Talk:Manzanar/Archive 2

message: Congratulations to all editors who assisted in this article.  I have read the changes made (and noted the couple of arguments against my suggestions - all of which I can live with).  The article is well presented and passes the WP:GACR.  Editors who greatly assisted the progress of the article to GA standard may wish to cut the following template  and paste to their user page or other suitable location. Well done!--VS talk 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VirtualSteve: Thank you for your work on the GA review. Making it to GA status wasn't the important thing...what was important was making the article better, and that has been accomplished. That said...should we now go for FA status? I'm not sure I'm up to that yet! :-) Gmatsuda 23:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA assessment – passed

message: A recent edit replaced the photo of the Los Angeles Aqueduct near Manzanar with a map of the Los Angeles Aqueduct system. If this article was about the Los Angeles Aqueduct, the map would work great. It would be quite relevant to the article. However, this article is about Manzanar, not the aqueduct system. As such, the photo of the aqueduct near Manzanar is far more relevant. Also, if the photo was replaced simply because the map was public domain, that's not a good reason. After all, permission was granted by the rights holder to use the photo in the article (click on the photo for details). Gmatsuda 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the image that replaced the photo of the unlined aqueduct near Manzanar. It's just a map. Owens River with Los Angeles Aqueduct Gmatsuda 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As for inclusion, the story of water in the Owens Valley is a vital part of the story at Manzanar, which was owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. They leased the land to the US Government during the WWII period, and they retained ownership of the site until 814 acres was acquired by the National Park Service through a land transfer agreement. LADWP still retains all water rights in the Manzanar area, including that 814 acres mentioned above. This story goes back to the early 1900's, and played a huge role, including forcing the ranchers to abandon the town of Manzanar and their ranches (see the article). As such, I believe the photo is entirely relevant and should be included. Gmatsuda 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no terribly strong feelings, but of the two I find the current photo more appealing than the map.  Neither is tremendously informative in amplifying the article, but the current one does put a "face" on the subject.  I do think inclusion of the story makes sense, and is nicely told.  I don't know that either photo here is as informative or interesting as the other photos in the article, but at the same time I have no problem with inclusion.--Epeefleche 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that neither the map or the photo is all that informative in the context of the article. However, unlike the map, the photo shows what the aqueduct actually looks like near Manzanar (the only unlined section of the aqueduct is in the vicinity of Manzanar, which is just north of the Alabama Hills, where the aqueduct is concrete-lined the rest of the way until it hits Haiwee Reservoir in Kern County). As you said, it puts a "face" on the whole thing in terms of the story of water in the Owens Valley, including the Manzanar area. Gmatsuda 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with it as is.  Makes sense. If the article becomes photo heavy at some point, I might support it being one of the first to go.  But at this point, I agree with you.--Epeefleche 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of Los Angeles Aqueduct

message: I added the name of the author in an article in the first EL, but someone might go through them and Wikify them if they have the time ..........--Epeefleche 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What needs to be wikified? Gmatsuda 02:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links.  I just focused on the first one.  It was not in quotes, which I think is the standard -- you might double check me on that.  It did not say who wrote it.  It did not indicate its date (I didn't check if that was something we know).  I imagine all ELs might be double checked along those and similar lines.--Epeefleche 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EL and WP:MOS don't say anything about quotes, or requiring author or date in external links...I think we're OK. Gmatsuda 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to glance at .--Epeefleche 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's for citations, not external links. All the citations follow those standards. Gmatsuda 21:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not all that clear to me, but  refers to citations, and appears to indicate that external links are a form of citation, and provides inter alia "Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional. For journal articles, include volume number, issue number and page numbers. Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online."--Epeefleche 15:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I have created an archive for this talk page (see the top of this page). I moved the inactive threads (and one other) to that page. I did not move any of the threads discussing terminology or the GA review comments because they were either too current or may be useful during peer review or future FA review. Gmatsuda 04:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to move the Relocation/Internment/Concentration thread to the archive. Gmatsuda 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better!  There may still be other material you may deem appropriate to move relating to the same, under terminology for instance.  Your call.--Epeefleche 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive Created

message: I have a problem with the sentence that says: "Despite the fact the Federal courts eventually ruled against the class action plaintiffs, the lawsuit ... showed the Congress and the Executive Branch that the US Government could have had considerable exposure to future damage claims resulting from the internment."  To my mind, the opposite is suggested by the result.  The courts ruled against the plaintiffs who brought those claims.--Epeefleche 16:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. However, it was made clear by the lawsuit that if appealed, the US Government would be on the hook for much more than the then-pending legislation in Congress that would pay $20,000 to each surviving prisoner or their immediate family. Congress and the President realized that they had a less expensive choice. I could go into much more detail, but this is the gist of it. As I said earlier, I don't think it's appropriate to go into this in detail in the article because it doesn't have much to do with Manzanar directly. Gmatsuda 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from what the article presents that I can see, it does not make sense for the reasons I stated.  And I'm not sure what the "on the hook for" language means in your above comment.  The US government was found liable for that?  It would be odd to my experience for a court to find the US government liable while throwing a case out.  Without the detail, this just sounds not only suspect, but counterintuitive -- if the court found the US government was not guilty of all those counts against them and all that money claimed, the thrust of the case is to exonerate the government -- not the opposite.  If anything, it suggests that the claim was wrong-headed.  To toss it in as support for the notion that what happened was illegal or bad makes no sense to me.  IMHO.--Epeefleche 21:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK...Check it out now. :-)  Gmatsuda 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked it out, but for me at least the questions/comments that I have remain.  Tx.--Epeefleche 06:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No disrespect intended, but I don't know if I can make it more clear than by adding that quote. It really explains it all. FYI: The case was dismissed by the Court primarily on technicalities, such as the statute of limitations having expired, etc., mostly NOT on its merits. The bottom line is that the class-action suit was significant because it loomed large over a Congress and a President that was looking at every way possible to cut the Federal budget. The legislation before Congress was the less expensive alternative by a longshot. Gmatsuda 06:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None taken.  If that is the clearest you can make it, I am missing something.  Especially couple with your above comment.  My issue is with the phrase "showed the Congress and the Executive Branch that the US Government could have far greater exposure to future damage claims resulting from the internment."  Nothing in the quote supports that notion.  And your above comment -- that the statute of limitations had run -- would suggest to me just the opposite.  That in fact the case showed that the Government did not have exposure whatsoever to future damage claims.  Because the statute of limitations had run.  I'm really missing something, but won't take it upon myself to revert it.--Epeefleche 07:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key here is that the case was still pending while the redress legislation was being considered in Congress. With the merits of the case being pretty clear, Congress had a choice: spend $20,000 per prisoner or $200,000. The legislation was clearly the less expensive alternative, so they passed it and sent it on to President Reagan who signed the bill. It wasn't until after it became law that the Court tossed the case. In any case, I came up with something that might work for you. Gmatsuda 07:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And if that doesn't work, we go back to "I'm right and you're wrong. So there!!" :-) Gmatsuda 07:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have the same question/comment, but as I said I won't take it upon myself to revert your entry.  I may be the only one missing it.  Best of luck with the review.--Epeefleche 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...NOW I REALLY can't think of a way to make it clearer for you... Gmatsuda 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit