Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 May 2

= May 2 =

Left-Wing populism in Europe
Which left-wing parties are considered as left-wing populist parties in Europe? So far, in the books "The Explosion Populist" by John B. Budis and "The Optimistic Left" by Ruy Texeira mentioned that Podemos of Spain, Five-Star Movement of Italy, Socialist Party of the Netherlands and Syriza of Greece as left-wing populist parties. Donmust90 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Five-Star is not usually counted as left. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Podemos, Syriza and the Dutch Socialists are all members of the European United Left–Nordic Green Left. Most of the other parties in that group are also often described as populist, so that's probably a good place to start. (Although the situation can be complicated: Die Linke, the German Left party, is a radical anti-globalist party in West Germany, but an old-fashioned socialist party in East Germany - whether either or both of these are populist is debated). Five Star sits in the Eurosceptic populist Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group (a group otherwise made up largely of right wing parties like UKIP and a handful of other MEPs kicked out of far-right parties) and as Itsmejudith says, they aren't really left or right - they have a mishmash of policies. Smurrayinchester 08:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * More information and discussion on Left-wing populism. Alcherin (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sinn Fein in Ireland is the populist left wing party. The two other left wing parties (Labour and the Social Democrats) don't like Sinn Fein for this reason.--83.136.45.110 (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

ISIS and the Yazidis
Somehow, I stumbled across the ISIS Wikipedia article and then found the Yazidi people. I was curious about the physical appearance of these people. I scrolled down the page to find any good pictures and noticed that these people, from my point of view at least, look indistinguishable from white people. How does ISIS tell the difference between the Yazidis and their own people anyway? Do the Yazidis have some sort of cultural marker that would make them a target of genocide? I'm trying to figure out how similar-looking humans have the ability to recognize each other and kill each other and not their own people. Yeah, I get that ISIS is against the religion of the Yazidi people, but still religion is not observable, because it is a belief system. And the clothes of the Yazidi children are modern. So, what does ISIS use to quickly identify and target the Yazidi people? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For one thing, ISIS is purportedly a religious-political group, whereas the Yazidi are an ethno-religious group. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:3CF4:5668:5FB:EC43 (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is that the Yazidis live together in their own villages, so if ISIS arrive in a Yazidi area they assume that most or all people there are Yazidis. The Yazidis could also be distinguished by their dress. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * They look like Mediterraneans, i.e. somewhat darker skinned like typical Middle Easterners. And keep in mind that Mediterraneans and Middle Easterners are gnerally "white" as in Caucasian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I kinda doubt ISIS is too bothered if they inadvertently kill some of "their own people" in their massacres. The very nature of their "operations" is, kill and die. Both are, in a sense, equally important. So who cares if, during an indiscriminate massacre, you happen to kill a few "fellow Sunnis"? They've certainly sent suicide bombers to their deaths merely in order to kill civilians who happened to be the wrong kind of Muslims. Eliyohub (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a particular property of ISIS. Protestants and Catholics managed to identify each other sufficiently for crosswise atrocities during The Troubles, or during the Thirty Years' War, or during the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. Nor did the various Arab tribes live in blissful harmony before ISIS, or even before Muhammed. And neither did the various Chinese of the Warring States period have trouble with identifying victims. Finding "others" to persecute or kill seems to be a universal human skill... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed they have no problems with killing "their own people", because even Sunnis that aren't actively supporting ISIS are still targets for extortion. Identifying who is or isn't a Yazidi/Sunni doesn't matter in a sense because they can and will extort money through threats of violence if you aren't actively involved in ISIS. Alcherin (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See also Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL. Alcherin (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Kill them all, let God sort them out" goes back a long way. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's possible that people in ISIS controlled areas carry ID/documents that identify their ethnicity and/or religion. Yazidis could ditch their documents, but not having any documents may also get them killed. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Suicides during, or as a result of, The Troubles
1) Besides the obvious case of Billy Giles, how many suicides are known to have occurred in connection with The Troubles? Logically, Giles was not alone (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder does tend to cause some sufferers to kill themselves), so how common was this?

2) Is there somewhere I can find the whole text of Giles' four-page suicide note?

