Talk:Manzanar/Archive 1

message: Consistent with the reorganization of the Japanese American Internment article, I propose that we move this article under a new title Manzanar Internment Camp.  The rationale for dropping the word 'Japanese' from the title is covered in the discussion concerning the Japanese American Internment reorg.  It is reasonable to assume that "Manzanar Internment Camp" is unique; besides, it also reflects common usage.  Comments from others?  ishu 06:43 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Why not just Manzanar? It is already a redirect here. --mav
::I have no objection to that.  Short, simple, to the point, and consistent with common usage.  Let's do it.--ishu 07:12 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:::Done. --mav
::::I believe that the word Japanese internment camps is to the point and basically that is who was there, "the Japanese". It really isnt any of the united states fault at all and im sure i speak for most americans by saying that the relocation camps were the best and safest idea just because of what was going on at the time because we all know know that if we were in school or working with a "JAPANESE AMERICAN" we really wouldnt feel very comfortable and we couldnt trust them.The "JAPS" Bombmed us we didnt bomb them so there fore thats why we dont feel bad and all for the titles that are going on these informational papers and everything should say " JAPANESE OR JAPANESE AMERICAN INTERNMENT CAMPS" so be it. and besides its all done and done so dont try to change it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.75.197 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 June 2006
::::: Not the United States' fault? The historical record proves that it was. As for how one felt about their personal safety or security in the presence of someone of Japanese ancestry during that time, again, the historical record proves that the US Government knew that the Japanese in the US were highly loyal at the time, but they chose not only to ignore that, but perpetuate false charges of espionage and sabotage. Indeed, the US Government bears most of the responsibility for how the American people felt about their neighbors who were of Japanese ancestry.  And as for bombing, I guess those two atomic bombs dropped on Japan, not to mention Doolittle's raids, weren't dropped from US warplanes.
::::: Next time, try learning the facts before spouting off. Gmatsuda 21:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: I have a NPOV issue with the term "loyal" and "disloyal" to describe the detainees sorted out in 1943. It implies that those who refused to take the loyalty oath, which was required to avoid being evacuated to the Tule Lake Segregation Center, by definition were "disloyal" to America, when they were simply resentful of the treatment they had received by the federal government and the WRA. The loyalty oath, by the way, would have also made them eligible for the draft.
It may be more accurate to say that in 1943, a policy decision was made to transfer anti-administration internees away from Manzanar and other relocation centers to a segregation center at Tule Lake. --khaosworks 09:15, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: I think it's incorrect to call "concentration camp" the most controversial name for the camps.  Indeed, I believe relocation camp and internment camp are more controversial.  Also, I'm not sure if anyone saw my comments at the bottom of the page, but I go into this more there.  I also think that it's important to mention that the Resolution on Terminology adopted by the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund specifically says that relocation camp is not acceptable and that concentration camp is.  This resolution was adopted at least sometime after 1995 (as it refers to a text published that year)--well after the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps was known.  It suggests that rather than use the term "relocation camps", the terms "internment camps, detention camps, prison camps, or concentration camps" are more accurate terms.  The real issue that people have with internment is not only that it's misleading, it's that it's confusing.  There were two types of camps.  There were camps for people that the government deemed possible enemies--that was a relatively small number, and they all could go through a trial and be released from the camp.  And then there was any Japanese or Japanese American who happened to live on the West Coast (sans Hawaii of course).  Lumping them all together is incorrect, and the first group, technically that are internees.  So to use that term for the second group is not only inaccurate according to a large number of historians, but it lumps together two very different groups of people.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  08:12, July 20 2007 (UTC)
:I agree, and have been saying this earlier. However, I do believe that, given the insistence by those who believe that only the Nazi camps may be called "concentration camps" and any other use of the term is either wrong or an insult to Holocaust survivors/victims, "concentration camp" is really the most controversial. Also, the CLPEF statement is included in one of the publications cited in the Terminology section. I just didn't use the web version. :-) I guess I could change that... Gmatsuda 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: arbitrary section break

message: That map doesn't add anything to the article, an ambiguous red dot in California. I like the picture better personally. The National Register Wikiproject always prefers pictures. A mcmurray 20:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, a set of photos by Dorothea Lange of the internment process has just been released after being locked up for sixty year. They were made on government contract, so they are PD. -Will Beback 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map v. Pic

message: I just added a section on the pre-WWII history of Manzanar. Everything in the article is also now fully cited, and the References section is now using reflist. One of these days, I will add a bit more detail in the Wartime Manzanar and Manzanar today sections. Gmatsuda 09:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Pre-WWII Section, Changed References section

