Humanities desk
< September 25	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 26

Are Afghani people Arab?

Are most people who live in the sovereign nation of Afghanistan ethnically Arab? If not, then are Arabs a significant minority? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Arabs stand among the 4% of ethnic minorities in Afghanistan. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even less than 4% according to our table at Afghanistan#Ethnic groups. See also the article Ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Rmhermen (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say among, which meant among the 4% of ethnic minorities but not the entire 4%. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan has a rather diverse ethnic population, with the dominant group being the Pashtuns (whose exonym actually is "Afghans"). They speak the Pashto language, part of a wider group of Iranian languages. The other major languages in the group are Persian and Kurdish. Indo-European speakers in other words.

Arabs, despite being a widespead group, only represent dominant or major groups in (by order of population) Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Morocco, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Somalia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Libya, Lebanon, the State of Palestine, Kuwait, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Djibouti, and the Comoros. They are the 22 states of the Arab League. Dimadick (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Afghan' is the word for any Afghan, even if they are not Pashtun. People who are Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimaq, Turkmen, Baloch and others can be 'Afghan'. 'Afghani' is the name for the currency. I would be interested to know the history of the minute Arab population ... I wonder if they are just a recent immigrant group?Hayttom (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that, as with many states outside of Europe, Afganistan is an artificial creation whose borders and resident population dynamics is a vestige of colonialism. The land we call Afganistan exists mostly because Britain and Russia didn't feel like fighting wars against each other in Central Asia, so it was created as a buffer state without regard for ethnic or linguistic concerns over who lived there and whether they made a natural nation state. See The Great Game for some background. The borders for Afganistan are so unnatural, that its putative border with Pakistan, the Durand Line, exists solely to give map-makers somewhere to draw a line; there's no meaningful border there "on the ground". Given that, it is no surprise that Afganistan has such a wide mix of ethnic groups. To answer the OP's question directly, as well as Hayttom's follow on question. Wikipedia has an article titled History of Arabs in Afghanistan, which I am surprised no one has mentioned. --Jayron 32 17:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see our article on the Wakhan Corridor, a piece of land whose possession by Afghanistan would be thoroughly pointless aside from the country's buffer-state status. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Modi

Why is Indian politician Narendra Modi considered to be highly controversial? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would doubt the "highly" but there was some controversion about Mr. Modi's role in the 2002 Gujarat riots. In general every major political person can be considered controversial in a democracy. Even if she/he has a giant majority of voters behind her/him, someone will be in Opposition, strongly disagreeing the choices. --Kharon (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modi and his party BJP are Hindu nationalists and (especially outside India) are seen by many as discriminating against Muslims and Sikhs (which ties in to the riots linked by Kharon). For instance, the British liberal/left paper The Guardian calls Modi's policies "anti-Muslim bigotry". Smurrayinchester 08:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides his nationalism and involvement in a series of riots and massacres in 2002 (although his actual role is disputed), his term as Chief Minister of Gujarat involved some rather controversial economic policies. Tax breaks for big business, systematic weakening of labour laws, very little funding for human development, poverty relief, nutrition and education, alarming reports from UNICEF that a large number of children in Gujarat were underweight, undernourished, and received no medical immunisation, social policies which increased social inequalities and marginalised part of the population.

After his election as Prime Minister of India, Modi abolished a number of labor laws, making it harder for Indian citizens to form new unions, and making it easier for business owners to fire their employees. Modi also cut or decreased funds for social programs, such as poverty reduction programmes, social welfare measures, health and family welfare, and education. He started with tax breaks again, lowering the corporate taxes, and completely abolishing the wealth tax. His environmental policies have consistent of defunding government organizations dealing with the environment, and abolishing or weakening regulations against pollution.

His personal life is largely free of scandal, with the exception of the nature of his marriage. When Modi was a child, his parents arranged for a him to marry a girl called Jashodaben. Modi married her when he was 18-years-old, but he apparently never consummated the marriage and abandoned her two years later. He is still legally married to his wife and has been for 49 years (1968-2017), while having minimal contact with her and keeping the marriage secret from the public eye until 2014. Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Christ myth theory popular among many atheists?