3) What was Giles' funeral like? What were his instructions in this respect? The UVF (or at least some of them) consider him KIA, but did he want a paramilitary funeral? Or did he ask for the paramilitaries to stay away? Logically, he would presumably have wanted the latter (he was haunted by having murdered his workmate in the supposed name of "God and Ulster"), but do any sources discuss this? Eliyohub (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This appears to have your answer for #1. -- Jayron 32 16:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's somewhat helpful, but it tells me nothing about any connection of these suicides in Northern Ireland to The Troubles, or lack of such connection. Have any sources analyzed this? Are there any other notable victims? Eliyohub (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are several useful-looking sources here. This Telegraph article discusses suicides among British Army personnel attributed to the Troubles, while this book mentions an estimate of 70 RUC or PSNI officers committing suicide (implying as a result of the Troubles, but apparently a total regardless of immediate cause). Warofdreams talk 00:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Surprised no-one has so far mentioned the ten people who committed suicide in the 1981 Irish hunger strike. --Viennese Waltz 10:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have serious doubts that would, strictly speaking, meat the definition of Suicide, any more than a soldier risks death in battle. They were willing to die, but didn't intend to. Any given prisoner might or might not have been the one to die. They clearly hoped their demands would be met. Can anyone offer anything regarding the other two questions here - Billy Giles' funeral, and suicide note? Eliyohub (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly does meet the definition of suicide, which is the intentional killing of oneself. They could have saved their own lives at any time by ending the hunger strike, but chose not to do so. --Viennese Waltz 15:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The suicide rate was lower in Northern Ireland than in England during the Troubles but since there's been a bit of peace people have started taking their own lives more. Just shows what a bit of normality is like. Dmcq (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why I included the aftermath too. Giles hung himself after his release from prison under the Good Friday Agreement. Ditto with Vietnam veterans - I gather that many committed suicide after the war had ended. Eliyohub (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you question makes a wrong assumption. I would see it as that the Troubles protected him or the peace was bad for him and a lot of other potential suiciders, and that he died as a result of the peace rather than as a result of the Troubles. Without the peace he might still have been alive. It is what was good about the Troubles or is wrong with peace that should be looked at Dmcq (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Who stole Carl Weiss' body from his grave?
Our article on Carl Weiss in the infobox states "Exhumed from Roselawn Cemetery in Baton Rouge; remains never returned". Our article says nothing about whom exhumed his body, why, and where it ended up. Who was the Ghoul? (Did something happen which was similar to what happened to the body of Eva Perón?). Who dug up Weiss' body? And where did it end up? Eliyohub (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * From the Find-a-Grave page cited by our article: "In 1991 Weiss's body was exumed from its grave to search for evidence that Weiss had not fired the fatal shot that killed the Governor but was never returned to Roselawn Cemetery. The current whereabouts of his remains is unknown." The New York Times ran several articles in 1991. On 27 June 1991 plans for the exhumation by "a team of experts" headed by forensic scientist James E. Starrs of George Washington University in Washington were announced. The purpose was to re-examine the trajectories of the 60 bullets that killed him, to determine if he was in a position to shoot Long (the opposing theory was that Long's bodyguards killed both Long and Weiss). Tissue samples were also to be taken to see if there was evidence of drug addition or brain tumor that might explain Weiss's actions. It was not announced who would finance this venture. The story of the actual exhumation was published on 21 October 1991. The remains went to a laboratory in Lafayette for autopsy (Weiss had been buried without being autopsied.) On 22 February 1992, the New York Times published an article reporting Starrs' findings, in which he claimed at a meeting of the Academy of Forensic Scientists in New Orleans that "there is significant scientific evidence to establish grave and persuasive doubts that Carl Austin Weiss was the person who killed Sen. Huey P. Long."  Starrs wrote a book on the subject, A Voice for the Dead.  In general, no important information was gleaned from the exhumation, and I find no report of the subsequent disposition of the remains. - Nunh-huh 17:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The guy who worked on the remains was Douglas H. Ubelaker. He seems to still be around, so maybe someone could ask him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Bugs, I took your suggestion, emailed him, and got a prompt response. If you're curious, he replied that "some of the skeleton was kept by the Smithsonian, the rest was returned to Weiss' descendants". Eliyohub (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. The article could be updated, as could the Findagrave entry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Laurie Lee picked up by a destroyer
Do we know which destroyer picked Laurie Lee up from Castillo (Almuñécar) at the end of As I Walked Out One Midsummer Morning? DuncanHill (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Found it in the ODNB article on Lee. She was HMS Blanche. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un
I noticed in the many recent TV reports on North Korea that an older man in civilian clothes seemed to be always at the side of the country's leader, Kim Jong-un. Who is he, and what is his role and relationship to Kim Jong-un ? --Halcatalyst (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you link to such a report? It may make it easier for us to identify him.  -- Jayron 32 17:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't read about it; sorry if that's what was implied. I merely saw him several times on TV news. --Halcatalyst (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you link us to any video or picture showing this person?-- Jayron 32 20:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's an excellent example: Kim Jong-un and friend. -- 00:58, 3 May 2017 Halcatalyst
 * I can't quite tell for sure, but could it be Choe Ryong-hae, long-time second in command, or Kim Yong-nam, titular head of state? --165.225.80.99 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll go for Choe, since he's not balding. Thanks. --Halcatalyst (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Atlantic Award, Rockefeller
I've noticed mentions in several articles on poets and authors of the "Atlantic Award" or "Atlantic Award for Literature", apparently awarded by the Rockefeller Foundation. This award is not mentioned in our article on the foundation, neither can I find mention of it on their website. I would be grateful to learn more about this award. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Could it be The Atlantic's Renewal Award, or Atlantic Book Award? → Atlantic Awards in Literature; Rockefeller Foundation —107.15.152.93 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Brilliant work, thank you. Your find led me to this article giving a review of the Awards and a list of the recipients. DuncanHill (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Made in USA or Imported
What is "Made in USA or Imported" supposed to convey? Isn't everything in the USA either made in USA or imported?

