text:
Talk:Japanese American Internment/Archive 1

Japanese vs. Japanese American
Maveric149 writes: 19:50 . . Maveric149 (Talk) (Moving back to Japanese internment in the United States; Anon YOU did not write this article and that is where the history is; There were also Japanese nationals who were interned)

I'm a wiki newbie, and I thought that nobody writes the articles. I changed the listing to . IMHO, while there were Japanese nationals interned, the largest majority (2/3) were U.S. citizens. Plus, while, strictly speaking, the remainder were Japanese nationals, it was not legal for them to naturalize, and more than a few desired (and attempted) to do so prior to WWII. In this sense, it is fair and reasonable to call them Japanese Americans, whether or not they were citizens.

I just believe it is a misnomer to say "Japanese internment" since it implies that most were Japanese nationals. It's not like the "Taliban internment," in which the Taliban/al Qaeda partisans --regardless of whether they were "combatants"--were apprehended/captured elsewhere and then detained.  the Japanese nationals were "Japanese" and not "American" but--to repeat-it is fair and reasonable to call them .

It's not clear from your comment, but it seems that you favor listing "in the United States" as part of the entry. If so, then something like "Japanese American Internment in the United States" sounds redundant. I agree.

One could debate this ad nauseum, which neither of us would like to do. I'd like to get a sense of your take on this issue, though.

And yes, I registered so that we can facilitate a discussion here. --Ishu

 * Ishu, pages can be moved using the "Move this page" command on the left hand side of your screen. You can sign your name with 4 "~".

 * I agree with Ishu that the word "American" should somehow make its way into the title. True, some of those interned with Japanese nationals, but are to imply that the American nationals who were interned were not Americans? It doesn't hurt to use the liberal definition of labelling any immigrant as American, citizen or not. Other encyclopedias, such as Encarta, define Japanese American as anyone of Japanese ancestry who is either a resident or citizen of the US. Citizenship is not necessary to be "American" I would say... --Jiang 21:30 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Hm. What is an American? A citizen of the US is most definitely and unambiguously an American but I see your point about government blockage. However, I'm sure there were still many thousands of Japanese residents of the US who didn't really care about naturalization (many students would have fallen under this category). Who is Japanese? Now a Japanese American, no matter what your defintion, is still Japanese, right? So "Japanese" is a more inclusive term and covers all persons of Japanese ancestry ; not just the ones who were American (whatever that is). And the exclusion zones did not make these types of distinctions - they applied to all persons of Japanese ancestry. --mav 21:43 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Is a Japanese American "Japanese"? American Heritage says yes . Encarta uses "Japanese American" --Jiang 21:50 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that citizenship is the most unambiguous definition. I do not agree that we _must_ use the most unambiguous definition. Implicitly, the definition I'd use is that the unmodified term , in its common usage, implies Japanese _nationals_.

I believe that if we were to ask someone to define , most people would say it means "people _from_ Japan" which is what _I_ am saying regardless. The Nisei, by definition, are certainly Americans by any criteria, and most--2/3--of those interned were Nisei--American Americans to be un-PC about it. My point is that the most _inclusive_ term is , especially since we seem to agree that defining  is not as unambiguous as we might like it to be, and  is at least as ambiguous, and in my view, misleading.

Given that most of the Japanese immigrants (a) had come for economic reasons--many had no land or inheritance in Japan due to primogeniture, (b) had established themselves in the U.S. with farms, businesses, etc., and (c) had U.S.-citizen children, it is reasonable to believe that at least a sizeable minority of the 40,000 Japanese nationals would have chosen to be citizens if they had been given the choice--just as immigrants of other ethnicities have since the dawn of the union. It is highly unlikely that any sizeable minority was composed of students or any other indifferent group.

That many Japanese immigrants stayed after the war and naturalized after the 1955 McCarran-Walter Act may be neither here nor there (Japan was a mess), but may also be an indication of the immigrants' prior preference, having established their lives in the U.S.

To Mav's last point, the "exclusion zones" applied to "all" persons of Japanese ancestry. Mav looks at it from the point that they didn't distinguish between who was a Japanese national and who was an U.S. citizen of Japanese ancestry. From a historical perspective, the key point is that the exclusion order applied to "Americans" (citizens, by Mav's definition) as well as "aliens."

While people of German and Italian ancestry also were interned, there is no historical event of "German Internment in the United States" because the judicial error--massive violation of the Bill of Rights--did not occur with German Americans--however we define them.

The Japanese American Internment is a unique (we hope) event in history and American Justice. I belive it is proper to describe it as a _Japanese American_ event because the American-ness of the detainees (regardless of citizenship status) is the core of the issue and is indisputable, both for the immigrants and the native-born.ishu 23:40 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just saw Mav's message to ANON re: moving pages w/o attribution. I am really sorry! Now that I have an account, I can move pages the right way with all the attributions. However, I'm not in a hurry to move this page, at least until we continue this dialogue and see where it goes. ishu 00:03 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * If this debate goes on, I recommend Japanese American and Japanese internment in the United States to include both the East Asian American's and Caucasian American's POV. Yeah, that looks verbose, doesn't it? In any case, I am against of ignoring the fact that many Americans of Japanese ancestry (a.k.a. Japanese American) were interned.

 * --Menchi 22:21 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * p.s. The divider is for separate unrelated discussions, not replies or Qs of the same discussion. I think it was Jiang, not mav, who encourage your move.

 * Sounds too wordy...According to google, the phrase "Japanese internment" results in 14,900 pages and "Japanese American internment" results in 12,200. The LOC, PBS, DOJ   use "Japanese American internment." Whereas, the sites that use "Japanese internment" are relatively obscure . (Check closely, most prominent sites on that search still use "Japanese-American".) Apparently, the government has no problem with using the phrase "Japanese American" --Jiang 08:04 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * OK - I withdraw my objection. So since "American" is now going to be in the title can we get rid of "in the United States"? I like short titles. :-) --mav

 * Mav, since you have administrator rights, would you do the honors? This is a neat place.  Thanks for the contributions, all!  ishu 11:21 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Sure. Is Japanese American internment a good title? --mav

 * Personally, I'm in favor of capitalizing the 'i' in 'internment', because this entry refers to a unique event such as the Nanjing Massacre, Scopes Trial, and Haymarket Riot, and should be treated as a proper noun.

 * If anyone feels strongly about the lower-case 'i', I won't quarrel over capitalization, since there are entries such as Tiananmen Square protest of 1989. I didn't find any guidance in the Manual of Style.  Jiang, Menchi, anyone, Bueller, do you have insights to add on this point? ishu 17:09 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I should have began with "Yes, that is just the title I was thinking of." Sorry.  ishu 20:42 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it according to Ishu's proposal. Googling "japanese american internment" turned up many sites with the "i" capitalized. --Jiang

The Second-Generation
I read or heard a few days ago -- from where I couldn't remember -- that a high percentage of the interned were Nisei. Any stat on that? --Menchi 06:27, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

 * IIRC it was 2/3 but that percentage, of course, went down as more Sansei were born in camp. --mav 08:08, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Renaming this page
I moved this page back from Japanese American relocation. You should confer on this page before making any drastic move like that and change all the double redirects after you move. --Jiang 00:14, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Why? Maybe I don't understand the move policy.  I have heard "Be bold in updating pages".  The double redirects may be a problem, but not a reason to move it back to a misleading entry title. -- VV 05:35, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current title? On google: "Japanese American relocation" - 3490 sites; "Japanese American Internment" - 16200 sites. The US government's various websites use "Japanese American Internment". --Jiang 06:06, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * The "google test" should not be the final word, particularly in reference to a widespread myth. "Walt Disney frozen" - 22600 sites; "Walt Disney cremated" - 891 sites.  The event was most generally an exclusion, and as a corollary a relocation of people from the exclusion zone.  One could write an article about internment, but it should be about the handful who were interned.  Wikipedia should not propagate myths.

 * The government at the time called them relocation camps and centers, not internment camps/centers. It was the WRA, not the WIA.  It was an exclusion order, not an internment order.  If the government today is using ahistorical and inaccurate terminology, we should not copy them. -- VV 11:19, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Internment" is not limited to prisons. These people were confined and forbidden to venture back to the coast. How is this not internment?

Encarta, Britannica, and Columbia Enclyclopedias all use "internment". Of course the US government would want to tone down the severity of its own actions. Why trust the government in 1941 rather than the government of today? That doesnt make sense. --Jiang 22:03, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Not being allowed to return home may be something, but it is not "internment". One cannot be "interned" in 80% of the United States.  By this logic, Roman Polanski is "interned" in the entire world minus the US.  And we don't have to trust anyone, the facts are available.

 * There is also an NPOV angle on this. Many dispute it was internment; no one disputes it was relocation.  Therefore the latter term should be used. -- VV 23:26, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

VV - history uses the them "internment", thus that is what we use. Anything else would be revisionism. --mav

 * Should certain elements of this article be restored? --Jiang 22:52, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I checked for each paragraph and found that very little was deleted by VV other than redundancies. The added material does need to be NPOVed - it almost sounds like it is making excuses for internment. --mav

 * "Making excuses"? There was a reason for the exclusion, which deserves to be told.  The previous versions dismissively claim it was just "racial bias", which is absurd but oddly did not seem to bother anyone till me.  And yes I took care to not delete information. -- VV 23:26, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Internment vs. Relocation
I've chosen to start a new section distinct from renaming this page.

Several dictionary definitions refer to confinement during wartime, but vary as to the nature of the confinement. The dictionary definitions share an emphasis on wartime confinement, and one specifically refers to foreign troops. Since Japanese Americans had already been classified as 4-C "Enemy Aliens" and since this was the basis for EO9066 and everything that derived from it, from the standpoint of the U.S. government and military, internment is not an unreasonable term.

But the key question of internment, from the perspective of these definitions, hinges on whether the Japanese Americans were confined, i.e. whether they were required to report to the camps.

