Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 16

= April 16 = does electron have heat?

Shams
I konw that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine together used to be called "Shams". Why they called those countries together "Shams" though the word means the sun. They are not the sun. This question applies to Muslims only. Thank you.

Is it a practice on this page to state who can (or can't) answer a question on the basis of something other than knowledge?209.226.249.98 01:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not an answer to your question, but possibly related, that that whole region is sometimes called "the Levant", which means roughly "place where the sun rises" (from the perspective of a Westerner). --TotoBaggins 02:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the answer lies in our Bilad al-Sham article.--Pharos 04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Though actually Sham (&#1588;&#1575;&#1605;, &#1588;&#1571;&#1605; , &#1588;&#1570;&#1605;) and Shams (&#1588;&#1605;&#1587;) are not etymologically related, due to belonging to two completely different triliteral roots. The more usual Arabic-language term for the Arab east is Mashriq... AnonMoos

Afghani language
Which ethnic groups of Afghanistan speaks Persian(Dari)and which Muslims speak this language, Shi'as or Sunni? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.140.90 (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Primarily the Tajiks, although the Hazara speak a dialect of Persian and generally understand Dari. Note that the form of Dari Persian spoken by Tajiks in Afghanistan is slightly different from, but closely related to the Tajik language of Tajikistan. Marco polo 01:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolivia Policy on Genocide
What is Bolivia's opinion on genocide? Also, does anybody know any solutions that could help end genocide?

-Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.134.73.15 (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC).


 * There is no genocide in Bolivia today (see human rights in Bolivia) But see Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, who has been charged with genocide for actions during his tenure as president . (He now lives in the United States). Neutralitytalk 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He is accused of having killed about 50 people, that's a long way from genocide. StuRat 03:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While I personally agree that killing 60 people in a protest does not count as genocide, that is the case before the Bolivian courts. There is no minimum number of deaths required to be called genocide, but the intent to eradicate a group or subsection of people must be there under the current definitions of international law.  See Genocide However, since Bolivia seems to be on a kick to prosecute all of its ex-presidents I'm not really sure that they are looking at international law.  But the question was what the policy of the state is, and as such, they seem to be considering "bloody massacre" as genocide, likely using article 2 of the Genocide Convention and ignoring this whole "group" thing.  Or maybe even defining "group" as political opposition.  Who knows?  I sure don't. Beutelmd 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Has Bolivia done anything to end genocide internationally?

-Anonymous

Old residential neighborhoods in Boston
Which are the old/historically significant residential neighborhoods in Boston or Cambridge, MA? I am interested in renting an apartment in an old and historically significant neighborhood in or around Boston or Cambridge and would like to know if there are any that would be specifically interesting or relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.190.125 (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Beacon Hill is the most famous. Neutralitytalk 05:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is almost nothing in Cambridge and Boston that isn't historically significant to the Americans. What specific aspect of history are you interested in: political, economic, social, racial/ethnic. . .? Bielle 05:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts which links to each individual neighborhood. Bielle's right, though -- it's hard to spit in central Boston or Cambridge and not hit something historic. Generally, the closer to the downtown area, the more historic (and the more expensive, one assumes). Even if you wind up somewhere in the suburbs, you're a short MBTA ride away from something interesting. --ByeByeBaby 08:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I live and work in Boston. The oldest extant residential neighborhood in Boston is indeed Beacon Hill, though the sections near Cambridge Street are mostly no older than late 19th century.  The oldest parts are along Beacon and Mt. Vernon Streets, but these are of course the most expensive.  The North End also has some famous old buildings, including Paul Revere's House and Old North Church, though most structures in that neighborhood also date from later than 1850.  An often overlooked neighborhood in Boston in which many or even most of the buildings date from before 1850 is Bay Village.  Parts of the South End are older than 1850, particularly those northeast of Dedham Street and between Washington and Tremont Streets.  Apart from a narrow strip along Washington Street, which in colonial times followed a thin neck of land connecting Boston to the mainland, however, all of the South End is post-colonial landfill.  The same is true of most of Bay Village, but the South End and Bay Village have arguably preserved their historic character better than the North End, which has always been more commercial.  Moving on to Cambridge, clearly the most historic part of that city is the area just west of Harvard Square, particularly the area centered on Brattle Street, with its colonial mansions.  Finally, you should not overlook Charlestown, a district in the City of Boston but originally a separate town and a port that rivalled Boston in colonial times.  It is the site of the Charlestown Navy Yard, where the USS Constitution is moored.  The residential neighborhood between City Square and the Bunker Hill Monument dates to before 1850 and has preserved its historic character perhaps better than any of the comparable neighborhoods of Boston Proper.  Marco polo 13:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look at List of Registered Historic Places in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. There are quite a few districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  Not all of those districts have articles yet, but the Massachusetts Historical Commission would probably have more detailed information about those districts if we're missing the articles.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that in the first list, many places listed under the heading "Boston" are not in Boston Proper, but in outlying districts, such as Charlestown, for which there are also separate headings. Also note that many of these buildings are from the industrial era, some of them as recent as the early 20th century.  Finally, note that Cambridge is not in Suffolk County, but Middlesex County.  Marco polo 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True. I guess I should have mentioned that not all of the places listed on the National Register of Historic Places are historic districts with private residences.  You probably couldn't take up residence in the Paul Revere House or at Boston Common, for example.  The articles on the historic districts would provide some background on those districts for a prospective resident.  I also missed the fact that Cambridge is in Middlesex County and that the questioner was asking about Cambridge.  (That article would be List of Registered Historic Places in Middlesex County, Massachusetts under the "Cambridge" heading.)  And now that I checked on Boston's geography, I noticed that Brookline, Massachusetts is located in a part of Norfolk County, Massachusetts that is discontiguous with the rest of Norfolk County.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rule for change of name
is there any rule for changing the name of a person officially and legally in the indian judiciary or constitution