This is like a real life example of this joke "these two books contain the sum of all knowledge. ECS LIVA Z (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest that either Amazon hasn't been able to find out where this product is made, or the same product is manufactured in different countries and they don't know which version you'll be sent if you order it. On some food products if you look at the ingredients list and see things like "sugar and/or high-fructose corn syrup"; same idea, the manufacturer makes it both ways according to what supplies are available most cheaply at the time, and doesn't consider that you need to be told which one is in this specific package. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * ECS_LIVA_Z -- The joke as I heard it was an auto repair shop with the sign "We specialize in all makes and models, foreign and domestic"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've also heard "We loan up to $1000, or more." StuRat (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a cousin to "within 30 days, if not sooner." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That's redundant, but at least both mean 30 days or less. Mine means $1000 or less or more, which means any amount at all. StuRat (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The "foreign and domestic" is likewise a redundancy, but that could be a purposeful attention-getter. Like the $1000 could be the attention getter, to put a number in there to suggest an order of magnitude. The one you cited sounds like shorthand for "up to $1000, or even more under some circumstances." But that wordiness gets in the way of the sales pitch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Real conversation, short version:
 * Marketing: We want this product to do everything. Engineering: Well, could you be a little more specific?. Marketing: What's not specific about "everything"?
 * Other version about trying to get the company to focus its efforts better: "Can't we just focus on everything?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

How do humans fulfill their biological functions during wartime?
I have seen images of military camps before. The military is supposed to camp there, eat, sleep, and pee. But, doesn't the military have to maintain vigilance in case the other side decides to take advantage of the army's rest state? If the other side has alternating military forces that fight during the day and night, then won't that defeat the opponent that only fights during the day and sleeps at night, or vice versa? Anyway, how do militaries make sure that the camp is protected from the other side's military or the locals who may become violent against the opponent's military for invading their homeland? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why they have guards on watch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * e/c
 * E,g: Watchtower & Patrolling & Reconnaissance & Redoubt (more as "a temporary or supplementary fortification" than our article detail) & perimeter security systems, etc. 107.15.152.93 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And, of course, (electrified) fences and walls, manned gatehouses, boom barriers, barbed wire, objects placed in the road, searchlights, patrols with dogs, motion sensors, minefields... Alcherin (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See 01 and 02 64.170.21.194 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:


 * 1) Full-scale attacks at night weren't much of an option prior to the inventions of flares and later night vision equipment. Attacking in the dark would have only been possible then with a full moon, in areas with a light-colored surface (like a white sand).  To attempt a full-scale attack in the dark would have resulted in killing many of your own people, having your horses break their legs by stepping in holes, etc.  Also, a night attack may tend to favor the defenders, as they would be better hidden in darkness, in trenches and foxholes, than attackers out in the open.  An exception is if the defenders lit fires to keep warm, etc.