While in a literal sense it was true that they were "free to settle anywhere outside the exclusion area," as a practical matter, that was a severe hardship. Travel on short notice to another area was uncommon and difficult in those years. EO9066 was signed on Feb 19, 1942; on March 2, Public Proclamation No. 1 was issued, defining the Military Areas that would form the exclusion zone. The first exclusion order was written three weeks later, on March 24; the last exclusion order was written June 6.[See this collection of exclusion orders.] Less than four months elapsed between the authorization for exclusion and the last order, which is not a lot of time for people to uproot, make arrangements for their businesses and belongings, and find another place to go if they were to do so "voluntarily."

Although the Japanese Americans were not required to report to the camps, the term relocation doesn't fit well either because it implies a voluntary sense that I don't think is appropriate. Relocation' implies that there were many options for the Japanese Americans, that they simply had to "relocate" from where they were.

I am not aware of any WCCA/WRA-sponsored trains to New York, Chicago, etc. to assist the Japanese Americans in leaving the exclusion zone. I haven't heard of any WRA programs to find alternate locations outside the exclusion area--at least not at the beginning. Of course, the WRA did transport them thousands of miles to Wyoming and Arkansas. Wouldn't it have been less expensive to pay for a train without the necessity of providing housing,etc.? Unless security was more important, and then it's less of a "choice."

Since the WCCA was responsible for the exclusion, how it accommodated the removal should guide what we call this action. If there were real options for the Japanese Americans that were facilitated by the WCCA, then relocation is a fair term. However, the more compulsory and controlled it was, the more appropriate is internment as a name.

The exclusion orders started out fairly vague, such as No. 7 of April 20, though later orders, such as No. 92 of May 23 were more specific. All of them are clearly compulsory, and specify a short time frame from the issuance to execution of the orders. We could split hairs and argue that those affected by the later orders could have read the writing on the wall, and "voluntarily" "evacuated" after seeing what was happening to Japanese Americans in other parts of the exclusion zone. But even so, I'd argue that we'd have two groups, the "early" internees and the "later" relocatees.

FWIW, the official government term of the time, 'evacuation' is clearly inappropriate, as it implies that evacuation is for the benefit of the evacuees. --ishu 23:40, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This 1943 WRA document states:
 * all further voluntary evacuation was halted by the Western Defense Command on March 29 and plans were initiated by WRA for establishing relocation centers with sufficient capacity and facilities to handle the entire evacuated population for as long as might be necessary. ["Relocation of Japanese-Americans." War Relocation Authority Publication dated May 1943]

That sounds like internment to me. No choice involved, and no time to make a "voluntary" "evacuation." Changing references to internment. --ishu 03:04, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I have been too busy the last week to give your various comments the attention they deserve, but I will try to address these points now.

 * 1. Yes, of course the exclusion was not voluntary; I didn't realize there was any confusion on this point. But how on Earth does that make it an internment?  Paying my electric bill is not voluntary, but it's not internment.  I am just at a loss for what else to say to this logic.  Initially Japanese were supposed to on their initiative leave the exclusion zone and find accommodations outside it, such as in hotels and the like.  Soon it became clear this was not adequate, and registration, transportation, and alternative housing followed.

 * 2. Your concern about connotations of words seems rather selective. Relocation does not to me imply that other options existed (but in any case other options did exist).  Evacuation does not necessarily mean for the benefit of the evacuees; please vacate the premises does not necessarily mean for your own good.  But internment — that clearly refers to imprisonment, not in any subtle shade of meaning but quite directly.  And imprisonment it was not.  There is no doubt which term is the most problematic.  Maybe a more neutral word can be found, but I think exclusion, evacuation, and relocation are all head and shoulders over internment.

 * 3. Your question, Wouldn't it have been less expensive to pay for a train without the necessity of providing housing,etc.? Yes, it would have!  It would have been much easier to dump thousands of Japanese, homeless and lost, on the streets in some alien midwestern locale.  And if one believes that the US is some sort of "racist" boogeyman, one will never understand why this was not done.  But of course it is obvious to those without this belief.  Simple decency dictates that one should do something to alleviate the circumstances created by the government-mandated evacuation.  Hence the camps.

 * One of the cruel ironies of this whole story is that if the US had not done the right thing by providing houses for the displaced Japanese population, the smear of internment could never have been made.

 * 4. Yes, moving away would have been a hardship for many, so again hence the camps. However, the government did provide grants, scholarships, and other such opportunities for residents to move away, which perhaps I should add to the text sometime.  This is noteworthy because it goes against the (already demonstrably false) notion that the US was trying to keep them all bottled up in desert prisons.  And how else could this be internment?

 * In fact, the camps, in providing free housing, free health care, etc., were an attractive alternative to living on the outside. But your logic seems to imply that the nicer the camps were, the more like prisons they were, since leaving would be an even less attractive option.  I think it should be clear what's wrong with this way of thinking.

 * On an unrelated note, it might be good for the sake of sanity to remove all the discussion on this page up through the end of July. I'd do it myself but I don't know what the Wikipedia conventions are (e.g., should a linked subpage be created to hold it, or can it just be left in the page history?). -- VV 05:18, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Involuntary + Relocation + Confinement = Internment

 * Overall response to Verily
 * Nothing in Verily's response addresses the definitions of internment referenced above. It is not clear whether Verily objects to them.  The key question of internment, from the perspective of these definitions, hinges on whether the Japanese Americans were confined, not whether the camps were prisons, as asserted repeatedly by Verily.

 * My central point is that the WCCA orders meet generally accepted definitions of internment, which do not require that the internees be held in facilities that are labeled as, or otherwise qualify as prisons. In sum:  involuntary + relocation + confinement = internment.

 * Verily's (1): "...exclusion was not voluntary; I didn't realize there was any confusion on this point..... Paying my electric bill is not voluntary, but it's not internment."

 * Verily has introduced confusion regarding the involuntary nature of the internment, by adding language such as:

 * the creation of temporary relocation camps in the nation's interior to house those with nowhere else to go. edit of 23:13, 1 Oct, emphasis added

 * few Japanese were actually imprisoned, with most being free to settle anywhere outside the Exclusion Area. edit of 06:47 9 Oct, emphasis added

 * The question is not whether the exclusion was voluntary. The issue is whether being in the camps was voluntary, which it was not, in any meaningful sense.  What Verily and others wish to call "relocation" was an involuntary relocation to confinement facilities, consistent with the definition of internment, especially during wartime for people considered to be "enemy aliens."

 * The exclusion areas were defined on March 2, and voluntary evacuation was prohibited 27 days later on March 29 (see original comments). The Japanese Americans were offered no meaningful alternatives to the WRA facilities.  So they were confined to the WCCA/WRA facilities, involuntarily.  Most were not free to go anywhere else, inside or outside the exclusion area, so there was no "nowhere else to go."  And they were considered to be enemy aliens.  Verily's example of an electric bill is simply off-point, as one does not receive electric service involuntarily (in all seriousness, c.f. Ted Kaczynski).

 * Verily's (2): Relocation does not to me imply that other options existed (but in any case other options did exist)....please vacate the premises does not necessarily mean for your own good....But internment — that clearly refers to imprisonment...quite directly....There is no doubt which term is the most problematic. Maybe a more neutral word can be found...

 * Other options did not exist, except during 27 days in March 1942, and later, after the Japanese Americans were already confined. WRA facilities--prisons or not--were "confinement facilities" whose "residents" were not voluntarily there.  The definitions of internment referenced above do not necessitate imprisonment, and certainly not "quite directly."  Offering extra choices later doesn't change the involuntary nature of the original "relocation."  Verily's counter-example of vacate is not on point (vacate<>evacuate).

 * On alternative terms and connotations: One cannot be "excluded" into a particular area (see Verily's earlier Roman Polanski reference).  Relocation and evacuation do not in any way connote confinement, only movement "away from" a particular area.  Internment includes the connotation of confinement, yet is distinct from imprisonment.  Internment is problematic only if one (mistakenly) requires imprisonment.

 * If someone were to demonstrate that in the Assembly Centers a large-scale effort was made to provide non-confined options for "relocation," the term relocation might seem more appropriate.

 * Verily's (3): Simple decency dictates that one should do something to alleviate the circumstances created by the government-mandated evacuation.  Hence the camps....[I]f the US had not done the right thing by providing houses for the displaced Japanese population... the smear of internment could never have been made.

 * Surely Verily does not mean that the camps were the only humane way to implement the exclusion order. There are many ways to have "alleviate[d] the circumstances created by the government-mandated evacuation."  The government chose only one option:  one that involved involuntary confinement, i.e., internment.  Offering extra choices later doesn't change the involuntary nature of the original "relocation."

 * Since some believe that military necessity justified the exclusion, why not also justify the involuntary confinement on military necessity? I believe that's exactly what McCloy and Bendetsen did.  I just disagree that it was necessary to intern all 112,000 (+/-) people in order to do it.

 * Internment is a "smear" only if it were true that the Japanese Americans "chose" to be in the WRA camps. They did not voluntarily select the WRA camps from a smorgasbord of choices.  It wasn't voluntary, there was no selection, no smorgasbord, no choices.  Only the barracks and horse stalls, as "provided" by the WCCA.  The WRA camps were not prisons, but U.S. prisons--in the name of "simple decency"--are required to provide a minimal standard of housing, so no clarity is gained by showing (correctly) that the WRA provided it.

 * Verily's (4): ...government did provide...opportunities for residents to move away, which perhaps I should add to the text sometime.  This...goes against the...notion that the US was trying to keep them all bottled up in desert prisons.... In fact, the camps, in providing free housing, free health care, etc., were an attractive alternative to living on the outside.

 * Verily puts words in my logic. All I have claimed is that the WCCA orders meet generally accepted definitions of internment, which do not require that the internees be held in prisons.  Anyway, prisons provide free housing and health care, so no clarity is gained by showing (correctly) that the WRA provided them.  Shelters for evacuees from disaster, etc., also provide free housing and health care, but without guards, barbed wire, etc.  However, evacuees are free to leave shelters, and generally are not required to utilize them in the first place.