Having had an interest in Early Christianity and the historical Jesus for several years, I have become aware of a minority view known as the Christ myth theory, which essentially states the religious figure named Jesus never existed, at least not as a single person. Although a fringe topic in the academe, it seems to be quite popular among certain groups of people, particularly atheists. Without debating the merits of the theory (which seem weak, but that's beside the question), and without discussing the question if Jesus existed or not (there's articles for those topics), my question is: how and why does this theory appeal to many atheists, and why do many atheists believe in it despite the theory's lack of acceptance in the academe? It seems weird that, just because there are claims of a divine Jesus in the Bible, that there would be people who'd deny his entire existence, instead of simply discounting the divine and supernatural aspects of his character, while maintaining that there was a historical figure named Jesus who preached in Galilee and Judea approximately 30 CE. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence for any of this? What survey are you pulling from? Or are you just writing your observations? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that almost all, or even most atheists believe in the Christ myth theory (famously, Bart Ehrman is a well-regarded scholar on Christianity who defends the historicity of Jesus, and he's an atheist). I merely observed that the theory is popular among a large number of atheists, and especially now, many of its proponents (such as Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty) are atheists. It also seems to be a popular viewpoint on a number of atheist online forums, such as Reddit's /r/atheism sub-Reddit. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talking with random people on Reddit is not a survey. There is a lot of selection bias on a casual website. On Christ myth theory, a 2015 survey by the Church of England suggests that 22 percent of people in England do not believe Jesus was a real person. 22% is hardly the majority of English people. Sorry, but I can't find a source among atheists. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just Reddit - I see the same arguments made on a lot of liberal and atheist blogs and forums. Of course that's still just anecdotes subject to confirmation bias. But that could be part of the answer - lots of people with the same views hanging out on the same group of forums, reinforcing each others ideas. (It reminds me somewhat of Climate_change_denial: you have a bunch of clever people (or people who think they are clever) who think they've found a flaw with the mainstream academic consensus and assume that they are correct and that the experts are all wrong and biased). Iapetus (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many aspects of religion can be viewed, by non-believers, as a collection of myths and fairy tales. Once you embrace that viewpoint, it is easy to believe that religion is ALL myths with no basis in fact. It is easy for atheists to look at it that way. In addition, it is also provocative to challenge the central "facts" for someone else's religion, and notable outspoken atheists often like to be provocative. Dragons flight (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slight suspicion that this theory may be more popular amongst atheists than amongst Christians. As the UK is (recent pop surveys) 53% atheist (which is more support than Brexit got), then that's a lot of atheists. Without really surveying more carefully, all you have is confirmation bias from skewed sampling. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an atheist, I think the reason this theory is convincing for some people is because we live in a world where we can be certain that if someone went around curing sick people, walking on water etc., we would hear about it immediately and thus assume that contemporary writers would have made a huge fuss about such a person if he existed. This is corroborated by the fact that the only sources about Jesus who are not people who already believe in him (ruled out as sources due to the confirmation bias Andy mentions) were written long after he died (Josephus in 79-80 CE and Tacitus in 116 CE). Personally, I think the idea that there were probably multiple people called Jesus that were "mushed" into a single figure after countless retellings sounds plausible. After all, we are not even able to always keep people apart these days with far superior technology and knowledge. Regards So Why 12:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From an atheist perspective, I don't particularly get the fascination. I seriously doubt than any historical Jesus would end up resembling the figure featured in the (often contradictory) Gospels, but whether Jesus existed or not is hardly a life-defining question for me. I don't believe in deities, miracles, or any kind of supernatural intervention in human events. Whether some kind of faith healer lived an itinerary life in the 1st-century Roman Empire seems hardly relevant to life in the 21st century.

I have read works by supporters of various theories, from the mainstream to the loony fringe, but I don't have any strong feelings on the subject. I just enjoy viewing different perspectives. (I grow suspicious whenever anyone tries to enforce uniformity on any discussion subject.) I view Jesus as largely irrelevant to 21 centuries of Christian history, where Christians kept reinterpreting him to match the fashionable ideologies of the day. Who he was, nobody really cares. We just want someone to fit our world-view.

As for supporters of the Christ myth theories (there are actually multiple, mutually contradictory theories in the field), some of them raise decent points about the unreliability of available ancient sources. Some of them are nuttier than your average fundamentalist, and suggest highly illogical theories. Take for example the so-called "Roman Piso" theory by Joseph Atwill. It claims that Gaius Calpurnius Piso and/or other members of the Calpurnii Pisones, invented Jesus, wrote the Gospels and/or other books of the New Testament, and pretty much founded Christianity, as a way to pacify and control the discontented lower classes of the Empire. Evidence for this in ancient sources? None whatsoever. So Atwill relies on much speculation, radical reinterpetations of ancient texts (including some which do not have real connections to Christianity, such as any references to the Sicarii), and what he views as clever worldplay (mostly, stupid puns) in ancient texts. Some of the puns would work in English, but not in Greek or Latin. Entire texts have been written about how full of shit Atwill is, but some people still buy his theories. See this text for another attempt at debunking his crap: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4664

Still on Atwill, some of his theories are not so bad. Their relevance to his main theory on the other hand is questionable. There is one Late Antique source which claims that Pope Clement I was a son of career politician Titus Flavius Sabinus. The source is mostly considered unreliable, but Atwill accepts it as historical. So far so good. Atwill then used the source to connect Clement to the Flavian dynasty, to attribute to Clement several innovations in Christianity, and to "prove" that early Christianity was primarily based on Roman traditions. All because of who one man's father MIGHT have been. Dimadick (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the 1980s, there were frequent small ads in the back of "The Nation" and other U.S. magazines which promised to send "proof" that Josephus had invented Jesus in return for $1 and a S.A.S.E.

Some works published in the Golden Age of Freethought still seem to exert an influence, but that era was golden more for rhetoric than sound historical scholarship. The most embarrassing piece of almost complete nonsense from the "Golden Age" which still occasionally shows up in modern contexts would seem to be The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves... AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a horrible, unscholarly, fraudulent (the cover is photo-shopped) book called The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics written by an (ex?)prosecutor from Los Angeles that excuses every fault of Ayn Rand's, with the ironic necessity of admitting those faults before "explaining" them. That book was so bad as to be unreadable just due to the typos in my opinion. In any case, the author swore Jesus never existed, and promised to prove that negative in his next work. (I am unaware it was ever published.) [The book was self-published as "Creating Christ" and claims that Roman emperors invented his myth. You can get it on Kindle!]

The real problem with treating Jesus as a myth is that there is so much evidence against interest that it would be hard to believe his supporters would make up so much stuff that puts him in a relatively bad light according to Judaism and later Christian teaching if they were just making it up from scratch. As an atheist, I am fully certain from the textual evidence that Jesus actually existed. A. N. Wilson's Jesus: A Life was written during his atheist period, and well-worth a read. μηδείς (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there the assumption in the question that nearly all atheists are sensible? After all religious people believe all sorts of peculiar things, surely we should assume the normal condition for people is that they believe some strange things even if they are atheists? Dmcq (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rhetoric of some atheists (including some of those most vocal in recent years) tends to imply that eliminating "irrational" religion unleashes rationality. AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Christians find it necessary to translate the Bible in other people's languages instead of preserving the original tongue?