 * 2) Commando raids are a bit different. There the goal is to sneak in, hit the target, and retreat before the enemy can respond.  Darkness can help here.  (In the move The Alamo, one such raid destroyed an enemy cannon.)


 * 3) It is important to have your soldiers be able to be ready at a moment's notice. See Minutemen for one example.  This applies whether they are awake or asleep.  So, you can bring your full forces to bear, if attacked, in short order, at any time of the night or day.


 * 4) Having multiple shifts would also limit how many people you can attack with. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Gideon --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also we have Night Attack at Târgovişte (1462), a failed night attack by Jacobite army on the eve of the Battle of Culloden (1745), a night amphibious cliff assault on the French camp at the start of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (1759) and I'm sure there are many others. All you need is a bit of moonlight and some prior reconnaissance. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, In the old days, warfare actually had front lines. Rest camps were placed some distance in the rear... so those in the rest camp had some warning (given by the front line troops) if the enemy attacked. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. See front line and rear (military).  -- Jayron 32 15:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, in some instances. In others, the campaign consisted of a force marching into enemy territory and making camp each night. An outer line would be formed by outposts called pickets, who would withdraw when the enemy approached (known as "driving in the pickets"). Close protection was provided by sentries or guards as mentioned above. An example of a camp being destroyed by an enemy attack was the Battle of Isandlwana (1879), although that was in broad daylight. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The answer to the title question is "Usually not well." See for example Trench warfare. The OP's search for generic solutions to a small set of warfaring problems sounds as though we are being asked to help design a video game. For a view of real issues that takes account of different prevailing centuries see Military logistics. Note that real soldiers tend to defecate, there will be those who rape and pillage, or have infiltrated to spy for the enemy. Battlefield medicine is the art of treating war wounds such as these but perhaps not all at once. Blooteuth (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fighting during the day rather than at night also means that you don't have to invest heavily in infared/night vision equipment for both soldiers and vehicles for visibility, and it's easier for reservists called up from civilian life and morale in general to fight during the hours a human is normally awake, rather than having to adjust their sleep cycle. See also Night combat. Alcherin (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This short description of military logistics may be useful for our discussion. Besides that provided by the State for the troops, for most of history, the average soldier was expected to provide for their own food. This meant they may have purchased it, but in reality, for many armies, they subsisted on looting: euphemistically called "foraging" (when stealing food) and "quartering" (when stealing accommodations), basically soldiers were expected to find their own food, and this often meant walking into someone's house and taking it.  This is also sometimes known as "living off the land", again a nicer bit of euphemism than "stealing from the peasants".  -- Jayron 32 16:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Quartering" was precisely why the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, which severely restricts the practice. As to "foraging", as Napoleon learned, relying on it seriously exposes you to the enemy resorting to scorched earth tactics. Napoleon's invasion of Russia failed partly due to not preparing for the weather. But the total reliance on "foraging" was a major undoing. Had the French army had its own logistics chain for the supply of food, scorched earth tactics would have hurt a lot less. Eliyohub (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also soldiers out foraging are not available for combat, susceptible to be captured or killed, and may turn neutral civilians solidly against their side. They might also find liquor and get drunk.   Leaving poisoned or infected supplies around for them to steal is another possibility.  StuRat (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For that reason, the British Army supplied rations to their troops from early in the 18th century, combined with harsh penalties for looting; see British military rations during the French and Indian War. The downside is that armies cost more and need a better logistic "tail". Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but note that the Quartering Acts were one of the major grievances of the American colonists against the British, hence the aforementioned amendment. So whilst looting may have been banned, "quartering" obviously went on. Our article on the acts elaborates on these laws. Eliyohub (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd never heard of that. A later version, still in use in the Second World War, was billeting where soldiers were foisted on local householders, but they were entitled to an allowance, at least in theory. My father was billeted with some nice people in Collumpton in 1939 and they corresponded for years afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)