 * FWIW, again Verily claims that there were more "attractive alternatives" as though any alternatives were offered, except during 27 days in March 1942, and later, after the Japanese Americans were already confined. No evidence has been shown that the release-sponsorship programs were made known to the internees during early stages of the relocation.  Prior to implementation of alternative programs, involuntary + relocation + confinement = internment.  Offering extra choices later doesn't change the involuntary nature of the original "relocation."
 * --ishu 04:32, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * There is much to respond to here; it seems your key assertion is that this is "internment" since there was some interim "confinement" in the sense that those Japanese who had not left by a certain date were forced to go to a camp, and could only later employ other options. This means the "internment" refers only to a short period of time — but the article is presumably about the entire multi-year experience, not this small early segment.  The whole war-long event was a relocation.

 * I don't have much else to say about the rest. Yes I know vacate<>evacuate duh, but the words have a very tight connection to this native speaker.  The question about the extent of guards and barbed wire seems to be an unresolved issue, as the Bendetsen testimony I gave indicated, so it should not be assumed.  Other comments seem to be misunderstandings.  My point about free housing and health care were not arguments that this makes it unlike prison, but rather that the fact that residents might lack good alternatives is because the camps were an attractive enough place (due to gov't expense) that people didn't want to leave; I thought my text was pretty clear on this point.  Finally, justification is a separate issue.

 * I may be wrong, but your distinction between internment and imprisonment seems to be that the latter has to be in a place called prisons, which I find problematic. In any event, I maintain my original point.  Relocation, exclusion all describe the situation neutrally, whatever weak connotations you may feel those words have.  Internment is POV and inflammatory and implies something about the whole experience that isn't true. -- VV 06:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Verily is correct here:
 * this is "internment" since there was some interim "confinement" in the sense that those Japanese who had not left by a certain date were forced to go to a camp, and could only later employ other options.

 * but off the mark right after:
 * This means the "internment" refers only to a short period of time — but the article is presumably about the entire multi-year experience, not this small early segment.

 * First off, a year is not a "short" time (or "small early segment") to lose one's civil rights. Next, in a facile sense, it seems wrong to say they were interned in the WRA facilities, and then, later, they were merely "relocated," (even though they were in the same WRA facilities).  But the main reason to retain the label of internment for the whole event is because that's how it started out.  The JAs were not "relocated" to the WRA facilities, except in a revisionist sense.  They were there as a result of internment.  Everything else should be considered in light of that.

 * Truly humane policies were enacted, especially after the WRA recognized how little of a threat was posed by most Japanese Americans. But they were humane policies enacted within the context of a forcible confinement, though the confinement was eventually lifted in a literal sense.

 * As long as the Japanese American Internment is contrasted with other examples of detention, confinement, and internment (and we have a stub to begin this distinction), I do not understand why Verily sees use of the term internment as an inflammatory smear.

 * --ishu 06:59, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * First of all, the first quote is flagrantly out of context, as it is missing the crucial prefix "it seems your key assertion is that", and instead attributes that view to me. Second, "how it started" is ridiculous; it started with an exclusion order.  Or, if you don't believe that, would you call it the "Japanese American train ride"?

 * Also, what's your source that for "a year" they were stuck in the camp, unaware of the option they had to leave (this is the basis of your claim, right?, that they weren't at first aware that they could leave)? This is crazy.  If they couldn't immediately leave the day after they got there, it would probably only be because of administrative backlog.  They were free to go anywhere outside the exclusion zone.  You have never provided any evidence to the contrary, only noting they were forced to the Assembly Areas if they had not complied with the exclusion by a certain date. -- VV 02:38, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


text:
Direct Hits (The Who album)

Direct Hits is the first UK compilation album and the fourth UK LP released by The Who. It collects singles, B-sides, and album tracks originally recorded for Reaction Records and Track Records between 1966 and 1968.

Earlier Who recordings from 1965, such as "My Generation", were released in the UK by Brunswick Records and were not available for this release due to music licensing issues. Thus the collection is not representative of the Who's hit recordings up to this point.

Direct Hits shares a few songs with the earlier US compilation album Magic Bus: The Who on Tour, but is otherwise unrelated to that release. Surprisingly, it does not include the song "Magic Bus", which had reached No. 26 on the UK Singles Chart during the summer of 1968. Until the early 1980s this was the only album to include Who rarities such as "In the City", "Dogs", and a version of the Rolling Stones' song "The Last Time".

Release history
Original 1968 UK LP copies were released in both stereo and mono. The album did not sell as well as other UK Who albums and it was deleted in the 1970s. It was released in Czechoslovakia in 1985 with a different artwork titled The Best of The Who. It was also re-issued on vinyl in 1980 in Japan. In 2006 the mono version was made available in the US as a limited-edition vinyl re-issue by Classic Records. This release was pressed in regular weight (150 gram) and heavy weight (200 gram) versions.

A CD version was released as a limited edition in Japan in 2007, which is one of only a few releases with the original mono single version of "I Can See for Miles" on an authorized CD.

Track listing
All songs written by Pete Townshend except where noted.

Side One
 * 1) "Bucket T" (Altfield, Christian, Torrence) – 2:08
 * 2) "I'm a Boy" – 2:36
 * 3) "Pictures of Lily" – 2:43
 * 4) "Doctor! Doctor!" (Entwistle) – 2:53
 * 5) "I Can See for Miles" – 3:55
 * 6) "Substitute" – 3:47

Side Two
 * 1) "Happy Jack" – 2:11
 * 2) "The Last Time" (Mick Jagger, Keith Richards) – 2:50
 * 3) "In the City" (Entwistle, Moon) - 2:19
 * 4) "Call Me Lightning" – 2:19
 * 5) "Mary Anne with the Shaky Hand" – 2:05
 * 6) "Dogs" – 3:03

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Direct Hits (The Who album)


text:
Talk:Japanese American Internment/Archive 2

Further discussion
Removed text:
 * Surviving photographs of the camps which depict such facilities are probably from Tule Lake.

Sorry, but photos showing the guard stations at Manzanar clearly show the Sierra Nevada in the background. --mav

Removed text:
 * However, Congressional testimony given in 1984 by Colonel Karl Bendetson, who managed the evacuation, paints a very different picture of the other camps. He states that the "assembly centers" (where people were held before dispersion to camps) were in fact guarded "to protect the evacuees", but of the "relocation centers" he says "there was not a guard at all at any of them", with the exception of Tule Lake.

This is absurd. In 1942 guards killed two internees at Manzanar. They must have had great gun sights to see the internees from Modoc County 500 or so miles to the north. I've also visited Manzanar twice and have seen both the guard station on the outside perimeter and the internal perimeter police staion. This link also has photos of sentry posts and watch towers in relocation centers outside of Tule Lake. We needn't include such bad disinformation. --mav

 * Well, Bendetsen (typed his name wrong above) testified as stated, but I can't exclude the possibility he was wrong. However, there were riots and the like in the camps which caused forces to be temporarily brought in.  In fact, he says,

 * When I returned on temporary duty, to my amazement, I learned that in every one of the ten centers there were grave problems. It seems that during the intervening months in each of the ten centers many militant activists had surfaced. Agitation was rife. There were fires; there were pitched battles. WRA had to provide heavy guard forces. All was in turmoil.

 * I believe the places with the big pro-Japan riots were Poston, Manzanar, and Tule Lake (before it was turned into an internment camp). Although I don't know about the incident you mention, certainly if guards killed two residents, it was probably in the context of something similar to a riot.

 * Since we're trading links, there is a discussion of Manzanar here, which portrays it in a more positive light. I don't know about the guard stations (though there were of course police); perhaps some were built for temporary use or used by the police.  I'll have to recheck sources for more details. -- VV 05:35, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * The killings were in the context of a riot, yes. Your link is interesting; according to the POV of the author, Japanese Americans should be grateful that they were interned. I think you are reading confused sources; security was in fact high from the start of internment (otherwise what is the point?) to the end of 1943. After that point security became lax as the outcome of the war became more and more obvious.

 * In Manzanar, for example, security was lessoned greatly and selected internees were even allowed to fish in the Sierra Nevada unsupervised for the last year and a half of the war. But let's not pretend that conditions were always so lax. Oh and the guard quarters and guard station were one of the few permanent (well-built) structures at Manzanar - the guard station is still there and so is the cement/stone foundation of the guard quarters (the rest of the building was sold in the late 1940s). --mav

 * What is the point? I think you've missed it.  The point is that there was an exclusion zone Japanese were excluded from.  People not in the zone were unaffected.  The camps were free housing for people who were required to leave but had nowhere to go.  Any Japanese, including in the camps, were free to go to Vermont or Texas or wherever, just not in the exclusion zone.

 * How are my sources confused? Bendetsen was the guy who ran the operation.  Maybe he understated the matter, and security was high at certain times and places.  But the basic fact is that people were free to go to most of the country, and so the camps were not prisons.