Articles onm Indian subjects, specially relgion, politics, mythology etc
Dear Editor

I am sure it has been brought to your attention that many of your articles and references to Indian issues, spcially relating to society, religion, politics etc are heavily biased in favcour of one community and the group which is trying to rewrite indian history from a right wing fanatatical syper nationalist hindu perspective

there is also an attempt to use the internet to legitimise positions and myths not supported by academic research etc

i am sure wikkipedia has mkechanism in place to ensure that such inerpolationsd are weeded out so tht what appears is substance of lasting value

thank you very much Dr John Dayal New Delhi


 * Please do open an account (it's free of charge) and edit the articles yourself. In fact, you can do so without opening an account, but then you'd miss out on the chance of developing editcountitis. --Dweller 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dr Dayal should consider posting his concerns to this page: Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. —Kevin 13:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vrksasana Images
Hello, where on the internet can I find photos of the yoga tree pose ( Vrksasana ) being performed by hindus at hindu temple or worshipping area ? Hhnnrr 09:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Searching Google images brings up plenty of examples, but not in a temple. I doubt whether this is done in a temple as such.--Shantavira 10:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I've searched yahoo images but not Google. Problem is all that comes out - on both - are westerners in the position which is not what I'm looking for, what I need is a clear photo of the original yogis in the tree pose in a semi- worshipping position .. so can anyone be of help ? I would be greatly thankful. Hhnnrr 12:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please ? Hhnnrr 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Over 1GB of writing
At the london zoo there was exhibition about evolution or something about a year ago, and one of the fatures was about this guy who'd written a lot on the subject (of evolution, or something) and his total works amounted to over 1GB. Who was that guy? I know that vage but any ideas? Thanks! Think outside the box 11:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The works of a writer are generally measured by the number of words; gigabytes are rather meaningless in that context, as the amount of computer storage required would depend on the file format, whether the files contained tables, pictures, or diagrams, and file compression.


