218.104.210 (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The right question is could he have been charged with espionage. There's no indication in the article that he ever was charged nor that charges were considered. But keep in mind that Israel was an ally, while the USSR was considered an enemy, hence the Rosenbergs' trial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "could" was the right question to ask because that's not the question I was primarily interested in. I knew, because of reading the article and reading many many things for many years since I was a child, that Israel was and is an ally of the United States, and thus spying for them might be considered by some to be less heinous, rightly or not. I don't think you intend any offense, but I have a right to be interested in my own questions, and I thought "should" would briefly connote the raft of consequences Teller might have been liable to.76.218.104.210 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizendium article says nothing about Teller giving secrets to Israel.[1] Maybe it would be a good idea for someone to review the allegations in the Wikipedia article and see if they have any basis in fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent point, Baseball Bugs. Thanks!76.218.104.210 (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't deal in facts, we deal in reliable secondary sources! —Tamfang (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given stated ref desk policy, should this question be answered? Or perhaps just be removed without comment? μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to know if the OP's premise is true. Is the Wikipedia article soundly sourced on this point, or is it just somebody's conspiracy theory? Because if it didn't happen, the rest of the question becomes moot. And if it did happen, it's pretty obvious nothing was done about it, so the only conclusion we can draw, without further research, is that he was not considered to have committed espionage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a request for medical advice, and it's quite a stretch to call this legal advice: I'm assuming that Rich Peterson is not Teller risen from the dead, and that's really the only way this could be legal advice, as (presumably) nobody's going to do anything to Teller as long as he's still dead. Why else would we remove it? Either answering or saying "we can't determine" is better. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought -- I don't know this is relevant -- but I see the article suggests Teller did all the important consulting in or before 1967. Note that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was opened to signatures in 1968, and was ratified in 1970. I would think that the existence of such a treaty would put the U.S. government in an uncomfortable position regarding, say, Jonathan Pollard in 1987, because if the government said hey sure, you're our friends, we won't hold a grudge, that would make the treaty pretty much valueless as long as someone always said "oops, it was just a spy." Anyway, I see that a search for Teller, non-proliferation and Israel pulls up a large quantity of material ... whether any of it is good enough and on topic enough to cite to provide some context for the article, I'll leave to someone more devoted to the task. Wnt (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Arabic?

I recently saw some movie, the name of which I can't remember, where the people were called Arabs and they were all "We're PERSIAN!" It got me thinking, I really don't know what either word means. Wikipedia seems fairly descriptive when it comes to the word Persian, but considerably less so when it comes to the word Arabic. Other google searches seems to be equally vague. Some narrow it down to language, others geographic location, others a combination. I know a decent number of people who speak Arabic, but most of them are African immigrants who speak half a dozen other languages as well so it seems sort of arbitrary to define them by that specific language as opposed to their country of birth. It also seems fairly arbitrary to group people together who were born in different countries, are different races, have different religions, and have no other shared characteristics other than language. I have always referred to people by country, as in "This person is Iranian". Does anyone have any insight? Does anyone use the word Arabic? How do you define the word when you use it? Bali88 (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arab people are a subset of people who speak the Arabic language. Arabic-speakers are so diverse I'm not sure there's any other useful way to describe them collectively. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Persians are those who speak Farsi as their main language; most of them are in Iran, but 1) there are minority populations in Iran (Azeris, Armenians, Arabs) and Persians living outside of Iran. Nowadays, like Arab or Arabic, it's more of a cultural than a geographic or political term. Centuries ago, however, there were both a Persian and an Arabian Empire, with very different histories - the former traced its origins to Antiquity, while the latter was set up by the successors of Muhammad 2000 years later. And, by the way, Farsi (or Persian) and Arabic are entirely different languages, and not even from the same linguistic family, even though they're written with the same script and share some vocabulary. Turks are another group from the same general geographic area who don't like to be confused with Arabs. --Xuxl (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persian or Farsi is an Indo-European language, and quite closely related to Sanskrit (and more loosely to most modern European languages). Arabic is a semitic language, and closely related to Aramaic and Hebrew. Turkish is a Turkic language. These three major language groups are quite distinct, and they are used by different cultural groups. Now between the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great and the Diadochi, the Parthian Empire, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, the Sasanian Empire, the Muslim conquests, the Crusades and the Ottoman Empire, with a bit of Ghengis Khan for good measure, I suspect every people in the area had plenty of opportunity to lord it over the others, to exchange culture, food, words, and genes, and to form a number of interesting cultural amalgamations. But there remain significant cultural differences (and as often, the closer two neighbours are, the stronger the rivalry). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arab people comprise what is called a panethnicity — a broad national identity that covers multiple countries with differing genealogical heritages. They are unified by the fact that they speak Arabic as a first language, and have been heavily influenced by Arabian culture since their conquest at the hands of the Islamic Caliphates during the Middle Ages. There are also some genetic commonalities as a result of interracial sex over the centuries. This should not suggest that countries of the Arab World all have the same exact cultural identity; Lebanon is very different from Morocco, for instance. It's just that "Arab" is a common denominator which they all share. It is very similar to how Mexico and Argentina are both considered part of Latin America. Those are two entirely different countries with unique cultural identities, yet they are linked by virtue of being former Spanish colonies. Thus, they have adopted the Spanish language and were heavily influenced by the culture of Spain.
Now, Persians are different from Arabs altogether. The Persian ethnic group constitutes a majority in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it can also be considered a panethnicity of its own (albeit much smaller than the Arab or Latin American groups). That is because there are several people in Central and Western Asia who speak some local variation of the Persian language (otherwise known as "Farsi"). This category includes almost everybody in Afghanistan and Tajikistan, as well as a significant minority in Uzbekistan. The Tajik language is itself a variant of Persian, so ethnic Tajiks can be seen as having a cultural connection to Iran. Likewise, Afghanistan uses the Dari dialect as its lingua franca, but has significant minorities that speak the Tajik, Aimaq, and Hazaragi dialects as well. That's beside the point, though. When someone is referred to as "Persian", it generally means they are from Iran and do not belong to any of its minority ethnic groups (in other words, Afghans and Tajiks would not openly identify as Persian people).
In many cases, it's best to refer to people by their specific countries. People who identify themselves as Persian, Lur, Kurdish, Azeri, or Baloch can broadly be identified as "Iranian" if they are actually from Iran. With Arab countries, it's always better to be specific. Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, and Lebanon (among others) are all unique countries within the lexicon of Arab culture. Does that make any sense?
Hope this helps! Kurtis ^(talk) 00:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can read endless debate on the subject (not always very edifying) at Talk:Arab people and its archives... AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An exception in the particular context of Israel: Israeli Druze, members of that Arabic-speaking minority religious community who don't intermarry, are always designated as Druze and not referred to as "Arab." The Bedouin in Israel, while culturally distinct within the Arab population, are adherents of Islam and are considered Arab. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a political movement called Pan-Arabism in the 1950s and 60s, which aimed to unite all the Arab countries into one nation. One result was that Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Sudan and Yemen all have very similar flags. See Pan-Arab Colours. Alansplodge (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Arabism as an immediate concrete action plan has been much less prominent in international politics or diplomacy since the death of Nasser, the rise of political Islamism, etc. However, Arab nationalism is still very much part of the aspirational sentiments or long-term vision of tens of millions of people... AnonMoos (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]