Humanities desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

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.

January 31

Benoit Hamon primary win by departments and communes

Is there a website that shows the Second Round results that Benoit Hamon won by departments and communes? I am asking this because French Wikipedia did not have complete list or proper list of Second Round results for the Socialist Party. Donmust90 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages by départements in Le Monde AldoSyrt (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist groups by ethnicity/nationality/religion

I was recently involved in an argument in which one of my friends claimed that the majority of terror attacks are done by Muslims. Is there a website showing the number of terror groups by ethnicity, nationality and religion? Gil_mo (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First you all would have to agree on a definition of "terrorist". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "number of terror groups" is an almost meaningless metric. It would be better to try to measure impact (i.e. number of persons affected by attacks), not schismatic factionalization... AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, is the KKK just one large group, or many small groups? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an (incomplete) List of non-state terrorist incidents that you can peruse to get an idea. The links at the bottom break down terrorist incidents by the country the occurred in, or the year, and most recently the month. Terrorist attacks are not necessarily more frequent now than in the past, but receive much more thorough media coverage. You'll notice that Islamic terror attacks overwhelm the recent lists, such as with List of terrorist incidents in January 2017, but the vast vast majority of these take place in the context of ongoing wars in Islamic country. If you look specifically at terror attacks in Western nations, there is still an overrepresentation of Muslim perpetrators, but you also see a significant number of attacks from non-Muslims. I think in terms of what gets called a terrorist attack, your friend is right, but you have to remember that when white Christians shoot up a mall, it gets called mental illness. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that last point really as significant as people claim? When white and/or Christian people shoot people and claim to be doing so for religious or political reasons generally people have no problem calling them terrorists. Even more so if they use bombs. Iapetus (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would think so, but how often are abortion clinic bombings was described as "terrorism"? Wikipedia doesn't. Anti-abortion_violence#Arson.2C_bombing.2C_and_property_crime.

ApLundell (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rudolph is very often described as a terrorist... AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were the first ones to refine and ruthlessly deploy suicide-terrorism tactics, and they were most definitely non-Islamic. However, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Muslims are disproportionately represented (though not always acting in the name of Islamist ideology -- few or none of the plane hijackers of the 1970s belonged to Islamist groups). AnonMoos (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just them. Both sides in The Troubles made use of bombings, including suicide bombings, to advance their political causes through terror. The Irish also aren't particularly Muslim... Or brown... It's much more reasonable to say that terror remains a viable option for disaffected peoples that feel left out of the political and becomes a tool for them where they lack access to power. Terrorism is also known to be a tool of both the right (Kristallnacht) and the left (Days of Rage), and what terrorism always has in common is that the people perpetuating it don't feel they have legitimate political means to enact their desired changes on society. --Jayron 32 12:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were no recorded suicide bombings during the Troubles, as can be seen in List of bombings during the Northern Ireland Troubles and peace process. See proxy bomb instead. Fgf10 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McDowell at Ballyshannon power station. --Jayron 32 17:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm sure that the people who's families were kidnapped, and thus forced to carry out suicide bombings against their own will, are comforted to know we've invented a new word for it. That of course, means it isn't terrorism, right? --Jayron 32 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were not suicide bombings. The case you linked to was a death due to a premature detonation. Your statement was incorrect. Fgf10 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the parsing of words must be cold comfort to the people who were victims of these acts. Your compassion to their plight and your minimizing of the horrors of what was done to them is noted. It reveals much of your character, and I thank you for being so open about it so we know what you really think. --Jayron 32 14:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Tamil Tigers invented suicide bombing as such, but they certainly systematically "operationalized" it (as a terror tactic used against non-combatants) far beyond anything that had been seen before... AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the FBI's most wanted "domestic terrorists" list. Many are non-Muslim. Eliyohub (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to your friend. Hope he's enjoying his new job as POTUS.

It may come as a surprise that much crime in Somalia is caused by Somalis. Also crime in predominantly muslim countries is carried out predominantly by muslims. These observations aren't important, they're just obvious consequences of the relative populations. It's rarely useful in statistics to base a conclusion on the numbers of something, far clearer to make a comparison and look at the proportion. Is your tiny chance of encountering a terrorist in the US (already smaller than that of being shot by an armed toddler) more likely to be a Muslim terrorist, a white Trump fan, or (thanks to Fox News) one who manages to be both simultaneously? There's also the statistically important, but difficult, question of 'Does it make a real difference?' Statistics recognises a concept of statistical significance - If a coin lands one side up two times out of three, is that the expected behaviour for a fair coin, or an indication of a biased coin? Obviously you can't tell - three tosses is just too few to base confidence on its result. Terrorism is also thankfully rare in the US. Your "most likely" cause of terrorist death would still be from having a Saudi muslim crash an airliner into your tower block. Yet no-one would fear that specifically as the main future risk. That one day, and its death toll exceeding all other events puts together, makes the simple analysis of the numbers one-sided. Yet that's no reason to draw an equally one-sided conclusion. America's white redneck terrorists have a fair bodycount too (and remind your friend that the Oklahoma bombing (disambig needed, because there's more than one and still no muslims) killed hundreds).

So, to look at the question behind the question, is Trump right to exclude muslims and thus make everyone safer? Of course not. Pathetically wrong. Under Trump's new edict, Osama Bin Laden would still be allowed entry. The list of seven countries excludes Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan and many others. Not even Trump can construct a plausible reason for the list of "countries where the poor brown, different people live" as opposed to "countries with money that I want" in public safety terms.

There are problems. Lots of angry muslims around, more today than a week ago (funny, that). A surprising number of angry Canadians too. But basing knee-jerk policy sledgehammers on alt-lies from Fox and Trump? That's just jingoistic rabble rousing by a government that is following the neo-fascist playbook just a mite too closely for comfort. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This response is a bit soapboxy, and doesn't completely address the OP's question. The OP made absolutely no mention of Trump or his policies, your inference on the supposed "question behind the question" is doubtful. Eliyohub (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't have to mention Trump specifically, as the "reasoning" behind the recent executive order is almost certainly what inspired the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be answering inferred "questions behind questions", as opposed to focusing on the question actually asked. Baseball Bugs, thanks for your opinion, I hear your view, what do others think? Can we gain a consensus on this? Eliyohub (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if the OP himself clarified it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a question comes up on Ursine defecation habits in sylvan contexts, then we'd best leave it unanswered then. What with Trump having tried to gag the National Parks service and all. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a low-level version of this is being prepared by the administrations plan to have a weekly list of crimes committed by immigrants. I guess people will search it for Muslim or Mexican sounding names and you could filter by the crime and use that for something like what you say. A bit like Trump's favorite website's lists of crimes committed by blacks. Dmcq (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. Absolutely no hidden intention, believe me. My question comes unrelated to any current events, and the conversation with my friend took place long before Trump new he wanted to be president. In any case, I'm confused from all the replies above... I think that the proper question should be, "from all incidents reported as terror attacks, what is the ethnic distribution"? Thanks to all of you! Gil_mo (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even that much is unanswerable, because it hasn't defined "terror attack" or who is credible as "reporting" them.

All we do know with certainty is that the West has an almost negligible level of terror attacks compared to much of the rest of the world. Also that all reporting of them is deeply partisan. One group's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. One "attack" is another country's fairly quiet day at the bread queue, with hardly any shooting.

There are long-running conflicts: Sri Lanka, Chechnya, the Russian annexation of the Crimea, occupied Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, where the term "terrorist" is bandied around rather freely. Depending on who you ask, you will see answers that shift the numbers massively by whether some groups are included or excluded. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a a category Category:Terrorist incidents which leads to various subcategories which might give what you want. Terrorism is a label that doesn't have a strong definition especially when committed by state organisations. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People claim no suicide attacks in The Troubles? Stumbled on this song The Suicide batallion of the UVF. What do others make of it? Does it represent reality? Were suicide missions ever carried out by the Ulster Volunteer Force? Eliyohub (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the Loyalist terrorists avoided bombings in Ulster or GB favour of shootings, especially after the mid-70s. A Republican argument can be made for "blowing up the materiel of the occupying state", but it doesn't make much sense from the other viewpoint. There were comparatively few bombings in Dublin or the Republic.

This led too to a simple lack of familiarity with explosives. The devices used (generally on bars, not police stations) were cruder, thus less safe to handle, and those planting them less experienced. I've never understood that song and always thought it was either a sarcastic Republican song (it was certainly sung as such after UVF bombers had been caught by their own bombs) or it was some very black humour from a group who saw themselves as disposable footsoldiers for another group. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google doesn't seem to have the answers to the question of how the song came to be. But do note that loyalists seem very proud of the song, if youtube is any guide. Every post of the song is on a loyalist-affiliated youtube account. Odd, a UVF song sung by both them and their enemies? Eliyohub (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Sands and some others went on hunger strike in prison and died but no there weren't any suicide attacks in Northern Ireland. The first bombings of the Troubles were by Loyalists of things like a reservoir and electricity substations which they hoped the IRA would be blamed for. The IRA was moribund and had given up arms at the time but the civil rights movement had started up. Dmcq (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me, how do you interpret the odd song I linked to about a UVF "suicide battalion"? Republican sarcasm of botched UVF missions? Or something else? Eliyohub (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think suicide battalion and mention of the Somme refers to the soldiers who fired rockets and grenades in the first world war, though I think that song is quite a recent one. They're just saying they're defending their country with courage like them. Dmcq (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's this kind of mate called?

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. Ng5 Nxd5 6. Nxe4 Nc6?? 7. Nf6# Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Fool's mate and Scholar's mate. The second one was done to me by an 11 - year old when I participated in junior tournaments. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Openings" Section of "Scholar's mate" cover variations of this opening; this reminds me a bit of the Two Knights Defense, Fried Liver Attack cited there. It isn't identical, but seems to in the same spirit. --Jayron 32 15:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see any resemblance between this mate and either the Fool's mate, Scholar's mate or Fried Liver Attack, other than they are all short sequences. I'm not sure exactly what the OP meant by "this kind of mate", whether they mean the whole sequence of moves or just the final attack, but the actual mate is a double check and a discovered check. CodeTalker (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have a name all the way through cause the d5 thing's iffy and masters have only played up to 4.. Nf6 but maybe the final attack has a name?

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Does this have a name? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, it's a double check and also a discovered check (as most double checks are). Are you asking something different? Maybe you're asking about the specific situation where a queen attacks on a file and a knight double checks and also blocks one of the escape squares? Or something else? If you clarify what you mean by "this", it would help. CodeTalker (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. A knight checking a king while blocking an escape square and uncovering a file check while three king's pieces block the other squares. Bonus points for the queen/rook check alone being easily blocked and the knight alone being knight suicide. It doesn't appear to be one of the 33 mates in the checkmate pattern article. Maybe it's just not important enough to have a name? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does fit into the general trend of the knight sacrifice to set up a quick mate. --Jayron 32 16:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The OP's game does not involve a knight sacrifice. Nor does the Fool's Mate nor Scholar's Mate. CodeTalker (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That last diagram looks a little bit like an epaulet mate, part of a bigger article on other mating patterns. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Events

Is there any reliable coverage of these events? http://vesselnews.io/shock-video-black-lives-matter-activist-says-need-start-killing-people/ Benjamin (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. As you were told the other place you asked, (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#reliable), vesselnews.io is a partisan website that is not a news site, but, in their own words, 'a lighting bolt for exposing the leftist agenda, who seek to steal our freedom of speech, right to bear arms and refuse to call by name the enemies of our way of life–Radical. Islamic. Terrorists.' " Also, vesselnews.io simply repeated material from The Daily Caller, and The Daily Caller got it from someone called "BurgerVanDreamz who is streaming this from England". You have no idea who is shouting into that bullhorn, when or where it happened, or whether it was staged. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that was kind of the OP's point. He's referring to the event in the video and asking whether that same event was mentioned in any reliable sources. --Viennese Waltz 15:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I already kinda knew that it's not a reliable source. That's why I'm asking if any other outlets covered it. Benjamin (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of looking to partisan sites and asking "anyone non-partisan covering this story from a partisan site?", maybe you should skip the first step and not look to vesselnews.io for information. --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Don't start with shit and then ask for proof that it isn't shit. Instead, skip the shit entirely. Start with reliable sources, and just go with that. --Jayron 32 16:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had reliable sources to begin with, I wouldn't have to use the reference desk at all... Benjamin (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So maybe ... there aren't reliable sources for this. Assuming you're checking reliable sources, you'd already know if it's showing up, or a quick - very quick - Google search would inform you. --Golbez (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of the ref desk, if everyone can just search for themselves? Benjamin (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We help you out with stuff that you have tried to find but have been unsuccessful. Have you read our instructions up above? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Benjamin (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but this is at least the second time now you've come in with a story from a distant right-wing site and asked "Can this be corroborated?" At a certain point you need to realize that, no, they can't be. That's why they're on distant right-wing sites. They don't publish actual news, they publish outlandish crap that gets people thinking, "Huh, could this be real?", vastly wasting time and effort, which is entirely the point. Unless you go there because you agree with their politics and secretly hope everything they report is true, in which case you're just kind of using this board to advance your agenda. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage from the KUOW-FM website and from the Washington Times; I haven't heard of the former and the latter is probably of questionable reliability, but they have to be better than the Daily Caller. Neither mentions the incendiary language supposedly documented in the Daily Caller video. John M Baker (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to look for a library that carries this book

Are there any libraries within Greater Vancouver that carry this book? I've tried searching online but without any luck. The name is The last ditch:Britain's resistance plans against the Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 17:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: [1]. Available at the central branch of Vancouver Public Library. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle dan is home, I would imagine that Canada would have something similar to the US' Interlibrary loan. So, even if it's not at a local library, they may be able to get it for you. †dismas†|^(talk) 23:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm. Work in a Metro Vancouver library, Interlibrary Loans are very much a thing. We can get books from anywhere in BC for free and at a small cost from much of Canada. Mingmingla (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Toronto, if you have a library card and place a hold request on any book, it will be filled from any branch in the Toronto system without needing to request an interlibrary loan. Perhaps the Vancouver system does this also? --76.71.6.254 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Peter Navarro Hispanic?

The article about Peter Navarro could need some enhancement about his origins. I assume 'Navarro' is a Hispanic name, but fail to find sources about it.--Llaanngg (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. See Navarro (surname). If you've done a Google search already, it's unlikely any of us will know about Peter Navarro's origins either. But have you done a Google search for his parents? That might provide some clues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some points to keep in mind: 1) Don't confuse "Hispanic" and "Latino"; although there is some overlap, the two are not mutually inclusive. 2) While Navarro (surname) is indeed an Hispanic name, unless we have a source we have no way of knowing if that is the derivation of this person's name. An ancestor could have just assumed that name because he liked the way it sounded. Or it could have been shortened/Anglicized from something else (e.g. Czech Návarov, Russian Navoroski, French/Occitan Navarròt, etc). 3) He could have been adopted by a family named Navarro. There's just no way to know unless we have a reliable source noting how he self-identifies which, according to this, may vary depending on his audience.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point is literally the only important one; earnest self-identification is the only reliable means by which people associate with any social or cultural group. Whether or not he earnestly considers himself as Hispanic, and whether he relates to other Hispanic people and non-Hispanic people as though he himself is Hispanic is the only reliable way one can identify him as Hispanic. There are many Hispanic people with names that don't have origins in the Spanish language (i.e. Bernardo O'Higgins) and many people who don't really self-identify as Hispanic and have last names which are of Spanish origin (i.e. Éamon de Valera) The name is an interesting clue, but it is neither inclusionary or exclusionary here. --Jayron 32 04:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]