 * "... should be grateful that they were interned." This statement is almost too ridiculous to reply to.  All the writer was saying there is that a spontaneous community grew and thrived there, that the Japanese had plenty of opportunities, and that the camp was not Buchenwald on American soil, as many propagandists would like us to think. -- VV 11:19, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Forcing people, most of whom were American citizens by birth, to abandon their homes, jobs and businesses is perfectly fine then. Thanks for clarifying. And the guy that ran the operation is probably the most POV person you could choose as a source; it is in his best interests to paint the most rosy picture possible of the internment. --mav

 * It seems to me like you've abandoned intellectual honesty. No one said it was "perfectly fine", as you must know.  Killing tens of millions is not perfectly fine either, but many believe the War to defeat the Axis was justified anyhow.  Bendetsen may have been biased, but your previous accusation was that he was "confused".  And I think he is much less POV than those slated to receive $20,000. -- VV 23:26, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes - the people who received the mistreatment will tend to have more emotional harm and therefore a stronger POV than the people responsible for causing that harm. If the US government had been intellectually honest in the 1940s then it would have created a German exclusion zone on the east coast and would have evacuated Hawaii of all Japanese. There were known cases of German spies on the east coast and known cases of Japanese spies on Hawaii (at least before the attack on Pearl), but ethnic cleansing can only go so far since Japanese were vital to Hawaii's economic strength and ditto for the German's on the east coast (although German culture and language were suppressed). --mav

 * I take note that VerilyVerily (presumably a Jesus quote from some particular Protestant translations) -- in the paragraph about Japanese property being protected--makes no mention of real estate-- or the fact that most were forced to relinquish or sell these assets, on account that they would be unable to pay for rent on them. While a lot of this is good work--VV might be clear that his quasi-apologist take on things is not-- by any stretch of imagination-- NPOV. 戴&#30505sv 11:12, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)PS-- and the "conditions in camps" section is blank. LOL. PPS:Also "internment" shouldnt be capilized.-SV
 * I should note: the difference between "making excuses" and "slander" is broad-- and is "perhaps" enough of a POV split to warrant some arbitration here-- meaning partisans=hands off for a while. That said, its not unhealthy to have this kind of debate, as the only problems with the article now are that it has that apologist tone, which is unnecessary-- we're an encyclopedia-- we didnt actually do this stuff.-戴&#30505sv 12:11, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, no doubt many more details could be added. I considered adding that even pianos were shipped to the camps free of charge to underscore the point, but decided that was excessive detail.  The article says that property was protected but losses was still suffered, which I think covers your case.  And I do think my revision is NPOV:  Events like this come about as part of a historical process.  The decisions made were not "out of the blue" (nor just "racial bias"), but in response to other events.  One cannot understand it without understanding the why, and that means sympathetically examining the contexts and motives of the decision-makers.  I would, e.g., feel the same way about explaining why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

 * As for POV, I was frankly appalled that the "racial bias" charge sat unquestioned for so long. And yet my changes seem to have created a stir.  As for partisans hands off, yes, I feel similarly, which is why I have not touched the article (other than reverting your duplication) since the discussion started.  However, no counter to my last set of arguments re relocation vs internment has appeared (apart from mav's attempt to change the subject and present his "economic" theory).  I don't know how arbitration might work, but I feel my case is strong.

 * The blank section is deliberate; it's reserved for further work, which I might myself undertake. My name is not a Jesus anything.  I appreciate your comments. -- VV 23:36, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article as it is written now is POV. Shouldn't the first paragraph of the article be a place where one simply describes the situation? Why is it felt that the justification for the internment needs to begin in the first paragraph? Would it not be better to first lay out what is known to have heppened fully, and then let the various sides take their turns at justifying their interpretations of the historical record? RayKiddy 00:58, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Giving reader advice
Re: Jiang's deletion of advice against using "concentration camp". I don't think such advice is unreasonable or unprecedented. For instance, look under "determinant". In fact, more generally, Wikipedia has lots of advice, such as "Precautions" under sodium. Should we change all/any of these? Sv's partisan hands off proposal might be good here. P.s. I also object to the change to "tolerable"; mild torture is "tolerable", so that almost fails to say anything. -- VV 00:30, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * We only need to say that it could be confused with extermination camps. This fact can imply that it is best to avoid the term. Including this implication as part of the text is redundant.

 * We state that "fuck is invariably considered offensive in polite situations" instead of "it is best to avoid using fuck in polite situations" See the difference? The precautions under sodium deal with the properties of the substance itself. I don't agree with including the statement "This metal should be handled carefully at all times." Including such a precaution, espcecially in a history article, is inappropriate. determinant is a math article. Math and history are very different.

 * Whether the facilities were "tolerable", "livable", etc. are all up to personal opinion (of the people who lived in them). I will change it back to "livable". --Jiang 05:05, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Okay, the avoidance is a minor point, and you're probably right that the stated risk of confusion should be enough to deter reckless usage, so I'm happy with the change, just not sure about the principle. Math is indeed not history, but advice is still advice (and as a mathematician I'm not sure about that advice).  But the point is that there seemed to me lots of precedent, though maybe it is something we should try to move away from.  But excess words may not really help at all, e.g., in Tarot under Additional Resources, which has lots of opinion — "excellent", "best avoided", "worth tracking down" — and I don't think it would help to make that "considered excellent", "regarded as best avoided", etc.  You've been around Wikipedia longer than me, so maybe your sense of this is better than mine, but I don't see a firm line, and where advising against clearly confusing usage lies is not clear.

 * Yes, any appraisal of the facilities will necessarily be subjective, and I don't know what can be done. My reason for saying "livable" was to express the great difference from the Nazi camps to which they are so unfortunately frequently compared.  I have been to Auschwitz and the facilities were horrible (and I'm not referring to Birkenau), but one might still call them "tolerable". -- VV 07:23, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Resolving Jiang-VV (and others) Concerns
This is the first attempt to balance out some of the views here. I've moved the "concentration camp" language further down in Criticisms and reworded:

 * These camps are sometimes referred to as concentration camps, but the use of this loaded term should not be construed to mean they were on the same severity as Nazi Germany's extermination camps during that the war.

Better to illustrate than to tell people what to think. More edits to come. Fuzheado 07:49, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Few Interned"
I removed the following paragraph (formerly para 2), as it is grossly inaccurate.
 * This action is often referred to as internment; however, very few Japanese were actually imprisoned. Indeed, only 112,000 people were relocated for the duration of the war. The government of the United States officially apologized for this action in the 1980s and paid reparations.

The 1940 U.S. census reports a total of 254,918 Asian Americans of all ethnicities. That means that nearly half of all Asian Americans were detained. Nowhere near 10% of any other ethnic group was detained, in Crystal City or elsewhere.

It is true that "very few Japanese" were detained only if one nonsensically includes Japanese nationals residing in Japan. Likewise, government relocation (civil or otherwise) of "only" 100,000 people is a major undertaking. I could go on, but I think this covers the issue. --ishu 02:13, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree that the "only" is ridiculous; I was not responsible for it. As for the rest, I don't know what you're saying, but it doesn't sound like it justifies deleting this.  All were excluded, many were relocated, but few were interned.  See discussion above. -- VV 06:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * All were excluded; most were relocated; few were 'interned'. This goes to the definition of 'interned'.  More later--ishu 02:57, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"94% refused to serve"
To support a restoration of this claim:
 * 94% of miltary-aged men said they would not serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

I'd have to see at least one source, credible or otherwise. Most figures I've seen are like this one from the Smithsonian: 6,700 responded negatively to the loyalty questions. --ishu 02:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Dwight D. Murphey, The Journal of social, political, and economic studies, Spring 1993, p.109: "Colonel Frederick Wiener testified in 1984 that 'they asked first of the persons of military age whether they would serve in the Armed Forces of the United States; 94 percent of them gave negative answers.'" Restoring.... -- VV 06:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I found this link to a source (critical of the Internment) that references a a 1946 WRA document and a 1953 military document, stating that only 6% of military-aged men in the relocation centers volunteered for military service, not that 94% refused to serve.

 * This is not, in my view, a semantic distinction, since we're talking about the charge of disloyalty.

 * Either way, the military service issue is a dubious justification for EO9066, since it occurred after the Japanese Americans already had been "relocated"--as authorized by EO9066. Further, Japanese Americans--including U.S. citizens--were classified as 4-C enemy aliens in January, after which thousands of these same military-age men were discharged from active military service.  Having been kicked out of the military on guilt-by-racial-grouping only a few months before, it's hardly surprising that they declined to volunteer.  Finally, does anyone know what proportion of all military-aged men volunteered?  I'd believe it was higher than 6%, but considerably shy of 100%.  --ishu 23:15, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * My only source is the one I gave. I don't know what its relationship to the 6% figure is; it depends, I suppose, on what the options are (they might have been asked, "Are you volunteering or refusing to volunteer?").  I tend to agree that 94% is a high estimate for disloyalty.  If you have a better figure for giving a sense of this you should drop it in.  The key point is that Japanese did not have undivided loyalties to the US, a fact which should be obvious to anyone but seems to be routinely denied.  I'll have to recheck my sources for the other details you mention. -- VV 05:34, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Verily’s original paragraph read as follows:

 * The loyalties of the vast population of ethnic Japanese were also doubted.... 19,000 Japanese applied to be returned to Japan during the war. 94% of miltary-aged men said they would not serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

 * The key point is that Verily strings together several misleading claims to demonstrate "disloyalty" among the Japanese Americans. I showed that one figure (94%) was wrong.  Now Verily chages the subject (key point = "divided loyalties").

 * The meaning of the numbers is plain, if one simply reads the link (at #11). The best interpretation of these data is that 6% volunteered when asked, and the remainder volunteered later or were drafted. In any case, it is weak evidence of disloyalty, especially in light of the context I provide earlier.

 * Verily asks me to provide data for something neither I nor any reputable historian believes was widespread: Disloyalty among Japanese Americans.  Verily only provides misleading, after the fact examples of disloyalty.

 * Assuming that some Japanese Americans were involved in espionage activities, many, if not most Japanese Americans still had nothing to do with any subversive or disloyal activities, "a fact which should be obvious to anyone, but seems to be routinely denied" by Verily. Whether or not Verily is aware of this whole-part distinction, Verily's comments repeatedly show an inability to articulate this distinction.  While entirely human, it is clearly POV, contrary to Verily's earlier protestations. --ishu 04:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I misstated above: The best interpretation of these data is that 6% volunteered when asked, and the remainder volunteered later, were drafted, or refused to serve, as the no-no boys did.

 * Also, Verily's only reference to this was testimony 40 years after the fact. I'm not calling Col. Weiner a liar, but decades-old recollections are not always reliable sources for numbers.  --ishu 06:09, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * You did not show the figure was wrong, you cited another figure which may or may not be related. I gave a credible source for mine, and we can talk about issues with it.  I suggested finding a better, sharper statistic because I am trying to be agreeable and find a consensus, as per Wikipedia culture.  You seem to want to be confrontational, and now you've resorted to personal insults, absurd ones at that.  I am not changing the subject.  The population having divided loyalties = some loyal, some disloyal, many with mixed feelings.  Are you even listening to me and trying to understand what I'm saying, or are you looking for cheap ways to attack me?

 * No reputable historian believes there was widespread disloyalty? This is silly, but what does "widespread" even mean?  Fewer than a hundred spies?  A thousand?  I think the evidence suggests that there was enough disloyalty for the authorities to be concerned, and enough to be noteworthy.  Whether most were disloyal is not at issue, and I never claimed all were.  I don't see my figures as being "after the fact", but does it matter when relevant information was collected? -- VV 06:29, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Virtually all historians agree that the authorities were concerned about disloyalty. But that's not the same thing as there being evidence of actual disloyalty.  And it certainly doesn't begin to justify mass internment based on the suspicion of mere disloyalty.  Not all disloyal people will commit espionage.

 * Perhaps Verily and I are not communicating well. For example:
 * Col. Wiener provided numbers speaking to disloyalty in testimony. I referenced data that exactly paralleled his number (94%), but provided considerably more context:  only 6% in the camps volunteered.  Col. Wiener's testimony was more critical:  "refused to serve," implying much more "disloyalty."  Verily changes the subject, responding:
 * The key point is that Japanese did not have undivided loyalties to the US, a fact which should be obvious to anyone but seems to be routinely denied.
 * which, in the context of Verily's other edits, such as
 * The loyalties of the vast population of ethnic Japanese were also doubted
 * can easily be construed to mean that "the" (i.e., most) Japanese Americans were not 100% loyal to the U.S. I apologize for any hurt feelings.

 * Many reptuable historians agree that there was widespread ambivalence about the U.S. among the Japanese Americans. But Verily is preoccupied with providing evidence of disloyalty and espionage which is a completely different matter.

 * When information is collected is definitely relevant. There's a difference between someone's verbal recollection of what happened 40 years ago and a 35-year-old document that provides context and detail.  Four decades is after-the-fact.

 * --ishu 07:45, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * There is almost nothing here but the accusation I already responded to that I "changed the subject", which I did not. Maybe your later comment meant to lighten that by saying that was perhaps a misconstrual; anyway, hurt feelings or no, I think civility and a constructive attitude is called for.  As for ambivalence vs. loyalty, ambivalence among 120,000 people will translate to some fully disloyal and some fully loyal, unless your claim is that this means every single person was ambivalent.  Yes, recollection is imperfect, and that maybe should be taken into account, but it has nothing to do with the supposed "after the fact"-ness of it. -- VV 02:57, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * More on "after-the-fact"
 * Verily repeatedly cites actions that occurred after exclusion as evidence of disloyalty (e.g., demonstrations in the camps). Where is the evidence of disloyalty before exclusion?  How many pro-Japan demonstrations occurred before Pearl Harbor?  Or in January 1942, before EO9066?  And why not intern only the pro-Japan demonstrators?  This information is more relevant for judging the authorities' motiviation and decision context than what happened in the camps (i.e., after the fact).  The MAGIC decrypts are the most convincing evidence, mainly because they pre-date EO9066.  It might help if Verily could provide additional detail about their contents.

 * Whole-part distinction
 * Here are some examples from Verily that gloss over or utterly disregard the whole-part distinction between Japanese Americans and "disloyal" Japanese Americans.

 * The loyalties of the vast population of ethnic Japanese were also justifiably doubted. (article contribution)

 * The key point is that Japanese did not have undivided loyalties to the US, a fact which should be obvious to anyone but seems to be routinely denied. (Talk)

 * Many, including those born in America, had been educated in Japan (article contribution)

 * The fact that they were educated (and thus raised) in Japan is an excellent reason to doubt their loyalty, (Talk)

 * Verily has referred to big pro-Japan riots and pro-Japan riots occured in many camps, particularly Tule Lake. No effort is made to give a sense of proportion, i.e., that most of the 20,000 internees at Tule Lake, the 10,000 internees at Manzanar, the 20,000 at Poston, ... did not participate in these actions.  No effort is made to give a sense of the relative size of the riots except to say they're "big" (for example, did sigificant minorities, say 20%, participate?).

 * On the 19,000 population at Tule Lake being misleading because of the inclusion of children: I actually think it's not misleading for that very reason.
 * --ishu 04:26, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Re: After the fact. This is a non-point.  Facts not collected until after the fact can provide evidence of disloyalty during the fact.  If 94% were disloyal in 1943 (hypthetically, if you wish), doesn't that suggest a lot of disloyalty in 1942?  We have to work with what information we have to reconstruct the past.  Anyway, this is just one statistic, which was in fact collected pretty early in the war.  As for before Pearl Harbor, that's a non sequitur since there was no war with Japan then.  As for just "interning" pro-Japan demonstrators, good spies don't usually advertise.  Re: part/whole.  You merely quote me back to me, and I see nothing wrong with what I wrote.  As for "doubting", yes you can doubt all of a group's members if it comes to your attention that some are disloyal (but you don't know who).  Argh, you just don't seem to have any points here. -- VV 02:57, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * An obvious point
 * I missed this plainly obvious point: Verily's assertion that 94% of military age men said they "would not serve" is contradicted by the actual numbers who did serve.  I don't have a population for military-age men, but the number that served had to have been greater than 6%.  If we want to get into it, we can extrapolate up from that, but this step is wholly unnecessary.  --ishu 12:11, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Educated in Japan" = "indoctrinated with emperor worship"
This claim:
 * Many, including those born in America, had been educated in Japan, where they were heavily indoctrinated with Emperor worship.

is misleading on several counts. (1) The sentence implies that "many" of the U.S.-born Japanese Americans were educated in Japan. This is false. Most were educated in American schools, though a small number were sent to Japan for education. (2) This statement implies that a sizeable proportion were suspect due to their education in Japan. The 1/3 of JAs born in Japan were immigrants by definition, were more culturally distinct, less likely to speak English, and were suspect due to their Japanese citizenship (somewhat unfairly, since they were legally barred from naturalizing as U.S. citizens). Without some supporting references, I don't think that we can single out the education as a primary reason why their loyalty was suspect apart from these other factors. (3) The term 'indoctrinated' suggests that receiving an education in Japan led most students to "worship" the Emperor more or less mindlessly. Whether or not this was true, it would be fair to say that fear of emperor worship was one of several factors that led people to doubt the loyalty of Japanese Americans. I'd support a referenced, or at least expanded, discussion of the fears of Japanese Americans. --ishu 04:22, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * (1) This is a reason to reword, not erase, and anyhow "most" does not exclude "many". The kibei were a significant minority.  (2) The fact that they were educated (and thus raised) in Japan is an excellent reason to doubt their loyalty, but, as the article noted, just one of many.  (3) If you want to expand on it do so, but I see no reason to exclude this sentence.  I'll restore it with somewhat weaker language. -- VV 06:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * The fact that they were educated and raised in Japan is a possible reason to doubt their loyalty. See my edit. --ishu 03:08, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

19,000 applied to be returned
The statement
 * 19,000 Japanese applied to be returned to Japan during the war.

is misleading because many of the 19,000 were children of families--and U.S. citizens. Some of them also applied because they were disillusioned with the U.S. treatment vis-a-vis the relocation-internment-whatever. Other than acts of espionage, sabotage, etc.--alleged or actual, one must be careful about what evidence is used to justify the exclusion. --ishu 03:08, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I actually think it's not misleading for that very reason. The figure of 110,000 Japanese (or whatever) is going to be the standard by which all these figures are evaluated, and that too includes children.  Thus, any estimate of what amount actually advertised their disloyalty should be similarly inclusive, to get a sense of proportion.  I don't understand why being a US citizen makes it better.  Also, the disillusionment argument doesn't carry much weight with me; turning one's back on one's (supposed) country should not be done lightly, however inconvenient wartime measures are (and this seems much less so than, say, being drafted).  -- VV 05:34, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * This one is simple: The 112,000 is a census, and represents the number of people affected by the "relocation"/internment.  Verily wishes to count the number of disloyals.  It's ridiculous to assume that the children in Tule Lake could be considered to be "disloyal."  That's why it's misleading to include them in the 19,000 number.  If the head-of-household applied for the entire family to be "repatriated" (as it was called), every family member was counted toward the repatriation figure, regardless of whether those family members actually hated America, wished to go to Japan, or were in any sense "disloyal."

 * Also simple: Natural-born U.S. citizens cannot be "returned" to another country.  That's why citizenship matters here.
 * --ishu 04:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Re the latter. Japan, as the US was well aware, recognized all ethnic Japanese as citizens.  So far as I know, this race-based policy is still in effect (why Alberto Fujimori could go "home").  So Japan did take them back, although as I understand some of the returnees were distrusted and thrown in labor camps.  Re the former, I thought I explained this: we need a sense of proportion.  What percentage were disloyal?  If the 19,000 represented the decisions of only 4,000 HoHs, one might falsely estimate 4,000/120,000, or about 3%.  This is clearly an understimate.  (I suppose if we knew the total HoHs, we could provide a more exact percentage.)  Counting the whole family also makes sense since they're likely to follow the HoH anyway. -- VV 03:04, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Espionage: "not a single ship...without being attacked"
Paragraph 3 in the History section reads:
 * In 25 January 1942 the Secretary of War reported that "on the Pacific coast not a single ship had sailed from our Pacific ports without being subsequently attacked". Due to this espionage was suspected.

This link describes the submarine shelling, and notes that only one other such attack occurred. Another link claims that there were only two later "successful submarine attacks against shipping off the West Coast." Finally, a 1964 U.S. Army document, Guarding the United States and its Outposts notes that "apprehensions were fanned in the first few days of war by a series of false reports of Japanese ships and planes on the very doorsteps of the Pacific states." (p. 82)

Specfically, Guarding the U.S. directly refutes Secretary of War Stimson's comment of 25 January 1942 (referenced in current revision) as follows:
 * [T]here had been no Japanese submarine or surface vessels anywhere near the west coast during the preceding month, and careful investigation subsequently indicated that all claims of hostile shore-to-ship and ship-to-shore communication lacked any foundation whatsoever. (p. 120; see end note 16)

While this does not contradict the MAGIC decrypts directly, it is clearly inconsistent with the existence of a "vast spy network."

In light of these references, the section on espionage and justification for the internment really needs to be revised. --ishu 05:52, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
I am curious about this. It is said that some people were allowed to move out of the camps, if there was somewhere outside the exclusion zone that they could go to. Someone opined: "Estimates for the number who did move out vary from around 30,000 to 50,000." Where did this information come from? It would be interesting, if it could be verified? If it cannot be verified, it sounds apologist. Also, I am curious, how free were people outside the exclusion zone? Could they go anywhere outside the zone or would they have to be "supervised"? RayKiddy 02:53, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * At the very least, the phrase, "most being free to settle anywhere outside the Exclusion Area" should be changed to "most being permitted to settle..." Fuzheado 03:18, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why is "Internment" capitalized? RickK 03:37, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * See previous discussion above. --Jiang
 * In short, like American Revolution and Custer's Last Stand, it's a particular event in history.  --ishu 05:45, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Japanese American losses "considerably less than..." whose?
Does anyone have any examples of other civilians in the continental U.S. whose losses were greater than the Japanese Americans'?
 * Others respond that the war required terrible sacrifices by the whole nation, and that the Japanese American losses were considerably less than what many others suffered.

--ishu 03:00, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Why are you counting only civilians, and not, say, draftees? (And yes there was rationing, government spending, etc., as well as loss of loved ones.) -- VV 05:35, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I took the phrase ishu mentioned out. What an insulting argument to put in this article, saying since some citizens sacrificed their lives overseas, that it somehow justifies the blatantly racist treatment of other American citizens. Fuzheado

 * I don't agree with this claim it was "blatantly racist", and I don't understand the justification claim (this was not used as a reason for the exclusion). If you don't like the sentence you should try to rewrite it in a way you find agreeable, instead of just striking it. -- VV 06:37, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Verily's response is simply illogical, yet actually helps to prove the point that the Japanese Americans had a fundamentally different experience. Consider:
 * Induction into the military: Some "all other Americans" (AOA's); some Japanese Americans (JA's).
 * Rationing: All AOA's; all JA's
 * Loss of loved ones: Many AOA's; many JA's
 * Mass relocation and confinement of civilians in the continental U.S.: Very small proportion of AOA's; very high proportion of JA's
 * and just for good measure:
 * Mass relocation and confinement of civilians in the exclusion zone: Very small proportion of AOA's; very high proportion of JA's
 * Japanese Americans were not exempt from any sacrifices presented to the rest of America. Only Japanese Americans--as a group--were subject to the "sacrifice" of internment.  (And yes, German Americans and Italian Americans were subject to curfew and other restrictions, including internment at Crystal City for select members.  These ethnic grous also sacrificed more than AOA's, but considerably less--as a group--than the Japanese Americans.)
 * --ishu 23:54, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Enough with the charges of illogicality. You seem to have yourself missed the part/whole distinction you alluded to above.  To say "many others" does not mean "all other Americans". -- VV 03:08, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


text:
Shastra

Shastra (शास्त्र ) is a Sanskrit word that means "precept, rules, manual, compendium, book or treatise" in a general sense. The word is generally used as a suffix in the Indian literature context, for technical or specialized knowledge in a defined area of practice.

Shastra has a similar meaning to English -logy, e.g. ecology, psychology, meaning scientific and basic knowledge on a particular subject. Examples in terms of modern neologisms include
 * 1)  'physics',
 * 2) Rasashastra 'chemistry',
 * 3)  'biology',
 * 4) Vastu shastra 'architectural science',
 * 5) Shilpa shastras 'science of mechanical arts and sculpture',
 * 6) Arthashastra 'science of politics and economics', and
 * 7)  'compendium of ethics or right policy'.

In Western literature, Shastra is sometimes spelled as Sastra, reflecting a misunderstanding of the IAST symbol 'ś', which corresponds to the English 'sh'.

Etymology
The word Śāstra literally means "that which has been instructed/decreed", from the root Śāsana which means "instruction/decree".

Terminology
"Shastra" commonly refers to a treatise or text on a specific field of knowledge. In early Vedic literature, the word referred to any precept, rule, teaching, ritual instruction or direction. In late and post Vedic literature of Hinduism, Shastra referred to any treatise, book or instrument of teaching, any manual or compendium on any subject in any field of knowledge, including religious. It is often a suffix, added to the subject of the treatise, such as
 * 1) Yoga-shastra,
 * 2) Nyaya-shastra,
 * 3) Dharma-shastra,
 * 4) Koka- or Kama-shastra,
 * 5) Moksha-shastra,
 * 6) Artha-shastra,
 * 7) Alamkara-shastra (rhetoric),
 * 8) Kavya-shastra (poetics),
 * 9) Sangita-shastra (music),
 * 10) Natya-shastra (theatre & dance) and others.

In Buddhism, a "shastra" is often a commentary written at a later date to explain an earlier scripture or sutra. For example, Yutang Lin says that a text written by him and not given by Buddha, cannot be called a "Sutra"; it is called a "Sastra". In Buddhism, Buddhists are allowed to offer their theses as long as they are consistent with the Sutras, and those are called "Sastras."

In Jainism, the term means the same as in Hinduism. An example of Jaina Shastra is the 12th-century Yoga Shastra of Hemchandracharya.

Shastra is sometimes the root of compounded Sanskrit words. A custodian of Shastra, for example, is called Shastradhari (Sanskrit: शास्त्रधारी).

References in the early texts
The term is found in several passages of the Rigveda (2nd millennium BCE), such as in hymn VIII.33.16.

"नहि षस्तव नो मम शास्त्रे अन्यस्य रण्यति । यो अस्मान्वीर आनयत् ॥१६॥"

In this Rigvedic verse, the term means rule or instruction.

The Maitri Upanishad (mid to late 1st millennium BCE), similarly, mentions the materialist Charvakas and Brihaspati who disagreed that the Vedas are a treatise of knowledge, proposing relativism instead, in the following passage:

"बृहस्पतिर्वै शुक्रो भूत्वेन्द्रस्याभयायासुरेभ्यः क्षयायेमामविद्यामसृजत् तया शिवमशिवमित्युद्दिशन्त्यशिवं शिवमिति वेदादिशास्त्रहिंसकधर्माभिध्यानमस्त्विति"

The term is found in other Upanishads as well as in Bhagavad Gita such as in verses 15.20, 16.23–16.24, and 17.1.

The ' (11.36; 14.30) uses the term Shastra to refer to the ' tradition. , and 's  use the term. Similarly, the  uses the term to refer to astronomical treatises. The term ', refers to the ' of the s.

The term "" is found in Yaska's Nirukta (1.2, 14), where the reference is to Nirukta (etymology). An early use of the term ' with reference to the literature on dharma is found in the ' of, who uses the expression

Chronology and authenticity
Shastras are predominantly post-Vedic literature, that is after about 500 BCE. However, it is unclear when various Shastras were composed and completed. The authenticity of the manuscripts is also unclear, as many versions of the same text exist, some with major differences. Patrick Olivelle, credited with a 2005 translation of Manu Dharma-sastra, published by the Oxford University Press, states the concerns in postmodern scholarship about the presumed authenticity and reliability of manuscripts as follows (abridged):

"The MDh (Manusmriti) was the first Indian legal text introduced to the western world through the translation of Sir William Jones in 1794. (...) All the editions of the MDh, except for Jolly's, reproduce the text as found in the [Calcutta] manuscript containing the commentary of Kulluka. I have called this as the 'vulgate version'. It was Kulluka's version that has been translated repeatedly: Jones (1794), Burnell (1884), Buhler (1886) and Doniger (1991). (...) The belief in the authenticity of Kulluka's text was openly articulated by Burnell (1884, xxix): 'There is then no doubt that the textus receptus, viz., that of Kulluka Bhatta, as adopted in India and by European scholars, is very near on the whole to the original text.' This is far from the truth. Indeed, one of the great surprises of my editorial work has been to discover how few of the over fifty manuscripts that I collated actually follow the vulgate in key readings."

The literature of late 1st millennium BCE such as Arthashastra, and Shastras of various fields of knowledge from the early 1st millennium period is of great interest as it helped the emergence of diverse schools and the spread of Indian religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism in and outside South Asia.

The shastras are both descriptive and prescriptive. Among the various Shastras, Manu's code of law has been among the most studied as the colonial British government attempted to establish different laws in British India based on Sharia for Muslims and Manu's code of law.

The shastras are not consistent or single-consensus documents. Dharma-sastras, for example, contain opposing views and contradictory theories. This is in part because they represent an ideal of human behaviour, while at the same time recognising the need to account for likely failings. The shastras do not present life as it was lived. Rather they reveal an idea of what life should be. The shastra texts constitute one of the great bodies of literature of the ancient world.

Sutra
Sutras are another genre of Indian texts that emerged in the 1st millennium BCE, particularly after the 600 BCE. Sutra (literally "binding thread") denotes a type of literary composition distinct from Shastra. In Sanskrit, "sutra" typically referred to one or more aphorisms; hence sutras use short, aphoristic, evocative statements. In contrast, a Shastra is typically longer, with more detail and explanations. An example of a Sutra is Patanjali's Yogasutras (considered a classic Hindu treatise), while an example of Shastra is Hemachandra's Yogasastra (considered a classic Svetambara Jain treatise), both on yoga.

Shastras and Sutras are among the numerous other genres of literature that have survived from ancient and medieval India. Other genres include Vedas, Upanishads, Vedangas, Itihasa, Puranas, Bhasyas, and Subhashitas.

