Talk:Hazing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] first paragraph
Is a bit of a mess. To be specific the part about continental Europe. And I can't think of a good sentence to replace it.
Mystman666 13:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I've updated it. It's a bit clearer but might need some more work. --Dazzla 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] cut from first sentence
- is a felony offense referring to
It seems rather odd to include this as part of the definition when the article quotes someone talking about "states with no anti-hazing laws"—states of the United variety, too, though the practice is not unique to North America. —Charles P. (Mirv) 29 June 2005 07:30 (UTC)
- I agree with this change; if the article is going to say something is a "felony offense" it should note exactly where it is a felony (which states, which countries?), and perhaps when and why it was made a felony offense. Kaibabsquirrel 29 June 2005 08:13 (UTC)
[edit] Hazing in the trades
Hazing was (or still is) also common for apprentices in various trades when finishing their apprenticeship. In my trade of printing, it consisted of applying bronze blue to the apprentice's balls. Bronze blue is a colour made from mixing black printers ink and dark blue printers ink. It takes a long time to wash off completely. Fortunately for me, hazing was in the news a lot when I finished my apprenticeship so I didn't have to suffer it.
Mechanics underwent greasing of the balls. I believe the old dirty grease was saved for this. — Hippietrail 17:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- This is good material. Since you didn't work it in to the article, I've take the liberty while cleaning up the vocabulary, though you rather deserved the credit. Fastifex 19:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] frathazing
The frathazing hyperlink does not appear to be functional (at least for me).
- Indeed, the site no longer contains the relevant galleries (which were free, except when ordering hard copies). Fastifex 19:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] German
"A German variation is the 'cloths line', i.e. contributing garments (remaining decent, e.g. in swim suit) to form a long line"
- What makes this "German"? This is the first time this German learned about this variation.
Some real German army hazing practises involve (apart from excessive amounts of alcohol) total nudity and a "rubber pussy" aka gas mask worn NOT on your face, or steel helmets on elbows, knees and head and being thrown/sliding across the floor, although these things might not be traditional and common but might be blamed on the alcohol instead.
[edit] WWI? College?
"The armed forces — in the US, hard hazing practices from World War I boot camps were introduced into colleges, in Poland ('fala')"
I'm confused by this statement. At the beginning of the sentence we are discussing the armed forces in the US, and by the end of the sentence we are talking about colleges in Poland.
All I can think is that it must be meant to be two separate bullet points - one about the US military and one about colleges in Poland - but I don't know which one the "World War I" reference is supposed to go with.
It would seem it should go with the college part because it is not accurate for the US military (some of our hazing rituals in the Marines were much newer than WWI and some were much, much older), but if it goes with the college part then all the military section is left with is, "The armed forces — in the US". Now, I know the US military isn't the only one that hazes its members, so that isn't right. Maybe it should be:
- The armed forces — in the US, hard hazing practices from World War I
- Boot camps ('fala') were introduced into colleges in Poland
But in that case, the college reference should be moved to the bullet point where academics are already mentioned. Does anyone know what should be here? Kafziel 13:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ditch Day at Caltech
Is ist hazing, like the French Wiki maintains? Xx236 11:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy part
I find the part about hazing in the Philippines rather unsatisfactory. It makes broad generalizations some of which whose accuracy i doubt (rape, hoodlums as recruits among others). Where did the writer get his information anyway? I think this part of the article is rather biased.
[edit] does wiki do apologetics, too?
" In military circles hazing serves to test recruits under situations of stress and hostility."
i'm sorry, but this sounds like a load of apologetic bs. there's no way you can tell me that making the new guy do disgraceful stuff like run around naked or eat slugs or what not is *really* done because of the above stated psychological aspect. you wont convince me the older guys don't get the tiniest kick out of torturing the new guys, if for nothing else, so they can make somebody pay for the exact same crap they had to go through when they themselves were the "new guys". you can't tell me at least a small amount of the drill sergeants aren't complete sociopaths who enjoy their work.
sure, hazing was originaly a rite of passage. sure, it was a test of masculinity. and sure, the statement i quoted fits perfectly the origin of hazing from an anthropological point of view. but beating somebody to the point they have to be sent to a hospital? rape? those extreme cases surpass the original purpose of the exercise. the sentence should make clear the distinction between regular boot camp and extreme cases. as it is now, it only intentionaly blurs the line between the two in an attempt to make it all look innocent and even inevitable. 213.172.254.100
- It's not my line, but you're the one who reads the psychological assumptions into it: it just says there is a testing effect, which is true; it does NOT claim this to be the main or only purpose, let alone preclude any other appreciation by either party of participants, which are subjective anyway: one man's hell may even be another's rather masochist satisfaction. By the way, many units really do exercises that simulate both humiliation and physical endurance associated with captivity and questioning by a non-Geneva-conscious party, such as terrorists, civil war nuts or North Korea. Fastifex 12:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It was a very badly written section. Fixed. Dan100 (Talk) 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] um what?
Two points in this article seem iffy to me.
# In workplaces (Davis, 1998) -- who or what is (Davis, 1998)? This is the only time "Davis" appears in this article. If someone was going to cite a reference at the bottom, please do.
# various forms of 'fire baptism' for the 'graduating' novice apprentice in some sport of discipline, e.g. a pilot's first solo-flight. -- fire baptism? I googled this term and can't seem to figure it out in the context of hazing. And how is a pilot going on his first solo flight considered hazing anyway? I would think every novice pilot would eventually have to fly solo, not out of hazing but out of professional necessity. I think this needs a better example and a more recognizable term.
--I am not good at running 10:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Freemasonry? No
Freemasons do not haze...it is not part of the culture, nor is it part of the initiation ceremonies.
- Indeed not the ancient tradition of internationally known 'proper' lodges. However there exist a version of more frivolous 'service' clubs', including the 'modern' US Shriners (which for example abandoed the term temple), where such practices have been adopted and ecen ead to court proceedings for injury according to [[1]]
[edit] Why is this still allowed in many parts of the world?
I don't get it; it should obviously be illegal.. Any possible explanations?
[edit] Rugby
I played Rugby for 8 seasons and for three different treams and never heard anything about the pink ribbon on the penis. No Carrots were ever placed anywhere near an anus. This is bullshit and I'm erasing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.137.143.101 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Needs editing
The article is in very poor structural condition, as varying sections have been modded by varying authors without care for overall consistency.
Much of the tone in the specific examples is written such that the article is ONLY about US fraternity hazing, while the heading purports to describe the wider phenomenon.
Duke Leto 17:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