message: I am in the process of adding to the Wartime Manzanar section. I stopped (for now) at climate. I put the Other Information sub-header as a temporary "marker" for where I left off. :-) I will be picking up at that point sometime later, perhaps as early as later on April 18. I also plan to add to the Manzanar Today section.
Once I finish my additions, I will clean up the references/footnotes as much as possible. But given the subject matter, this article requires a lot of citations to avoid disputes, IMHO. Gmatsuda 09:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not use this image from the Paiute article? They're Southern Paiute, who the article says lived in Southeast California, where Manzanar appears to be located. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The caption on the Southern Paiute page mentions that the photo is of someone from the Las Vegas band of Paiute, so I'm inclined to think that it would not be an accurate depiction of the Owens Valley Paiute. Good intentions, though! :-)  Gmatsuda 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Details, details, details, yeesh. ;)   No problem.  Great work on the page, by the way! ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 10:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The article looks great, you should definitely apply for FA nom after GA. However, I think you should change some of the subtitles of the page, specifically "Quenching Los Angeles’ thirst" and "Life behind the barbed wire." Although great titles for a book, it's not so well suited for an encyclopedia, where titling should be a little less literary. Also "life behind barbed wire" describes little about the barbed wire (seen in the previous section) or other authoritarian presence and therefore the info should be added, or the title changed. Good luck. falsedef 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Got any suggestions for replacements for those titles? As for adding more information, can you be more specific as to exactly what should be added? I'm not sure a lot more detail needs to go in since this IS an encyclopedia, as you mentioned. Gmatsuda 22:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe "Los Angeles’ water and land acquisition" would be more descriptive and more direct. My main problem with the other subtitle, "Life behind barbed wire," is that the subsection says nothing about the barbed wire or perimeter, making the title indirect in its meaning. They are good names, but encyclopedic information should be direct. falsedef 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Additions

message: I have fixed what I agreed with following the GA review by Chubbles and am re-nominating for GA status. Gmatsuda 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review #1 Redux

message: I was surprised not to see mention of this book in the text, only in the "further reading." It certainly doesn't deserve heavy mention, but considering that it is how many young people in the U.S. first learn about Manzanar in detail, it seems worth a line or so to mention it. Just one opinion. Lawikitejana 22:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Farewell to Manzanar is a fine book for children, it is not what the Manzanar National Historic Site is about. It tells the story of the Wakatsuki family's experiences during WWII, but there are other books that one might argue had a greater impact, despite not having the notoriety. Gmatsuda 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Farewell to Manzanar'' 

message: What's the status of the GA Nomination here?  Is it still being worked on?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question! IvoShandar seems to have disappeared for now. Gmatsuda 21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: He put his name on the GA candidate list to say it was being worked on.  Maybe we can take his name off and hope another editor will come in and review the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to see it's taking so long to get a 2nd review for this article; you had to wait so long for the first one! I picked this one the first time because it was the oldest remaining GA candidate at the time, if I remember correctly...Chubbles 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nom? 

message: I was just looking through this article and it looks very well done and thorough. I think it could be ready for Featured Article Candidacy before too long. Take a look at the criteria and make any necessary improvements and get it peer reviewed. After you've done that I definitely think that it would make a good candidate. Good work! Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someday...when I'm up to it. See the section on peer review above. :-) Gmatsuda 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC 

message: I don't know if this is happening on other browsers, but on my browser (IE), some of the images in the body of the article are sandwiching text in between them.  WP:MOS#Images says that we should avoid sandwiching text between pictures.  I think there may too many pictures in the body of the article anyway.  Maybe we should get rid of some or move them down to the gallery.  Opinions?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be as much a matter of screen resolution as browser. Another alternative, which would be less drastic, would be to remove the size coding from the images so that they'd appear at about 180px, more or less depending on user preferences.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does it look now? Gmatsuda 04:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better!  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 'the internees found themselves having to endure primitive, sub-standard conditions' Compared with the conditions in the Japanese-run civilian camps in WW2 these were luxurious.  No-one at Manzanar died of malnutrition or physical brutality, did they? 86.138.105.18 11:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has to die in order to find themselves having to endure such conditions. Gmatsuda 15:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that as long as there is a citation to a reputable source, it is fine.  Sub-standard seems like an easy call.  "Primitive" ... is ok with me if sourced.--Epeefleche 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of citations throughout the article that describe the conditions, in one way, shape or form. I think we've got this covered. :-) Gmatsuda 18:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW: What do the Japanese-run camps have to do with Manzanar? The comparison mentioned above isn't valid or relevant. Gmatsuda 19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps his point is if that "standard" conditions for civilian camps are the standard (an obvious term of comparison) of the Japanese run camps of the time, that one might quibble with the use of the word sub-standard.  Actually, while I have no problem with it as it is, as you say we could probably suffice with descriptions of what the conditions were (which, as you say, we have many of already) without engaging in subjective characterizations of the conditions.  But not a major point to me.  Just reacting to your query.--Epeefleche 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear what you're saying, but I have strong suspicion that 86.138.105.18 wasn't trying to make the point you just did. I believe his/her motivation for making that statement lie elsewhere. Gmatsuda 23:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, I'm positive that when I clicked on the user link for that anonymous IP editor before, it took me to a user page for that IP and then a talk page that was filled with warnings about vandalism, and I saw a six-month block message from an admin, mentioning that this was the second six-month block. I believe that the user page and talk page were deleted...maybe because the block is now extending to a year? I don't think I've lost it, gone insane, hallucinating, etc. :-) Gmatsuda 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmm

message: I for one would not mind if someone archived this.  Getting longish, with lots of personal stuff from Miss M that might do well in an archive instead of cluttering up this page.--Epeefleche 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about archiving, but before I do that, what's left that could be considered "personal?" Gmatsuda 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just archive it all, the personal and the substantive, rather than encourage a discussion about non-substantive issues.--Epeefleche 02:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive