Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 February 2

= February 2 =

Machine-gun firing squads
Jang Sung-taek was executed a couple of months ago, soon after being purged from a top position in North Korea's government; according to at least one South Korean analyst, it's likely that he was killed by a machine-gun firing squad. Some of his associates had been purged and executed not long before, and a similar method of execution was used. What's the point of using a firing squad of machine guns? I can't remember hearing of multiple machine guns being used for any purpose, except of course on the battlefield where multiple guns can cover more ground, provide redundancy, scare the enemy more thoroughly, etc., but none of those is particularly applicable when you've got just one target at close range who can't move or fight back. It would also seem silly because a group of guys with rifles is generally sufficient, and one machine gun would definitely work as well: you wouldn't have the difficulty of bringing multiple machine guns into a building or the increased risk of one of the many rounds ricocheting off the walls, or if it's outside you'd have a reduced risk of one of the rounds ricocheting or being fired in a weird direction and causing havoc. It just doesn't seem to be the efficient solution I'd expect to be employed in this kind of situation. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The main point of execution by a normal firing squad is to disperse the responsibility. Guess a machine-gun squad is the North Korean regime's idea of turning a normal firing squad up to 11... AnonMoos (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, chances are that a lot more machine gun bullets will hit the victim, so it would be even less apparent who really killed him. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Turning it up to eleven what? Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (This). 71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In years past, they formed a circle around the victim. That tended not to work out very well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That was actually part of what I was wondering. Bring a group of guys with rifles, or one guy with a machine gun, and you should be all right; but a group of guys with machine guns might run the risk of a gun going in the wrong direction (e.g. through recoil) and accidentally shooting another shooter.  Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a (very old) joke, son. But you raise an interesting point. The only depiction I can think of just now is in The Great Escape, where the Nazis use a machine gun to mow down some escapees whom they had recaptured. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * NK has also reportedly executed generals by placing them at the aim point of a mortar. That's certainly not efficient, but that's not the point. It's a (morbidly) theatrical gesture pour encourager les autres.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, a machine gun firing squad would be just as safe, provided they use it as intended, i.e. supported on the ground or some kind of raised support. Holding a machine gun against your shoulder only supported by your arms would indeed be dangerous, much in the same way as firing a rifle holding it with one hand at arm's length like a pistol. Sjö (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This article says; "[In] recent military history, Russian, Japanese and Chinese firing squads all had real bullets, no blank rounds were issued. It is thought that this is because they didn't care less about who thought what about who, and who did what, where and when. Even today, Chines firing squads all have real bullets..."'. I'm not sure how reliable a source it is, but it makes sense. Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A WW2 vet I know scoffed at the notion of a member of a firing squad being spared the knowledge of whether his rifle fired a blank or a bullet, and said it was easy to tell the difference from the recoil of an M1. But they wouldn't know until they pulled the trigger, so they might be less likely to balk, and more willing to point the rifle at the victim and pull the trigger. See also Straight Dope.  One problem with  overkill such as mortar fire or a corpse torn to bits by machine gun fire or hungry dogs or lions is that it does not leave an identifiable corpse, and it would be possible for there to be a fake execution staged, if the condemned had sympathizers among the force charged with the execution, with someone else killed instead. Think of all the stage illusionists who have been apparently killed. Edison (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * About the recoil thing, see Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 October 4. Note that while the removal of the statement from our article about remembering the bullet as blank was probably appropriate considering the lack of sources, I think it is fair to say people are often good at 'remembering' what they want to 'remember'. So it wouldn't surprise me if multiple experienced shooters in a firing squad thought they had fired a blank if they'd been told one round was a blank even if none of them were, in cases where it mattered to them. Nil Einne (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also the issue of something akin to plausible deniability. Since no one except one shooter knows for sure who had the blank, every member of the firing squad can tell their friends and family that they didn't fire a killing bullet. It might ease the minds of those around them and prevent some criticism against them. Sjö (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a depiction of a machine-gun execution in Thailand in the mini-series Bangkok Hilton (can be seen on YouTube, but is perhaps not for the squeamish). I have no idea how accurate it is. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you do a search for something simple like 'machine gun execution' on the internet, you should find two things.
 * 1 is a claim that the NK execution didn't just use a machine gune but an anti aircraft machine gun. I have no idea on the accuracy of the claim and think it's wise to treat any claims about what goes on in NK with scepticism. In fact you'll probably also find claims the execution was done using hounds.
 * Another is thing you should find are links to videos allegedly depicting real machine gun executions in Syria, Libya and I think Afghanistan. (I haven't looked at any of the videos so can't confirm they depict anything.)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My source is msn.com. As far as I recall the message from NK was that the condemned was thrown into a pit with dogs that were kept hungry for five days. Where did you get the firing squad story? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That specific case (Kim's uncle) is a rumor. All that's known to the outside world for sure is that he was executed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Really?   ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the Thai Corrections Museum's website and the Thai Wikipedia, executions by firearm in Thailand were carried out with Bergmann MP18 submachine guns from 1935–1977, and HK MP5s from 1977 until lethal injection was introduced in 2003. Only one executioner performed the duty. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think some Brits were executed by Nazi regime machine-gun firing squads in the part of the Second World War in which the USA did not participate, and also possibly some British and/or Americans after the USA did join the war, but I leave finding the details and references to others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Who is the celebrated "Rudpiki"?
Hi all,

I was reading Walter Scott's The Talisman, and there is a reference to a 'celebrated Rudpiki', who or what is that. The reference is like this:

"He was thus greatly perplexed, and undecided how to act; and it was in a tone of hasty displeasure that, at length breaking silence, he interrupted the lay of the celebrated Rudpiki, in which he prefers the mole on his mistress's bosom to all the wealth of Bokhara and Samarcand."

