Talk:Internment of Japanese Americans/Archive 4

message: Given the past edits and actions of everyone involved, it is a near certainty that any substantial editing of the article will only lead to a revert war.  I think it would be better to take down the article completely, and, if we agree, we can create protected subpages, one with the current version, and one with User:History Student's most recent edit as of this timestamp.  --ishu 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking down the article is not an option, but protecting it is.  However, since no one seems to be re-adding and removing content at the moment, protection is not necessary. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please quit trolling this issue.  Your additions violated Wikipedia policy and were reverted, not only by me, but by multiple other users as well, as you can see in the edit history.  --tomf688 (talk - email) 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes he did abuse his privilege, but you need to tone it down.   Justforasecond 18:21, 21 July 2006 
(UTC)
I'll tone it down when you guys get serious. Stop convoluting. Stop the strawmen. Stop reaching conclusions based on opinion.
I'm surprised at your recent posts, justasecond.
--History Student 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You'll have to be willing to get serious as well.  If you are going to offer a significant re-write of the article as you have, you will need to provide extensive in-line citations to support your changes AND format them to comply with the manual of style.  --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To cite, you will need to add http://www.website.com/page.html Website which claims that A is B. after each claim.  At the end of the article, you will then need to add  which will place all of the information within every <ref> tag at the bottom of the page.  See today's featured article, National Anthem of Russia, for an example of how this system works, or you can read over the citation style guide for more information.  Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect.   For links to websites e.g. http://www.cnn.com, just insert the link in brackets, a la .  The "ref" style is overcomplicated and a hassle for readers.  Justforasecond 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Replacing one weak article with another isn't acceptable either.  If you can't bother yourself with adding your sources, then don't bother making any additions at all, because they will simply be reverted again, and again, and again. --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take down the article 

message: The support section seems to have a lot of unsupportive statements.   For instance, the Earl Warren quote is:
I have since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens. Whenever I thought of the innocent little children who were torn from home, school friends and congenial surroundings, I was conscience-stricken.
The statement in the "criticism" section is...also unsupportive.
The truth is—as this deplorable experience proves—that constitutions and laws are not sufficient of themselves...Despite the unequivocal language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066....
Seems unbalanced to me.
Justforasecond 05:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this around to reconcile.  Justforasecond 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "support" section 

message: ...and few meaningful changes to the article. You've still got a biased, unprofessional piece of bad history here and I have been using it as an example of such.
--History Student 22:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: . . .and taking pride in your contribution to the example . . ?  68.178.65.194 02:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lot's of talk here at the discussion....