I mean, other religions just preserve the sacred texts as it is (be that Arabic, Hebrew, or Classical Chinese). When the religions spread, the original language spreads too. Christians apparently aim to translate the Bible into other people's languages, thus disconnecting future converts from the original language. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't always the case: for many centuries, in Catholic countries, the Bible was generally only printed in Latin. In fact, it wasn't until as recently as the 1960s when Catholic masses began to be more commonly done in vernacular languages, as prior to this Masses would generally be spoken in Latin: see Second Vatican Council for more information. So Christianity, or at least Catholicism, does have a history of primarily using one language for use (as far as I know that historically, Greek was the main language of Christianity, but by the Middle Ages, Latin was in wider liturgical use). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was somewhat a later development, only limited to areas under the Roman church. The books of the Bible were originally written in at least three languages: Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Among the very first Acts of the Apostles was to retell the stories in other languages as part of the campaign to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation". Biblical texts show up in other languages early: Syrian Aramaic from the 2nd century, Gothic from the 4th century, Armenian from the 5th century, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254 -- the first large-scale or extended translation of sacred texts was almost certainly the Septuagint, which was mainly done by Alexandrian Jews before Christianity even existed... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible doesn't have a single original tongue. The books vary, even some sources for the same book vary. The transmission of the New Testament was also somewhat obscured in its early centuries and so only by re-connecting the surviving texts (which are no longer in a single tongue) can we re-gain a full picture. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament is overwhelmingly written in Hebrew (with some small passages, written toward the end of the Old Testament period, being in Aramaic). Grouping together the Old Testament and New Testament as the Bible is an exclusively Christian perspective. AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the accessibility question. A key part of the Protestant Reformation was the notion of a Bible in "the language(s) of the people" rather than in Latin. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... why is the Bible printed in all languages? So everyone can read it. Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Muslims spread out, bringing their culture with them. Jews also spread out (the diaspora) but theirs is a non - proselytising religion. Chinese also do not seek to convert others to their faith. Christians operated as missionaries, respecting the cultures of the peoples they came into contact with. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"respecting the cultures of the peoples they came into contact with." [sic] Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except the parts of those cultures that were "backwards", "savage", "heathen" and non-Christian. 😝 Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the journal Ethnologue, which is one of the most widely respected catalogues of the world's languages and used by linguists the world over, began as a means to catalogue Bible translations. The desire by the Bible publishers to get the local language translation as correct as possible has resulted in one of the best such reference works, used even by non-Christians. It should be noted that the use of vernacular languages in the spread of a religious text is peculiar to Western, Protestant Christian tradition, at least at THIS level of widespreadedness. Sacred_language#Christianity notes the use of liturgical languages in Church traditions. Widespread vernacular Bible translations didn't really get going until the proto-Protestant movements of the 14th & 15th centuries, i.e. John Wycliffe and the Lollards, Jan Hus and the Bohemian Reformation, and widespread, acceptable use of the vernacular is closely tied to reformers like Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli. Notably, the first major English vernacular translation by Roman Catholics was the Douay–Rheims Bible which is a counterreformation product, and the Roman Catholic church only fully came around in 1969 (see Second Vatican Council. Of greatest importance, however, is that while many of these church traditions used calcified liturgical languages for centuries (and many still do), NONE of them used the original languages, indeed all of these liturgical languages began as vernacular translations which only later became fixed. --Jayron 32 12:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word is widespresion. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the historical/mythical (whatever) Jesus said “ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Non of these ancient texts contain the rider “Oh, and by the way teach them Hebrew and Aramaic first!” Aspro (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Christianity is not Islam. The good news is the good news for all of humanity, however delivered, it does not have, as Aspro makes clear, to be delivered in Hebrew or Etruscan. This differs from other religions that declare that God speaks a preferred language. The Christian God is universal. BTW, I am an atheist, so please don't accuse me of partisanship. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that when I gave the eulogy at my sister's funeral when she was 20, the Catholic pastor gave me permission to read from the King James, rather than the Douay-Rheims version for 2 Corinthians. He said they were heretics, but better writers. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think the pastor in his wisdom recognized you were more of an Agnostic, which I think is a better term. As I too have nothing against god (re: atheist: prefix α ; Greek indicating for against god). Just as I too accept that there is a flow to things that I (nor physicists whom seek to explain the phenomenons of our wonderful universe) need not to personify as a deity and yet be part of it all the same. Even those of the Jewish faith try to avoid using a name, as the very act of naming creates a definition, and thus limits one's ability to become one with every thing. (Oh can't resist this. The Dalai Lama goes into a pizza house. and is asked what sort of toppings he would like. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama replies “ Make Me One with Everything !”. Aspro (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, @Aspro: a- in Greek means "not" or "without" EO sense 3 and I consider myself without a belief in a personal God (not just agnostic, I am not "unsure", I find the notion self-contradictory, and I don't believe things for which I have no evidence whatsoever) or I am also happy to call myself a pantheist. Natura naturans.

I consider crusading people like Richard Dawkins and people in the Freedom From Religion organization anti-theists. They are not just without belief, they are actually hostile to the idea of something they say they don't believe in, and dismissive of others' sincerely held beliefs. To me, such hostility makes about as much sense as joining an anti-Santa league. It smacks of a need for attention, a type of virtue signalling. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the trouble to clarify. It is a pleasure to come across editors that are sapient (if you will forgive me for putting you into yet another pigeon-hole of a classification). Aspro (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many people died essentially for the right to read the Bible in their own language. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess originally God had it all his own way. But ever since that original failed theme park, we've had a bit of catching up to do. I'd see Jesus' main message as being that, whatever language we speak, we're all on the same planet. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins and Eastern religions

Has Richard Dawkins ever criticized eastern religions? Uncle dan is home (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why doesn't Wikipedia mention about ~~hin~~ him criticizing eastern religions? Uncle dan is home (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By eastern religions, I mean all the eastern ones other than Islam. Uncle dan is home (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already answered such a question on Quora. https://www.quora.com/What-were-Christopher-Hitchens-and-Richard-Dawkins-views-on-Hinduism-a-religion-which-explicitly-allows-for-atheism Wikipedia probably mentions his stance on Christianity and Islam, because he mainly focuses on those two, and seeing that he used to be personally affected by Anglican Christianity, it's no wonder why he knows so much about it in order to reject it.140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was the first ship too big to use New York Harbor without the help of harbor deepening while fully laden? Similarly for London.