 * According to Guinness, Józef Ignacy Kraszewski wrote more than 600 volumes of novels and historical works, Frank Richards' output was up to 75,000,000 words, and Soho Tokotumi wrote a history in 100 volumes (19,452,952 characters). Charles Darwin wrote quite a lot about evolution. See list of works by Charles Darwin--Shantavira 12:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The gigabyte would be meaningless, I agree, unless that's flat ASCII. Shakespeare's plays all combined come to a single megabyte in ASCII.  I'm sure that Microsoft Word would make that more than one gig.  (I can imagine what Clippy would have said to William Shakespeare.  "It looks like you are trying to kill your hero.  Would you like some help in killing your heroine?")  Utgard Loki 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps, "My spellchecker doesn't recognize that word. Shall I add it to the English language?" :)  --TotoBaggins 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, for that matter, "Avoid using cliches." I have, with my own eyes, seen a Shakespeare play (Macbeth) put into a word processor and the "grammar assistant" warning Will not to invent cliches.  Utgard Loki 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I believe the record is held by Raymond Queneau, with his Hundred Thousand Billion Poems. These correspond to approximately 3000 Terabytes, if I did my calculations correctly. To avoid global deforestation they were, of course, published in compressed format. --NorwegianBluetalk 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if uncompressed (say 1 byte is one letter) this is a totally implausible output for a single person. Are you sure the author is not a thousand monkeys? --Lambiam Talk  22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lambiam, you didn't follow the links! Here's an online version: . --NorwegianBluetalk 06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what you get from outdenting. I was referring to the original question's 1GB. --Lambiam Talk  17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets print the whole Wikipedia, including talk pages etc. like that Gmail aprils fool joke, we will print your emails and corier (can't even spell CURRIER right) them to you in big boxes, on recycled paper. --Goingempty 22:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My favourite comment on the Infinite Monkey theorem is this, by Robert Wilensky:
 * We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.  :)  JackofOz 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Existentialism
If I, a neophyte when it comes to Existentialism, wanted to throw myself head first into the school of thought, where would be a good place to startre? The article itself mentions the major players, such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre, but I'm not sure where I'd be able to get a toe hold on it all. Would I be best to start at the roots of the movement, and progress forward, or are there any works that are thought to define the key ideas? Thanks, Icthyos 12:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The best place to start would be an overview. A Primer of Existentialism is an essay frequently anthologized, and it does a decent job of summarizing in 10 pp. what is a tome of information.  Otherwise, you have to be very careful, because there is a split in "existentialism," with two traditions that are somewhat at odds with one another.  The Christian existentialists begin from Kierkegaard's rejection of Hegel and go on to a form of mysticism, while the atheistic existentialists start from Kierkegaard and his contemporary Nietzsche to argue several different directions.  If you want to go the Kierkegaardian route, the single piece of his that is most readable and an overview (of a facet of his, anyway) would be Concluding Unscientific Postscript.  The usual recommendation of Either/Or is not one I'd make, as it's beautiful literature but not easy to understand philosophically.  (Kierkegaard believed in letting his readers experience the point rather than receive it as a dogma.)  For the non-theists... I guess Sartre's Being and Nothingness is the usual philosophical starting point.  Me, I'd recommend a primer or an anthology by a respectable (i.e. not true believer) editor.  Utgard Loki 12:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are, indeed, several ways of tackling this subject, as Utgard Loki has indicated, Icthyos, but much depends on how serious you want to get, and how much tolerance and latitude your mind has! For a good general introduction I personally would recommend Irrational Man: a Study in Existential Philosophy by William Barrett. It's considerably longer than the said Primer of Existentialism, but has the twin advantage of being comprehensive and highly readable, embracing all of the main intellectual currents. For something a little shorter you might try Existentialism: a Very Short Introduction by Thomas Flynn. This is far less detailed than Barrett, but it focuses on the main themes, including those of individuality, free-will and personal responsibility, as they are explored in seven of the movement's leading exponents, from Kierkegaard to Sartre. You might very well try to read Sartre's Being and Nothingness and Existentialism is a Humanism-and they are not as mind-blowingly difficult as some people imagine-though I think this is far from being the best approach for a beginner. There is, of course, a quite different way reaching out to existentialism through Sartre, and that is in his literary work. Here your first choice should be his novel Nausea, moving on to The Roads to Freedom trilogy. There is also the work, both literary and philosophical, of Sartre's one-time collaborator, Albert Camus, particularly The Rebel, The Myth of Sisyphus and The Stranger. All very readable, but at the bargain-basement level, I have to say, in an expression of pure personal prejudice on my part! Anyway, that is more than enough to be getting on with, so let me wish you all the very best on your journey of discovery. Who knows? You might one day be scaling the Olympian heights of Martin Heidegger's Being and Time. That really would be something! Clio the Muse 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur on the Very Short Introduction series. The literary work....  Well, it is its own branch.  At least the short intro. can give you the philosophers whose primary works you'll want to take the time to read.  Utgard Loki 14:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Clio and Utgard, for such a comprehensive answer! I've looked at other branches of philosophy before (mostly in my final year of school - I bitterly regret not continuing it at university), but I've never really known where to begin with the existentialists. To the library! Icthyos 17:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Stranger. And Nietzsche's writings go far beyond mere 'existentialism', though I see why some would group him with Sartre and Camus. Vranak
 * To be fair, Nietzsche is cited as a starting point for existentialism rather than an existentialist himself. I'd just call him an anti-rationalist and contrast what he and Kierkegaard were doing with what another of Hegel's students was doing: Karl Marx.  Geogre 20:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anti-rationalist makes it sound like he doesn't make sense. Nietzsche was not always lucid, of course, but his best work is totally rational. Unconventional would be a more appropriate label, but of course such a mundane word wouldn't much impress students on a university syllabus. Vranak


 * Anti-rationalist, in this context, is not at all the same thing as irrational, Vranak, and has nothing whatsoever to do with 'not making sense.' It simply means that Nietzsche shaped a philosophy which embraced existence in a more complete sense, beyond the narrow intellectual categories of people like Kant and Hegel.  It is not existentialism, but it points in that direction, by unifying thought and experience.  To describe Nietzsche's revolution in ideas as 'unconventional' is far too, well, conventional.  It might help you to understand his relationship with traditional philosophy a little better if you reread Twilight of the Idols, particularly the sections headed The Problem of Socrates and Reason in Philosophy.  I had no idea that the purpose of philosophy was to 'impress students on a university syllabus'.  Clio the Muse 09:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Key phrase: makes it sound. And as much as you seem to enjoy lecturing, I will not be requiring any lessons on Nietzsche from you, thank you very much.


 * As for the unconventional label, that's exactly what Nietzsche is. The heart of his writing, at least the important stuff, flies in the face of practically everything written before and since.


 * As for your last remark, there is philosophy, as written by Socrates, Friedrich, and the like, then there's Philosophy, where eccentric old men with white beards are paid to lecture students on their interpretation of said sages. Vranak


 * Socrates never wrote a single word, so you clearly are in need of some deep tuition, on this and other subjects.  You have no need to concern yourself, though: you will not be getting it from me.  Clio the Muse 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to go off on you here, but you're so concerned with the details that you're missing the point. You can buy a book that says Socrates on it, and it contains his thoughts.


 * Also, feel free to lay off the crass innuendo. Deep tuition, won't be getting it from me. Oh please!. Vranak


 * One also would recommend the Delphic and Socratic motto to "Vranak": Γνωθι Σεαυτον.  I enjoy lecturing.  I enjoy hearing good lectures.  I enjoy teaching.  I enjoy learning.  I have extreme suspicions toward those who do not.  A man named Yeatman, in a textbook, said, "For every person willing to teach, there are thirty not willing to learn."  Well, those folks should not be at a reference desk, hogging the counter space and blowing raspberries.  Geogre 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Call me crazy but I think interactive learning is the best of all. And one guy talking at 30 or 300 others is hardly interactive. It's offloading information. Vranak


 * Ok, you're crazy, because giving a Bronx cheer isn't very "interactive" nor any component of learning, either. It is, instead, the normal sort of petulance that makes "interactive learning" a jargon term rather than a reality.  (Let's start a question on pedagogy, if this is an interest, but let's also stop razzing people who are helping and stamping our feet that some people know more than others and are trying to share.)  Geogre 01:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't fish a coherent thought out of the above that I can address. Vranak


 * Alas, Clio, the job market will make it clear that "making it sexy" is often a priority. (I wish I were making that up, but a colleague lost a job by walking out of an interview when he was asked, "How would you make Chaucer sexy?")  The rest is spot on.  Indeed, anti-rationalist is anti- Rationalism, which is Kant to Hegel.  Hegel stood like a colossus in the middle of the 19th century, and Kant was another.  Hegel's dialectic had brought forward, in particular, the idea of progress to "Civilization."  This objective of the zeitgeist would be something Utopian, and it was the movement of history.  Against this, Marx would insist on a dialectic of material production rather than ideas and essences.  Kierkegaard and Nietzsche would reject essence.  Nietzsche would accept a zeitgeist and a directionality to history, but his objective of ubermensch would be quite different from Hegel's civilization or Marx's communism, and Kierkegaard found the rationalism of Kant, in particular, leading him to reject the idea of reason as sufficient for solving the fundamental paradox of subject/object.  He would ultimately posit the famous "existence precedes essence" and follow that to all of its conclusions from his Christian point of view.  In other words, they're all reacting to Rationalism.  Marx was a Rationalist himself, but the other two (and their followers) were anti-rationalists. Utgard Loki 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

the tao of pooh, excellent readPerry-mankster 09:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A fun book, but not properly speaking existentialist. For literature/films that exemplify, rather than explain, existentialism, I'd vote Rumble Fish as #1 (the film, anyway).  Utgard Loki 12:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alan Levine
In the New York University Journal of International Law & Politics of Winter 1972, there is a paper by Alan Levine. I would be grateful if someone could please tell me on the faculty of which University was Alan Levine and what was his position on that faculty? Thank you. Simonschaim 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The best bet (not found here) would be to look into the American Bar Association from 1972 and search its member index for the name. The problem is that you're likely to hit more than one, as the name is common enough.  The original article should have had a headnote, although I don't know that particular journal's practice.  The ABA may have an online, searchable index, but it definitely produces an annual membership index which could probably be found in a decent research library.  Geogre 20:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On Japan in '30s
From article Japanese war crimes: "As in other dictatorships, irrational brutality, hatred and fear became commonplace. Perceived failure, or insufficient devotion to the Emperor would attract punishment, frequently of the physical kind. In the military, officers would assault and beat men under their command, who would pass the beating on to lower ranks, all the way down. In POW camps, this meant prisoners received the worst beatings of all." It's true? I don't beliefe that for insufficient devotion to emperor there were physical punishment (probabily for none crime the were physical punishment. And if in military officers would assaulted men under their command, this is a desidery, not a possibility.--Vess 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't comment on Japan specifically, but authority which can't be questioned does often lead to brutality, as in the famous prison guard and prisoner experiment (where students selected to be "guards" treated students selected to be "prisoners" brutally) and the electric shock experiment (where subjects were willing to expose other subjects to what they thought were painful shocks, because an authority figure told them to do so). I'm sure somebody else will provide links. StuRat 16:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For what StuRat is talking about, see Stanford prison experiment. Corvus cornix 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And Milgram experiment. --Anon, April 17, 01:02 (UTC).


 * "Perceived failure, or insufficient devotion to the Emperor would attract punishment...", ceartainly:
 * "All these little loyalties to higher authority...added up to the one great loyalty due to His Imperial Majesty, the emperor of Japan....The ministry of education went to great lengths to ensure that the six years of required schooling had a heavy tinge of nationalism and patriotism...Virtues of chukun aikoku (loyalty to the emperor and love of country) were values most brought with them into the army as their intellectual baggage. The army, in turn, played on these concepts...every morning the troops bowed toward the imperial palace to pay homage to the emperor before they began their arduous daily regimen of training."


 * "A second legitimacy provided by imperial sanction was mandatory respect for all superiors in one's chain of command to include anyone who had been in the service longer, irrespective of rank. Hierarchy in Japan, then, as today, was taken for granted. Status was very important..."


 * "The emphasis was on discipline and obedience and for the lowest ranking soldiers this meant, in practical terms, constant abuse and beatings. The recruits were always being supervised, and petty harassment filled their days. The objective was to reform the personality by making unquestioning obedience second nature..."


 * "The cultivation of selfdiscipline for the Japanese tends to involve practices of mortification of the flesh designed to develop will power...This concept was coupled with the Japanese notion of sincerity, which means as long as one had the proper motives and acted sincerely, almost any act can be understood, if not fully appreciated..."


 * "The emphasis was on discipline and obedience and for the lowest ranking soldiers this meant, in practical terms, constant abuse and beatings....Even answering a question was no guarantee you could avoid being beaten for improper attitude. Seniors beat their subordinates for talking or for remaining silent...'time of the devils' occurred when the senior soldiers established their own informal tribunals to mete out appropriate punishments to their juniors, whose errors and mistakes had embarrassed the entire platoon. Although regulations officially forbid the use of violence, these kangaroo courts handed down verdicts of punishments ranging from slappings to beatings, and, if called for, gang assaults on an especially blatant offender. (Drea, Edward J. (1998) 'Trained in the Hardest School,' In the Service of the Emperor: Essays on the Imperial Japanese Army, pp. 81-4)"
 * However the first sentence: "As in other dictatorships, irrational brutality, hatred and fear became commonplace." seems a bit facile.&mdash;eric 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Beating was a standard disciplinary and 'character-building' tool of the Japanese military, and the Formosan guards themselves had been routinely beaten as part of their training. The ethical seriousness of physical assault had thus been greatly diminished in their minds, and they saw the POWs as fair game. As the war turned against the Japanese, the officers began to draw vicarious pleasure from watching the beatings of the POWs by the guards and would also relieve their own frustrations by maltreating the guards, who would then take those new frustrations out on the POWs in a sadistic multiplier effect... (Tanaka, Yuki (1996) Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II, p. 40)"&mdash;eric 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't demonstre now if the texts cited by you are trustworthy or not, but I retain that military and civil codes forbade physical punishment. Howewer, if soldiers preferred death (who was often very terrible) to captivity, how beatings could scare them? --Vess 19:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the reference given by eric, Vess, you might also care to consult Laurence Rees' book Horror in the East: the Japanese at War, 1931-1945. Amongst other things, Rees argues that the savage conduct of the Japanese Army in China and elsewhere was, in part, explained by the brutal socialisation of recruits, which grew in intensity from 1930 onwards. With the rise of extreme nationalism, the military began to place ever more emphasis on older martial traditions, and recruits received an intense indoctrination in the tenets of both Bushido and Shinto. This encouraged the use of casual brutality as a way of reinforcing discipline. It would not be unusual for a colonel to strike a major as a way of expressing displeasure, which then made its way downwards, in a series of stages, to the private at the bottom. The worst beatings were doled out to men of Korean or Taiwanese birth, many of whom became camp guards in the Second World War, and who, in turn, took out their frustrations on the prisoners under their control. Here is part of the testimony of an Australian prisoner of war: I have seen funny occasions when the NCO beat up the young soldier, the lieutenant beat up the NCO, the captain beat up the lieutenant,-it went right to the top, beating each other up quite publicly. (Lees, 2001, p.84) All sign of compassion was treated as weakness; and when the Japanese went to war with China in 1937 the soldiers had been taught that the enemy were chancorro (subhuman), which explained much of the horror that was to follow. Some post-war Japanese film directors have also made attempts to depict the brutality of the Imperial system of military discipline, including, I believe, Masaki Kobayashi in his trilogy Human Condition. In concluding, I have to say I also agree that the words in the opening sentence are weak, subjective and unencyclopedic. Clio the Muse 19:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

no reference to:
I WAS TRYING TO FIND ANY INFORMATION on Arthur Moss 1889-1969(expatriate,publisher,author) so I searched for 2 references: 1)the Gargoyle,a political and artistic publication-early 1920's, and 2)the Boulevardier,designed to promote all the arts to all the world. Moss was responsible for publishing Ernest Hemingway's early writings. Both publications were in Paris but Moss' intent was to promote art everywhere. He also had his own writings published in "The Nation" in New York,i.e.: The Turkish Myth, June 13,1923. This is the only article mention of Moss anywhere. Search for gargoyle and The Boulevardier comes up empty. My real research is on Moss,who himself authored 5 books according to Gale Literary Database and was editor of the Quill in N.Y. before his move to Paris in 1921. I am at a deadend other than waiting on the article from N.Y. Times dated February 22,1969, 2 days after his death. The only short bibliography I found was at the university here in Houston on the Gale website. I thought you might like to include mention of the Gargoyle and Boulevardier in your database and any help on rescources that would guide me to more info re: Arthur H. Moss would be greatly appreciated. Snyder edward 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried and tried on this, even looking up my university library catalogue, but can find no information whatsoever on this man, other than a reference to a biography of the composer Jacques Offenbach, co-authored by one Arthur Moss, who was also born in 1889. Can this be the same man?  I assume not?  It seems odd that there is no background detail on a figure of some passing important in the history of literature.  There is, however, a reference to him, alongside Hemingway, Ford Madox Ford and others, in The Life and Literary Career of Myron Oates by Mathilde Roza, a PhD thesis at the University of Nijmegan in the Netherlands.  Sorry I could do no better than this.  Clio the Muse 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That should be "Mathilde Roza". --Lambiam Talk  21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So it should! Well grubbed, old mole.  Clio the Muse 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This search gives, perhaps, a pointer. Or perhaps this one. See also this. --Lambiam Talk  22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An Arthur Moss wrote a book called "The legend of the Latin Quarter: Henry Mürger and the birth of bohemia", published by Beechhurst Press in 1946. Dunno if it's the same guy, though. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Zafiroblue05, I'm interested in why you went to the trouble of spelling Murger's name with an umlaut. He was French, and as far as I can tell he never used an umlaut, nor does Arthur Moss's book spell his name that way .  (I write as a staunch defender of all things associated with my favourite opera of all time, La Boheme, the libretto of which was based on Murger's La Vie de Bohème) .  --  JackofOz 01:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. Yes to all. this is the same man. Authored 5 books of his own besides publishing earl works of Hemingway, Malcolm Cowley,Robert Coates,Lawrence Vail,Sinclair Lewis, Stephen Vincent Benet,just to name a few. Then the artists he promoted and hung with like Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Georges Bracque, Andre Derain, Paul Cezanne. I cant believe there is no more material on him,but I deeply appreciate your contributions.Snyder edward 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Worst mass shooting in American history
News sources are referring to the Virginia Tech massacre as the worst mass shooting in American history. Why? What qualifies as a mass shooting? I realize that their criteria probably discounts military engagements, but didn't horrific massacres among civillians regularly take place in the Wild West? I'm thinking particularly about non-military occasions involving the slaughter of Native Americans by Western settlers and vice versa.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think small civilian massacres may have occurred, but probably not more than 33 killed at a time; military involvement (US soldiers and/or native American "war parties") was needed for that. StuRat 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Never underestimate human ingenuity in all matters of brutality. Some incidents listed in the the article Indian massacres show that you are wrong. Flamarande 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Which of those cases do you consider to not involve the military (or the Indian equivalent, war parties) ? StuRat 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Gunther Island? Flamarande 12:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a shooting at all. Other than that, I can't find much info, but our article states: "Robert Gunther acquired the island in 1860, the same year of the massacre...".  This makes me suspect that he hired the group of "civilians" which committed the massacre, it just seemed too well organized to be anything else.  I would classify mercenaries as "military", if that was indeed the case. StuRat 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * STU you suffer from the "I am always going change the issue"-syndrome and from the "rules-lawywer" symdrome. First you speak of "small civilian massacres" now you speak of "shootings". Unless you have other info about Gunther Island you shouldn't simply acuse Robert Gunther of paying of mercenaries (allthough that is indeed a possibility) to 'clear' the island. That is mere speculation and indeed could even be considered slander. Knowing that you suffer from these syndromes I didn't even mention massacres carried out by militias as you would likely consider such mobs as military (there is a diff you know?) Flamarande 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Hey, I like to be honest.


 * I'm not "changing the issue", the title of this question is "Worst mass shooting in American history". I didn't feel it necessary to repeat that we are talking about shootings previously, since that is readily apparent from the title. StuRat 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the language being used is somewhat imprecise, what is really being said is that this event is the largest spree killing in US history. Carom 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A little more info. List of massacres gives some useful information, although whether or not you classify something like the Mountain Meadows massacre or the Bath school disaster to be in the same category as today's events in Virginia is, to some exten, up to you. Carom 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is very helpful. Thank you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Carom 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the largest school shooting in US history. Prior to today, it had been Charles Whitman at the UT-Austin shooting that had the highest fatality count.  Largest "mass shooting" is any other thing...fairly meaningless, as we can't know.  Geogre 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See also Mountain Meadows massacre (100-140 people killed). Neutralitytalk 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. There have been massacres of all sorts in American history, and if we go only to the 19th century, we get some truly horrible attacks like Wounded Knee.  The "berserk gunman" is too common a theme in the land of the right to arm bears.  The guy who went nuts in a McDonald's got a very high injury rate.  News readers talking about this attack are focusing on the number killed and, I suspect, the fact that it was a school.  Geogre 10:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking they are implying that it was only one person doing the shooting here. --24.147.86.187 04:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. Columbine is considered a similar killing, and it involved 2 shooters (as did the Jonesboro massacre).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 05:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This morning, NPR corrected itself to refer to the "largest mass shooting in modern American history" (I believe). I found the word "modern" quite weaselly and vague, and I think a good reporter, if the point is to be made, must say "since" and specify the last era & context that knew larger ones.  And, really, as others have pointed out, limiting the comparison to shootings may narrow the discussion somewhat artificially.  What I would be interested in knowing is (A) how far back to a bigger massacre by an individual in the U.S., (B, if different), try to get at more comparable criminal acts by specifying private individual and also looking for examples that were not clearly part of our major historical conflicts between groups, that tend into political violence (i.e., massacres of Indians and blacks). Right, List of massacres clearly separates "Criminal and non-political massacres."  By my implied criteria, I guess I'm registering surprise that, if reporters are going to proclaim the atrocity's superlative status in history, they don't bring up the Bath School disaster. Wareh 13:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably because the Bath School Disaster was not a shooting. Other than that, I find it very similar to the other massacres.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam
I have to write a paper on 'why the war in Vietnam was a disaster" Yes i have tried to find information on this, unfortunately the only thing useful i could find came from this website. However for any research papers... wikipedia does not 'qualify' as a reliable source. If anyone knows of a good website, id really appreciate a link. Thanks again.


 * Use the sources provided in the Wikipedia articles. StuRat 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, check out this list of extensive printed and online sources.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is such a lot of useful material that you may find your boat is in danger of capsizing! I will thus confine myself to two recommendations: The Vietnam War by Michael K. Hall, in the Seminar Studies in History series; and The Vietnam War, 1956-1975 by Andy Wiest, in the companion Essential Histories. At less than one hundred pages, the latter will take you on a fairly rapid trot through the whole period. If you have time I would also recommend that you read The Quiet American, a novel by Graham Greene. It's actually set during the French rather than the American war, but anticipates the eventual American involvement-and ultimate failure-in the elusive search for a 'third force' between Imperialism and Communism. To give you some general hints, if I were in your position I would focus on the gap between military commitment and political will. You might also consider the extent to which American politicians perceived the war in the narrowest ideological terms, as a struggle between Communism and Democracy, whereas for many Vietnamese it was a long-term struggle for national liberation, first against the French, and then against the Americans. General De Gaulle, a former President of France, and no friend to Communism, was one of the first to recognise the political realities of the war in south-east Asia. Clio the Muse 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Read "The Best and the Brightest" by David Halberstam for the most comprehensive answer to this question. - Melancholydanish —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.13.4.53 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I hold a rather unconventional view of war: it's a good way to weed out non-hackers from the elite. So how can you consider an event that costs thousands of lives to be a disaster when in fact it has tidied up the gene (and meme) pool? You'd have to be naive or facetious to suppose that all human deaths are a terrible tragedy. Vranak


 * Are you in the elite? Each death is a tragedy to somebody, Vranak.  Even Stalin seemed to admit as much when he observed One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.  For you death would seem to be merely a statistic.  Your opinion is even contrary to that of the Marquis de Sade, of all people, who believed there was nothing more immoral than war.  It is not wise to pass judgements on the value, or otherwise, of the lives of others, even 'non-hackers', to use your phrase.  Ask yourself who is to be judged and who is to judge?  Besides, what you have written here is completely beside the point.  Clio the Muse 10:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Each death is a tragedy to someone, of course. But to categorically say 'the Vietnam war was a tragedy', if you have no personal connection to anyone who died or suffered through it is a bit mendacious in my view. And any kind of sober scholarly approach should aspire to the same sort of cool dispassion that historians would have when discussing, say, the Battle of Thermopylae. Vranak


