Humanities desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 29 >

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.

February 28

Are there any tribes in Iraq that are not Arab?

I'm asking about the title of the article Arab tribes in Iraq, and I also posted here in case nobody responds to the page. Any ways the title of this article seems to suggest that not every tribe in Iraq is Arab. I know of other ethnic groups like the Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmen but I don't think "tribe" are used to describe their groups. In fact the word "arab" is not even used in the lead section. So is the word "arab" even necessary in the title?--Prisencolin (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this may be of use to you. Minorities_in_Iraq. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal system (which is quite ambigous term in itself) exists amongst Kurds as well. See Kurdish tribes. --Soman (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting abortion clinics and similar facilities from murderous fanatics

Note: I ask this question mainly in relation to abortion facilities outside the United States. In the U.S., both guns and anti-abortion fanatics (and I do mean fanatics, not mainstream pro-lifers) exist in relatively large numbers, potentially justifying significant ongoing security expenditure on the part of abortion clinics, which face a multitude of potential attempts to harm them (both the clinic buildings and their staff).

Outside the U.S., both the fanatics and the availability of guns are generally far less. For example, here in Australia, we've had one (and mean ONE) murder at an abortion clinic (Peter James Knight) in all of our history since us Europeans arrived and settled the continent. As to death threats never carried out? I have no idea, but I would think rare. Even serious vandalism is very rare. I gather many other countries would be in a similar situation: Murders or attempted murders of abortion personnel being exceedingly rare, but when they do occur, usually deadly.

So the problem for abortion clinics is this: What financially and practically sustainable measures do they put in place to guard against this sort of event, which, as I stated, occurs almost never, but which is deadly when it does? You can't afford an armed guard every day (or other expensive-to-maintain security measures) for a once-in-a-century event. Nor do you want to significantly inconvenience legitimate visitors to the clinic. How would a security consultant approach this dilemma?

Access-control measures (patients needing to be buzzed in by someone who can see the person about to enter through bulletproof glass or CCTV) may help. Employees would still be vulnerable when arriving and leaving though, to say nothing of those potentially willing to harm patients, who are totally exposed. Are there any other additional measures to be considered?

Please note, I'm probably not interested in passing laws, unless they would reduce this specific risk (attempts to physically harm or kill clinic personnel). Any sane murderer knows they're going to jail for a long time, and wouldn't stand a snowball's-chance-in-hell of being deterred by a Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act style law. (My understanding is that Peter James Knight was somewhat mentally unbalanced, and Phineas Priests are not totally exclusive to the U.S. - though it may have a greater share of them).

Now, please, please, let us not get sidetracked by arguments about the rights or wrongs of abortion, or of those who protest outside the clinics. Please stick to answers which address the question of ensuring the physical safety of the clinic's employees and patients in the situation I've described above (where attempts to harm employees are exceedingly rare, but potentially deadly). Please note, I do not work at or for an abortion clinic, this is for my curiosity only. Eliyohub (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In many countries clinics that perform abortions are not abortion specific. They perform abortions in the same clinic where they offer routine gynecological services. They are also everywhere. I don't see how there is an extra risk for those clinics. If someone goes postal, you have a risk distributed across all clinics, years, personnel. That's a risk too low to be worried about. Scicurious (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never known anti-abortion activists, be they picketers, protesters or killlers, to be deterred by the fact that the clinic they are targeting also offers routine gynecological services. Clinics run by organizations such as Planned Parenthood or Marie Stopes have a very obvious affiliation with not just performing abortions, but being openly if not aggressively pro-abortion-rights. (Yes, they may indeed offer other routine gynecological and other services, but their affiliation with abortion cannot be hidden). So would it not follow that they are at some degree of risk (which I admitted was very slight, but very serious), and should take measures to protect against those extreme few who might "go postal" against abortion providers? Eliyohub (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, PP & MS only have "a very obvious affiliation" and are only "aggressively pro-abortion-rights" in the minds of pro-lifers tending to the nut-job faction. I think the more common view is that they are, if you like, aggresively pro-reproductive health. As to your question: in situations of very very low probability (but high downside effect), very very low probability wins the day and life goes on without elaborate security theatre. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) Put security cameras in all clinics. This will have two effects. First is a deterrence effect, if the would-be murderer is worried he will be identified and caught. (He could wear a mask, and this is where access control would come in, as hopefully nobody wearing a mask would be buzzed in.) Second, if not deterred, hopefully they will be caught with the security camera images, and thus not repeat at other clinics.