Major shastras by topics

 * List of Shastras
 * 1) Vastu Shastra (treatises on architecture)
 * 2) Vaimānika Shāstra, early 20th-century, sanskrit text on "science of aeronautics"
 * 3) Dharma Shastra: These a genre of Sanskrit theological texts, and refers to the treatises (śāstras) of Hinduism on dharma. There are many Dharmashastras, variously estimated to be 18 to about 100, with different and conflicting points of view.  Each of these texts exist in many different versions, and each is rooted in Dharmasutra texts dated to 1st millennium BCE that emerged from Kalpa (Vedanga) studies in the Vedic era.
 * 4) Kamashastra (Kama Shastra)
 * 5) Yoga Vasistha
 * 6) Moksopaya (mahayana uttaratantra shastra)
 * 7) Artha Shastra, financial affairs
 * 8) Natya Shastra, performing arts
 * 9) Surya Siddantha, astronomy
 * 10) Mahayana Buddhist Shastras
 * 11) Samudrika Shastra
 * 12) Shilpa Shastra

title: Shastra


text:
Needle sharing

Needle sharing is the practice of intravenous drug-users by which a needle or syringe is shared by multiple individuals to administer intravenous drugs such as heroin, steroids, and hormones. This is a primary vector for blood-borne diseases which can be transmitted through blood (blood-borne pathogens). People who inject drugs (PWID) are at an increased risk for Hepatitis C (HCV) and HIV due to needle sharing practices. From 1933 to 1943, malaria was spread between users in the New York City area by this method. Afterwards, the use of quinine as a cutting agent in drug mixes became more common. Harm reduction efforts including safe disposal of needles, supervised injection sites, and public education may help bring awareness on safer needle sharing practices.

Infections
Blood-borne diseases are transmitted when a susceptible person uses a needle that was previously used by a person who is infected with these pathogens; hence, sharing needles with other individuals is not a safe practice. It takes one simple prick of a contaminated needle to put someone at risk of acquiring Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, or HIV infections with Hepatitis B being the easiest to contract, followed by Hepatitis C then HIV. People who use previously used needles are at increased risk of getting infected with blood-borne pathogens such as HIV, HBV, and HCV, and spreading the infections to others. In addition to HIV, HBV, and HCV, some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) can be transmitted to uninfected individuals due to the risky injection practices.

According to CDC, in 2013, sharing syringes was the cause of HIV infection in 3,096 out of the 47,352 patients who were newly diagnosed with the disease in the United States. According to a study done by New Haven Connecticut's needle exchange program, 67.5% of the needles returned to the facility were contaminated with HIV. Their assumption was that people bringing in “street needles” were shared among other people prior to bringing them to the program. Almost 50% of people who participate in IVDU have Hepatitis C. Not only are blood borne diseases passed via needle sharing, but so are bacterial infections that can ultimately cause sepsis. Additionally, improper disposal of hospital needles can expose drug resistant organisms to the outside environment.

Risk factors for needle sharing
Much research has been done on risk factors that may predispose an individual to needle sharing in an effort to improve the effectiveness of needle-exchange programs (NEPs) and other harm reduction programs for PWID. The barriers that contribute to rates of needle sharing include the lack of accessibility to clean needles and education about safe needle usage. In each respective country, government and cultural views towards PWID and NEPs have an impact on the resources available as demonstrated by studies done in China, France, Vietnam, and India. Within the United States, needle sharing behavior is positively correlated to individuals who are of lower socioeconomic status, younger than 45 years old, male, and unemployed. The incidence of needle sharing was found to be more prevalent in homosexual and bisexual men compared to women and heterosexual men, particularly in minority communities. People of a minority race or ethnicity are often at an increased risk of needle sharing, possibly due to lower levels of health education.

Safe disposal of needles
Discarding needles in regular household trash bins endangers children, pets, janitors, and waste management services personnel; therefore, needles should be properly disposed of in a FDA-cleared sharps container that is both puncture- and leak-resistant. It is important to properly dispose of used needles because it can be difficult to tell if a needle has ever been used before. By not disposing of needles in a safe way, users may expose others or themselves to a needle stick injury. If a sharps container is not available, needles can often be brought to local law enforcement, hospitals, or drug stores for safe collection and disposal. In addition, needles can be mailed in specialized containers to a mail-back program for safe disposal. Moreover, needles can be utilized and disposed of properly in supervised injection sites. In the health care setting, use of blunt-end needles can minimize the risk of needle stick injuries.

Harm reduction
NEPs, also known as syringe exchange programs (SEPs), are a form of harm reduction policy that provide new needles to persons addicted to drugs in exchange for used ones in order to help control the spread of disease. In the United States, there are three distinct prohibitions on needle exchange programs at the federal level—the Ryan White CARE Act, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) authorization, and the 1997 Labor-Health and Human Services (HHS) Education appropriations legislation. However, many states still provide the service despite the federal legislation, especially in large cities where intravenous drug use is a major health concern. A study in New York State found that during the course of 12 months, NEP prevented roughly 87 infections of HIV by preventing needle sharing. In addition, NEP have decreased the spread of HIV by one third to two fifths.

One of the other harm reduction measurements in this regard is the Supervised Injection Sites, also known as Safe Injection Sites. In these facilities, drug users have access to new needles and they can use substances under the supervision of staff trained to prevent and treat drug overdose and trained to prevent HIV and hepatitis. Some of these sites also provide help to their clients to ease their access to drug treatment and other additional social and medical services. There are some countries around the world that have already established safe injection sites, including Australia and Canada. According to NPR, since the start of this program in Canada in 2013, these sites have supervised over 3.6 million injections and have prevented more than 6,000 overdoses. Additionally, in a cross-sectional survey performed in Glasgow from 1990 to 1996, the incidence of Hepatitis C had significantly decreased with the implementation of safe needle exchanges.

The progression of supervised injection site implementation is currently not widely accepted due to social stigma, lack of government support, and health advocacy. Continued public health education, advocacy efforts, and further research may help encourage the expansion supervised injection sites.

title: Needle sharing


text:
Weka

The weka, also known as the Māori hen or woodhen (Gallirallus australis) is a flightless bird species of the rail family. It is endemic to New Zealand. It is the only extant member of the genus Gallirallus. Four subspecies are recognized but only two (northern/southern) are supported by genetic evidence.

The weka are sturdy brown birds, about the size of a chicken. As omnivores, they feed mainly on invertebrates and fruit. Weka usually lay eggs between August and January; both sexes help to incubate.

Description
Weka are large rails. They are predominantly rich brown mottled with black and grey; the brown shade varies from pale to dark depending on subspecies. The male is the larger sex at 50 - 60 cm in length and 532 - 1605 g in weight. Females measure 46 - 50 cm in length and weigh 350 - 1035 g. The reduced wingspan ranges from 50 to 60 cm.

The relatively large, reddish-brown beak is about 5 cm long, stout and tapered, and used as a weapon. The pointed tail is near-constantly being flicked, a sign of unease characteristic of the rail family. Weka have sturdy legs and reduced wings.

Taxonomy and distribution
The common name, "weka", is a Māori word. The species was named Rallus australis by Anders Erikson Sparrman in 1789. Sparrman published the information in Museum Carlsonianum, four fascicules based on specimens collected while voyaging with Captain James Cook between 1772 and 1775. Australis is Latin for "southern". Johann Georg Wagler's suggestion of the genus Ocydromus in 1830 to describe each weka as a species was generally adopted. However, weka were later classified as a single species in the genus Gallirallus with four subspecies.

The buff weka (Gallirallus australis hectori) formerly inhabited the eastern districts of the South Island but is now confined to Chatham Island and Pitt Island to which it was introduced in the early 1900s, and where they are widely hunted and eaten in the autumn (due to their status as non-native to the islands).

Reintroduction into Canterbury has been unsuccessful so far but introductions to Mou Waho Island (in Lake Wānaka in 2004) and from there to Pigeon and Pig Island (in Lake Wakatipu in 2005/2006) have been much more successful. It has a lighter overall colouring than the other subspecies. The North Island weka (G. a. greyi) is represented by original populations in Northland and Poverty Bay, and by liberations elsewhere from that stock. This subspecies differs in its greyer underparts, and brown rather than reddish coloured legs.

The nominate subspecies, the western weka (G. a. australis), is found mainly in the northern and western regions of the South Island from Nelson to Fiordland. Distinguished by dark red-brown and black streaking on the breast, the western weka has two distinct colour phases, that of the southernmost range showing a greater degree of black. The Stewart Island weka (G. a. scotti) is smaller than the other subspecies and, like the western weka, has two colour phases; a chestnut form – similar to the chestnut-phase western weka – and a black phase which is not as dark as the black western weka. Reintroduced populations are confined to Stewart Island/Rakiura and outliers, and to Kapiti Island to which it was introduced. Weka are host to two species of feather lice (Rallicola harrisoni and Pseudomenopon pilgrimi) which show the same north–south population structure seen in their hosts.

Habitat and diet

Weka occupy areas such as forests, sub-alpine grassland, sand dunes, rocky shores and modified semi-urban environments. They are omnivorous, with a diet comprising 30% animal foods and 70% plant foods. Animal foods include earthworms, larvae, beetles, wētā, ants, grass grubs, slugs, snails, insect eggs, slaters, frogs, spiders, rats, mice, and small birds. Stewart Island weka (G. a. scotti) have been observed preying on sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) eggs and chicks.

Plant foods include leaves, grass, berries and seeds. Weka are important in the bush as seed dispersers, distributing seeds too large for smaller berry-eating birds. Where the weka is relatively common, their furtive curiosity leads them to search around houses and camps for food scraps, or anything unfamiliar and transportable. They have been known to take shiny objects in particular.

Breeding and nesting
The breeding season varies, but when food is plentiful, weka can raise up to four broods throughout the whole year. Nests are made on the ground under the cover of thick vegetation, and built by making grass (or similar material) into a bowl to hold about four eggs. On average, female weka lay three creamy or pinkish eggs blotched with brown and mauve. Both sexes incubate. The chicks hatch after a month, and are fed by both parents until fully grown between six and ten weeks.

Conservation status
Weka are classed as a vulnerable species. The Department of Conservation's weka recovery plan, approved in 1999, aims to improve the conservation status of threatened weka, clarify the status of data deficient weka, maintain the non-threatened status of other weka, and eventually restore all weka to their traditional ranges as a significant component of the ecosystems.