Specifically the middle of Upper New York Bay, the more sheltered of the two. In the Early Modern Era the first explorers said it was deep enough for any ship of their time (fully laden) but now the approach to New York has to be dredged to at least bedrock to accommodate modern ships. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what was the first ship that couldn't reach the Thames at Parliament fully laden without dredging? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Galilee#History might be relevant to your second question; it has a very long history of watercraft usage, and no boat/ship on the Sea of Galilee would have a chance of reaching the Thames, period, without a massive dredging project. Probably the first such vessel, however, would be some lost-to-history boat that was built on a stream above its head of navigation, i.e. you'd have to dredge away a waterfall or rapids in order to reach the ocean in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, use your teleportation device to gently place it in the part of spacetime where the ocean's deep enough and man hasn't quite altered the water depth yet and see if it can get in. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was literal minded but I acknowledge and praise the master ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To your second question, this website says the first dredging happened in the mid 19th century. So the question is, when did some ships stop going up to the upper Thames? An upper bound is the construction of the medieval London Bridge, after which larger ships were restricted to the Pool of London. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, London Bridge was provided with a drawbridge for the passage of ships to quay at Queenhithe below St Paul's. It was frequently broken and finally fixed in place by the 16th century. It rather depends on your definition of "big ship" because few ships were really "big" in the 13th century when London Bridge was first built. Alansplodge (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Thames at Westminster originally had a ford which in Roman times, could be crossed on horseback at low tide. So its never been very deep. Westminster Bridge was built in 1739-50, but as you say, large traffic couldn't pass London Bridge by that date. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likely one of the huge East Indiaman, since the Dutch East India Company both used them and also where the first to settle in New Amsterdam, which later became New York City. --Kharon (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it isn't the first, but French ship Redoutable (1791) was definitely too large to fit in NY Harbor at low tide, so that is at least an upper bound. Dragons flight (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What country has the highest rate of death by violence?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with List of countries by intentional homicide rate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't count war or many other things though. This will make a big difference in warzones I think. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That can only be estimated because the usual secrecy or utilization of these statistic numbers in war, for or against propaganda - but also the frequent massive forces applied to kill combatants - often result in countless MIA-cases that will never or only much later be resolved. --Kharon (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can find WHO estimates for 2008 here [1]. I'm not sure why they don't have newer estimates. The data includes "Unintentional injuries" and "Intentional injuries". Intentional injuries includes violence, self-inflicted injuries and war. (Unintentional injuries includes things like road traffic incidents and fires.) Assuming you're counting all intentional injuries, Sri Lanka seems to be first 179.7 estimated deaths per 100,000 population, Iraq 166.1, Somalia 101.1, Côte d'Ivoire 68.7, Guatemala 67.4. (There are a total of about 20 which are 48 or more and 37 which are 30 or more.) I presume Sri Lanka has gone down significantly since then, for the others I'm not so sure. Côte d'Ivoire and Guatemala are the 2 where violence predominates of thise 3 causes. P.S. Make sure you select the death rates sheet not the deaths one. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah actually I found 2015 estimates here. [2]. They have the same categories but redefined "Self-harm", "Interpersonal violence" and "Collective violence and legal intervention". However it no longer seems to have rates so you'll have to calculate them yourselves. It does provide population figures although only to 1000 but good enough for a rough estimate. It seems it's 339 Syria Arab Republic, 124 Iraq, 89 Honduras, 74 El Salvador, 55 Colombia. Guatamela is now down to ~16 with 39, Sri Lanka on ~17 with 38, Côte d'Ivoire ~32 with 30, Somalia 37 (sic) with 26. Note I'm pretty sure both versions exclude some countries without data and of course the quality of the estimates likely varies although that would apply to all possible sources. Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm including self-harm since some of these may be considered fairly violent and also it's simpler (you'll need to add yourself if you only want interpersonal violence and collective violence and legal intervention for example, ditto with the older cats). And you didn't say anything about homicides. Of course motor vehicle accidents may also be considered fairly violent, and other suicides would not generally be considered particularly violent (many poisoinings for example). If you have other definitions I suggest you look at the stats. If you don't agree with the WHO classifications, you could look for other data, although I'm not certain you'll find worldwide estimates which separate "violent" suicides from "non-violent" ones whatever definition you choose. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To be clear these rates are estimates per 100k population as with the older figures, both for easier comparison and because that seems to be the standard for death rates, also used by the earlier linked article with UN figures for example. The sic is because the one above and below Somalia are far enough that I'm fairly sure even the lack of precision of the population won't change its position. Of course as said before I'm pretty sure some countries are missing plus the margin of error in population estimations let alone death estimations means that 37 is still only a very rough estimate. (But the point is, if you were using WHO data Somalia (also Syria, Iraq, Honduras, El Salvador and Columbia) should definitely show in those positions. But I think WHO may generally have more precise population figures, or at least they seemed to in 2008, so there's a possibility the positions of the others may change under proper WHO rates. (I didn't study each case carefully enough to know for sure. I think you'll need a country with a population of something like 100k or less for this to have happened.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]