 * I have to agree with Vranak on this one. The question of the assignment is "Why the war in Vietnam was a disaster?". The simple answer is: "Because the US lost. For if the USA hadn't lost the war it wouldn't be considered a disaster at all." Being a bit more abstract all this talk of lost generation, lost war, Vietnam trauma, massacres, etc only happened because the USA lost the war. It would have been considered a glorious achievement of stopping the aggression of North Vietnam, which also helped to stop the spread communism, and protected the liberty of our ally South Vietnam, if only the US had won. The bad stuff would have been denied and covered up as usual and then widely neglected and forgotten. One should compare it with the Korean war. Whats is the big diff? Two wars, one which the US won and the other which the US lost. One is considered a glorious achievement while the other is considered a disaster which traumatized a whole generation. Flamarande 00:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was a little taken aback by your comment, Vranak. While it wasn't a personal attack (because you weren't aiming it any one person), it was a generalised attack on anyone who holds such a view.  I think it breaches the spirit of WP:NPA, if not its letter.  JackofOz 10:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll take back the part about naive and facetious. Vranak


 * Better replace it with 'political correct'. Vranak you have a strange sense of humor and I honestly think that your view of war is a ironic and sarcastic joke (I also like that sense of humor alot :). In the case it isn't, let me explain how this view ("that the unfit die in war leaving the fittest to improve the genepool") is simply wrong. 1st) many of the unfit survive the war right from the start: the cripples, the mad, the criminals, and the mentally challenged, etc are not recruited into the military right at the beginning. Therefore they will survive while the "sound of mind and body" get turned into cannon-fodder. 2nd), the best soldiers die as often as the 'second rate' ones. The elite gets picked for the most dangerous missions where many times they simply die. When a platoon gets hit by a bomb the better soldier will die alongside the 'shame of the platoon' as the bomb itself makes no distinction whatsoever. The leading hero will be shot first by the enemy. ETC. In truth: the lucky survive war. Picking the lions as comparison we see that: Male lions don't send other lions to fight for them (the leaders of human society send others). Lions aren't organized in armies. ETC. So much for the view that human war is a kind of selection of the fittest like the scraps in the animal kingdom. Flamarande 13:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No actually, I do not have a strange sense of humour. I don't confine myself to expressing bland platitudes, that's all. Vranak


 * Hmm, no political correctness for you then. Still your view about war ("it's a good way to weed out non-hackers from the elite") is simply wrong. Flamarande 00:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So war is bad, and that's a matter of faith for you. I sort of agree -- war is not ideal, it's not ultimately acceptable. However the way to eliminate war isn't to simply say "war is bad" with as much conviction as you can muster. It's a matter of understanding the root cause of war. Vranak


 * Hey, I never said that all wars are bad. Nothing is absolute and I realized long ago that everything is relative. It is mainly a question of one's side POV and some wars simply had to be done (in my own POV). But too many wars are simply stupid; they are being waged for stupid reasons, manipulated by retarded politicians, conducted in an incompetent fashion (dim-wited officers) with way too much unnecessary casualties for a absolutly impossible goal. I fully agree with Clausewitz: War is a continuation of politics by other means. Let noone be fooled; politicians manipulate the blood-thirsty mob with propaganda like nationalism, honor, "the others side wants to rape our women and eat our children-BS" until they have enough popular support to declare war. They widely proclaim an goal which is very very difficult to achieve (requires major commitment, tremendous resources, and plenty of sacrifices). Then they want to wage the war without spending too much money, starving the troops of the necessary vital resources. The war starts to go bad. In the end they lose and who is to blame? Surely those who opposed war, these internal traitors who stabbed us in the back. The mob really knows better, but it doesn't matter. They want to believe. As senator Roark from Sin city so beautifully and truthfully resumed: ''Power don't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you've got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got 'em by the balls. Flamarande 12:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Far be it from me to argue with the wisdom of Frank Miller and friends. Vranak


 * Then you agree that your rationale was wrong as demonstrated? Flamarande 10:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm again. I doubt there's any such thing as a "wrong view" about what war is about.  We may disagree, but views and opinions, particularly about indefinable purposes or causes, are equally valid.  JackofOz 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Too bad that the view was about the results and not about the purpose or causes of war. We certainly can analyze the results and a view that wars are good to improve the gene poll is plain wrong (see my answer above). Flamarande 01:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)