Weka are problematic in conservation; some subspecies are threatened, but have been a problem to other threatened wildlife on offshore islands, especially when introduced to an island that they would not naturally inhabit. Weka are unable to withstand the current pressures faced in both the North Island and South Island. However, they can be very productive in good conditions and high food availability. Year-round breeding has been recorded at several sites with up to 14 young produced in a year. Weka populations can persist in highly modified habitats, but they have disappeared from huge areas of their former range, suggesting that they can adapt to a wide range of conditions but are particularly vulnerable to threats.

Threats

The Department of Conservation identifies eight main threats to weka. Predation by ferrets, cats, and dogs are a threat to adult weka; stoats and ferrets are a threat to chicks; stoats and rats are a threat to eggs. It faces competition with introduced species for fruits and invertebrates, and suffers from the impact browsers have on forest composition and regeneration. Habitat depletion is caused by the modification and degradation of forests and wetlands. Diseases and parasites have been associated with population declines, although little is known. Drought has been implicated in the disappearance of weka from some areas. In some regions, motor vehicles cause a significant amount of roadkill death. Pest control operations sometimes kill weka, as they have ground foraging habits vulnerable to poison baits, and traps are laid in a way that weka can reach. Genetic diversity can be lost during the transmission of genes through generations, affecting isolated populations.

Human interaction
Weka are significant to some Māori iwi (tribes) who admire their curiosity and feisty, bold personality traits which have led to them being relatively easy to catch. Weka were used by the Māori as a source of food, perfume, oil to treat inflammations, feathers in clothing and lures to catch dogs. Early European explorers and settlers frequently encountered and utilised weka; they were called "bush hens".

title: Weka


text:
St Bride's Church

St Bride's Church is a Church of England church in Fleet Street in the City of London. Likely dedicated to Saint Bridget perhaps as early as the 6th century, the building's most recent incarnation was designed by Sir Christopher Wren in 1672, though Wren's original building was largely gutted by fire during the London Blitz in 1940 and then was faithfully reconstructed in the 1950s.

Due to its location in Fleet Street, it has a long association with journalists and newspapers. The church is a distinctive sight on London's skyline and is clearly visible from a number of locations. With its steeple standing 226 feet (69m) tall, it is the second highest of all Wren's church spires, with only St Paul's itself having a higher pinnacle.

Origins
St Bride's may be one of the most ancient churches in London, with worship perhaps dating back to the conversion of the Middle Saxons in the 7th century. It is believed that its name is derived from Bridget of Ireland, the patron saint of Ireland. It may have been founded by Irish monks, missionaries proselytising the English. It is believed that the original church, founded around the 6th Century by Irish missionaries, is the only such celtic Irish founded church in the east of Britain.

The present St Bride's is at least the seventh church to have stood on the site. Traditionally, it was founded by St Bridget in the sixth century. Whether or not she founded it personally, the remnants of the first church appear to have significant similarities to a church of the same date in Kildare, Ireland. The Norman church, built in the 11th century, was of both religious and secular significance; in 1210, King John held a parliament there. It was replaced by a larger church in the 15th century,

St Bride's association with the newspaper business began in 1500, when Wynkyn de Worde set up a printing press next door. Until 1695, London was the only city in England where printing was permitted by law.

Roanoke colony
In the late 1580s, Eleanor White, daughter to artist and explorer John White, was married in St Bride's to the tiler and bricklayer Ananias Dare. Their daughter, Virginia Dare, was to be the first English child born in North America. She was born on Roanoke Island on 18 August 1587: "Elenora, daughter to the governour and wife to Ananias Dare, one of the assistants, was delivered of a daughter in Roanoke". The child was healthy and "was christened there the Sunday following, and because this childe was the first Christian borne in Virginia, she was named Virginia". A modern bust of Virginia Dare stands near the font (one of the few survivals from the original church) replacing an earlier monument which was stolen and has not been recovered.

Great Fire of London
In the mid-17th century disaster struck. In 1665, the Great Plague of London killed 238 parishioners in a single week, and in 1666, the following year, the church was completely destroyed during the Great Fire of London, which burned much of the city. After the fire, the old church was replaced by an entirely new building designed by Sir Christopher Wren, one of his largest and most expensive works, taking seven years to build.

St Bride's was reopened on 19 December 1675. The famous spire was added later, in 1701–1703. It originally measured 234 ft, but lost its upper eight feet to a lightning strike in 1764; this was then bought by the then owner of Park Place, Berkshire, where it still resides. The design utilises four octagonal stages of diminishing height, capped with an obelisk which terminates in a ball and vane.

Buried at St Bride's is Robert Levet (Levett), a Yorkshireman who became a Parisian waiter, then a "practicer of physick" who ministered to the denizens of London's seedier neighbourhoods. Having been duped into a bad marriage, the hapless Levet was taken in by the author Samuel Johnson who wrote his poem "On the Death of Mr. Robert Levet", eulogising his good friend and tenant of many years. Also buried at St Bride's are the composer Sir William Leighton (d. 1622), organist and composer Thomas Weelkes (d. 1623) and the poet Richard Lovelace (d. 1658), as well as author Samuel Richardson (d. 1761)

The wedding cake is said to date back to 1703 when Thomas Rich, a baker's apprentice from Ludgate Hill, fell in love with the daughter of his employer and asked her to marry him. He wanted to make an extravagant cake, and drew on the design of St Bride's Church for inspiration.

Second World War
On the night of 29 December 1940, during the Blitz of central London in the Second World War, the church was gutted by fire-bombs dropped by the Luftwaffe. That night 1,500 fires were started, including three major conflagrations, leading to a fire storm, an event dubbed the Second Great Fire of London, due to the enormous amount of damage caused. St Paul's Cathedral itself was only saved by the dedication of the London firemen who kept the fire away from the cathedral and the volunteer firewatchers of the St Paul's Watch who fought to keep the flames from firebombs on the roof from spreading. After the war, St Bride's was rebuilt at the expense of newspaper proprietors and journalists.

One fortunate and unintended consequence of the bombing was the excavation of the church's original 6th century Saxon foundations. Today, the crypt known as the Museum of Fleet Street is open to the public and contains a number of ancient relics, including Roman coins and medieval stained glass. Post-war excavations also uncovered nearly 230 lead coffins with plaques dating from the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries, filled with the bones of parishioners; causes of death for most of them were found by the Museum of London.

Modern era
The church was designated a Grade I listed building on 4 January 1950.

In September 2007 the former rector, Archdeacon the Venerable David Meara, announced a special appeal to raise £3.5 million to preserve the church's unique heritage and in November 2007 Queen Elizabeth II was guest of honour at a service to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the restoration work necessary after the Second World War.

In March 2012, the Inspire! appeal was launched to raise the at least £2.5m needed to repair the crumbling stonework of the church's famous spire.

In March 2016 the wedding of Jerry Hall and Rupert Murdoch was celebrated at St Bride's.

Choir
The choir in its present form (12 adult singers – 4 sopranos, 2 altos, 3 tenors and 3 basses) was established in time for the re-dedication service in 1957, and has remained more or less in this format ever since. The choir sings at two services each Sunday throughout the year (reducing to 8 singers during August) and also for numerous special services. The Director of Music is Robert Jones, and the Assistant Director of Music is Matthew Morley.

Organ
The organ was built by the John Compton Organ Company, and is arguably their finest work. It was ready for the rededication of the church in November 1957. It has recently been completely overhauled and cleaned by Keith Bance, who has carried out some modest tonal updating. This included remodelling the positive division, adding new mixture stops to the great and pedal divisions and the provision of a new Vox Humana for the solo division. These changes have further increased the resources of an already versatile instrument. The organ has four manuals, 98 speaking stops, close to 4,000 pipes, a multi-level capture system and the wind is provided by four blowing installations.

Organists

 * Henry Lightindollar 1696–1702
 * John Weldon 1702–1736
 * Samuel Howard 1736–1782
 * Richard Huddleston Potter 1782–1821
 * George Mather 1821–1854
 * Mr. Reynolds, from 1854
 * Ernest Kiver, from 1882
 * John D. Codner, until 1888 (later organist of St Davids Cathedral)
 * Edmund Hart Turpin 1888–1907
 * Herbert Townsend 1909–ca. 1921
 * Gordon Reynolds 1952–1965
 * Robert Langston 1972–1988
 * Robert Harre-Jones, from 1988

Bells
St Bride's Church is noted as the site of the first ever full peal on twelve bells (5060 Grandsire Cinques), and is considered to be one of the first towers which had a diatonic ring of twelve bells. Ten bells were cast for the church in 1710 by Abraham Rudhall of Gloucester, and were augmented to twelve in 1719 with the addition of two trebles. The 5th and 6th bells were recast by Samuel Knight of Holborn in 1736.

All of the bells were destroyed on 29 December 1940 during the Blitz. After the war, a single bell cast by John Taylor & Co was placed in the tower, hung for full-circle ringing, but was never joined by any other bells. During the installation, the church and foundry made sure that it was sympathetic to a future 12-bell installation. It weighs 15 hundredweight in the key of F♯, and would be the 10th of a new ring of 12 in D.

Notable parishioners
St Bride's has had a number of notable parishioners, including John Milton, John Dryden, and the diarist Samuel Pepys, who was baptized in the church. Pepys buried his brother Tom in the church in 1664, but by this stage the vaults were so overcrowded that Pepys had to bribe the gravedigger to "justle together" the corpses in order to make room. In 2009, Sir Clement Freud's funeral was held in the church.

Notable burials in the churchyard

 * Roger Giffard, physician
 * Richard Lovelace, poet
 * Denis Papin, steam engine pioneer
 * Thomas Pellett, physician
 * Samuel Richardson, novelist
 * Thomas Weelkes, composer
 * William Charles Wells, physician, formulated early ideas of natural selection

title: St Bride's Church


text:
Frederick Bartlett

Frederic Bartlett may refer to:

 * Frederic Bartlett (1886–1969), British psychologist
 * Frederic Clay Bartlett (1873–1953), American artist, associated with the Second Presbyterian Church (Chicago, Illinois)
 * Frederick B. Bartlett (1882–1941), American bishop of Idaho

title: Frederick Bartlett