2) Police should infiltrate all hate groups (any group that talks about killing people to further their agenda). Making such hate speech illegal is also important, as then they can be arrested before the violence. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Item 1 is good. Item 2 doesn't work in America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Item 2 is partially possible. Not the part about making hate speed illegal, but the part about infiltrating hate groups.Scicurious (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infiltration is a time-honored technique, yes. Bearing in mind that it cuts both ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Q is about nations other than the US, where they don't have the same devotion to Freedom of Speech. In Germany, for example, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust, which would be protected speech in the US. And even the US has limits, and calling for killings may well cross that line. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. For the limits in the U.S., the standard is usually called the Clear and present danger standard, which was later ammended to what is called the Imminent lawless action standard. That is, speech which represents a call to "Imminent lawless action" is NOT protected free speech, the classic example being Shouting fire in a crowded theater to incite a stampede, though other speech, such as direct orders "Kill that man!" would also be unprotected speech, and leave the speaker liable to civil or criminal charges. --Jayron 32 14:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK abortions are very frequently carried out in large mainstream hospitals, although also in clinics, and without searching I wouldn't be able to say where the majority are carried out. Hospitals are meant to protect all their staff and patients from intruders who have no place in the hospital, but in my experience this is extremely slack, and it is pretty easy to walk into any part of the hospital. This newspaper report [1] indicates that "buffer zones" are being considered, to separate patients from protestors. But the debate will naturally take a different form from in the USA, as gun violence is so much rarer. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over here (in Western Europe) there is no special need to protect abortion clinics, because the people who oppose them are non-violent (although there may be some nutters, like everywhere). Clinic are usually not abortion-specific anyway. Almost no one has a gun over here, and it is quite difficult to get one. You can walk in and out of my local hospital unimpeded, even outside visitor hours (it is quite big). Even their computer systems and offices are badly protected. Of course there are loads of cameras and drunk people get a police escort, but I don't think they've taken any measures against anti-abortion extremists. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue helmets in combat

Isn't it too dangerous to wear something so conscipuous, if you indeed have to come into combat? Couldn't they have chosen some unique camouflage to identify the peacekeeping troops? --Scicurious (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules Of Engagement for peacekeepers usually prohibit them using their weapons except in self-defence (or defence of their fellow peacekeepers). They can basically be forced to stand by and do absolutely nothing whilst watching civilians getting massacred. So basically the evildoers just ignore them, and they never end up "in combat" anyways. I spoke to a highly traumatized Bosnian Muslim who claimed to have witnessed the Srebrenica massacre. The peacekeepers very literally surrendered themselves into serb custody, and made no attempt to stand their ground which IMHO they would have been perfectly entitled to do ("no duty to retreat") under the rules. Shameful, but peacekeeper commanders tend to water down even their already super-limited rules of engagement. I don't think the blue helmet matters then, and I don't think peacekeepers matter then either. The survivor called them "the smurfs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyohub (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UN peacekeeping rules have evolved quite a bit since the collapse of Yugoslavia, see United Nations Force Intervention Brigade which has, and continues to, actively combat rebel forces in the DRC. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

24 Pakistanis working for the UN peacekeepers were attacked and killed in Somalia: United Nations Operation in Somalia II#UNOSOM II in operation. The peacekeepers don't typically themselves have the force to prevent a massacre of themselves of others. However, they tend to work as a "tripwire". That is, if you commit a massacre of peacekeepers or with peacekeepers watching, you may come under attack from more serious forces. Neither Mohamed Aidid nor Slobodan Milošević stayed in power, or alive, for long after their forces attacked. StuRat (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like no one, then, including me, yet has an answer to the OP's actual question: If U.N. peacekeepers are indeed called upon to actually fight (which involves taking sides, meaning the term "peacekeeper" is dubious), why the blue helmets, rather than a more camouflage-friendly colour? Any ideas? Eliyohub (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that in line with the tripwire goal? They want to be conspicuous and unmistakable: who else wears blue helmets? Being camouflaged, on the other hand, implies they're combat troops. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the point. Although in the days of steel helmets they actually used to be painted blue, [2] these days a blue helmet cover is generally used, [3] so if things get really bad, it wouldn't be too difficult to remove the blue cover, or if you have a blue painted one, to conceal it with a camouflaged cover, but no luck with finding a reference to support that theory. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even the above-mentioned "Force Intervention Brigade" in the DRC, which has an explicit "active combat" mandate, wears blue helmets/hats. The South African helicopter gunships that were reported as instrumental in M23's surrender are painted white with clear large UN markings. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Operation in the Congo gradually evolved from a tripwire role to regular combat operations. What color hat the Swedish, Irish, Canadian and other forces wore in combat, I don't know. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know almost nothing about U.N. operations in the DRC, but what you're describing sounds dangerously like Mission creep to me, and mission creep in military operations historically often ends badly. Have any such concerns been raised in regards to the DRC operations? Eliyohub (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliyohub see United Nations Force Intervention Brigade and particularly the sources cited in it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In psychology, how do you draw the line defining mental issues?

If someone beats his wife, or explodes in anger for minor inconveniences, or is homophobic, or obsessed with another race (and the things they do), couldn't that qualify as mental issue? --Scicurious (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball, the question is exactly what it depends on? --Scicurious (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends to what extent the subject is impaired by his behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends whether those behaviours occur alongside other specific ones within a specific timeframe. Wifebeaters often happen to match up with antisocial personality disorders, homo/xenophobes tend to have avoidant personality disorders and obsessiveness and compulsiveness about anything certainly suggests obsessive compulsive disorder (but is usually "just anxiety"). In the end, it depends a lot on which of the tens of thousands of American Psychological Association disciples you ask, and how their lives are going at the moment. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It depends on many factors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But still pretty straightforward, compared to figuring out treatment. You ever try to measure a grinning man's emotional quotient or a crying woman's anterior cingulate cortex? Ever meet someone else's imaginary friend? Are atypical antipsychotics more or less normal than the typical ones? How much money does the lunatic have? Has he stopped beating his wife? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Facts: Neither Howard Hughes, John McAfee nor Mad King George had a money disorder. It's not age that makes one eccentric (and it's not porphyria that makes one immortal). If Jim Cramer had just one different chromosome and exploded a few years earlier, his quirkiness might be goddamn hysterical. And yes, you totally can catch many mental illnesses. Just not the ones based on a "real" disease. Can't catch rich, though. That'd be too crazy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth reading the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders article. There is much debate as to what is and is not a mental illness, and what does or does not constitute in an individual evidence of a mental illness. I recall that the issues get a good airing whenever the DSM is updated. And it's one of these subjects on whch opinions vary, sometimes widely, both within & without the mental health professions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article at Mentally ill people in United States jails and prisons may be worth a read. If you Google for evil as mental illness you find some interesting arguments and discussions in blogs. In some ways it touches on the problem of evil in that the source of "evil" is philosophically difficult to pin down - for example, are all evil actions caused by insanity (by definition)? Some discussion here, here, and elsewhere. Matt Deres (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, whether something is considered to be mental disease seems to depend on how unfavorably society considers it to be. When homosexuality was viewed as evil, it wasn't considered a mental disorder. Later, when it was considered bad, but not evil, it was classified as a mental disorder. And now, when it is widely accepted, it is no longer so classified. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note which may be of interest to the OP - In my brief foray into attempting to study psychology, I was taught that even mental illnesses themselves can be culture-specific. For example anorexia is one of the most deadly mental illnesses in the west, with cases happening all the time, but traditionally almost unheard of in Asia (this may change, as western ideas of fashion and slimness-as-beauty start to reach Asian audiences). Koro (medicine) is listed a mental illness in the DSM, but for a westerner to develop it would be considered truly unique and almost unheard of by pretty much any psychiatrist. Asian men, however, develop it all the time. There are many other similar mental illnesses which can be very prevalent in one culture (e.g. extreme shyness in japan - there's a term for it), but almost unheard of outside it. They are all still considered mental illnesses, and definitely cause much suffering to their, well, sufferers. Eliyohub (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]