Cheers Gulielmus estavius (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A lay is a narrative poem or a song, such as a ballad. Sleigh (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And Rudpiki seems to be a name that Scott dreamt up for the singer of the song. I wonder if the p was meant to be a Thorn (letter) (þ).  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * According to this glossary, Rudpiki was a Persian poet. I have no idea about the novel, but maybe Scott was referring to Rudaki?    --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here the quote (from Chorasmia, attributed to Hafez): "If that Shirazi Turk heeds my heart's call for love, I would sell even the jewel cities of Samarkand and Bukhara for the Indian mole on her cheek." Legend has it that Tamerlane sent for Hafez regarding this verse and asked angrily: "Are you he who was so bold as to offer my two great cities Samarkand and Bukhara for the mole on thy mistress's cheek?". "Yes, sire" replied Hafez, (...) --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Creativity and Innovation
My friend is currently pursuing a marketing degree and is looking for materials that will help him to highlight ways in which innovators and people who make creative things and the marketing methods that people utilise to showcase their creative accomplishments. External links would be helpful, particularly ones which focus on the various methods used --Andrew 20:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Global Economic Inequality and the Law
The world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. There is a big inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries. There are very rich countries and very poor countries. Has this inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries got anything to do with the law? If so, then what? What does the law think about it? Great Time (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you rephrase that as a request for references rather than a soapboxing invitation to debate? This is not a chat forum, and you've asked substantially the same question four days ago. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What law or laws are you talking about? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The lack of rule of law in the "developing nations" is definitely a contributing factor. That is, nobody wants to invest in a nation where their investment can be arbitrarily taken away by the government, rebels, or whoever else is in charge at the time.  Not to mention that the owners might be arrested or killed when they visit their factory.  See the case of Mohamed Bouazizi for an example of how corrupt governments make it impossible to operate even the most basic businesses, because everything is illegal there, unless you know/bribe the right people.  StuRat (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent comment, Stu. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "What the law think about it" is kind of meaningless. Equally, your assumptions about the division into rich and poor are dubious at least. In the same vein, there is no way of guessing what do you mean by 'the law.' International law? National laws? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You might want to check out the article Economic inequality, which lists a number of factors, many of which have legal aspects. -- Beland (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Global Economic Inequality, International Law and Justice
The world is divided into rich developed countries and poor developing countries. There is a big inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries. There are very rich countries and very poor countries. Has this inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries got anything to do with international law? If so, then what? What does international law think about it? Has this inequality and gap between developed countries and developing countries got anything to do with justice? If so, then what? What does blindfolded Lady Justice think about it?

Great Time (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In sentence order: Incorrect assumption. See Gini coefficient, World systems theory, comprador elite: your assumption is again incorrect, many people in developing nations also live disgustingly opulent lives on the backs of the working class. Incorrect assumption.  No.  See World systems theory, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Late capitalism.  Social relations don't think, and you can't give them human characteristics like thought.  No: this isn't a world of justice, son, this is a world of force.  Then you ought to do basic research on International relations and political science before you spam this answer again.  Again, personifications, social relations, and institutions aren't capable of thought. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't double post your questions, please. StuRat (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your question is so misguided that's difficult to start unraveling it, although StuRat (on your last question) tried to put you on track. Apparently without success, despite his very good answer, which is well complemented by Fifelfoo's answer. I wonder whether you are aware that Lady Justice is not actually a woman who thinks about the state of the world. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Rather than dividing the world by income, and seeking an explanation in law, why not divide the world by the quality of legal systems (perhaps using the anti-corruptionTransparency International measures), and seek an explanation about wealth?DOR (HK) (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism and Anti-Communism in India
America is a very capitalist and anti-communist country. What about India? Great Time (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I give up. What about India? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Economy of India, Politics of India and Socialism in India might be useful starting points here --Andrew 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am confused about your question. It's like you are asking "Kangaroos hop. What about cows?". Regardless of how much Kangaroo hop or not hop, it has no impact on cows' ability to hop. So why make a statement about the Kangaroos in the first place? 202.177.218.59 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither term describes India very well. After its independence, it followed a path of non-alignment and implemented some socialistic reforms. 1975 began increased free market reforms. India has tried to implement what it feels are the most useful aspects of both, while trying to stay clear of the extreme violent aspects of both and wanting to live in peace, both internally and externally. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe the OP was inviting comparisons. Well, here's one. In some areas of India, it's not at all surprising or unusual for avowedly Communist candidates to win election to state legislatures. In the USA, this doesn't really happen. (I think the Communists actually sometimes win control of some state legislatures in India, but that's from memory so it's a .) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)