Talk:Internment of Japanese Americans

Opposition to the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent

I’m wondering if there is information/evidence available to support the addition of a section/sub-section on any political/social justice movement which arose in opposition to the expropriation of private property owned by and the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during this period? MelioraCogito (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hyphen or not?

There was an inconsistent use of 'Japanese-American" and "Japanese American" in the article, sometimes in the same paragraph or even sentence. Not sure which was correct, I changed as many 'Japanese-American' to "Japanese American" as I could find as I decided the latter was better. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I changed a few the other way. Leaving most alone since it appears it was done deliberately. There is an article on hyphenation (agreeing with no hyphenation, but can't seem to find it in any Wikipedia MOS. It makes more sense to me to have it hyphenated. Student7 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hyphenation implies a division, that people are ____ AND American when they are not separate at all, so yes, the hyphen does not belong. This was adopted decades ago in scholarly work in Ethnic Studies.-- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It might be nice to place this in a WP:MOS style policy someplace. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice, but there has been debate about this before at WP:MOS without matters moving beyond the discussion stage. See, for example, [1]. — Myasuda (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well. I guess I can rationalize that people are Japanese Americans, no hyphen. Both Japanese and American. No difference. If it were say Euro-American football, I would expect football that is neither European nor American, exactly, but some combination of both. That is, there would be a difference. How's that? Student7 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I THINK you've got the point...that there should be no distinction, hence, no hyphen, which implies a division, or distinction, however one might want to put it. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Canadian internment?

Many editors forget that Canada is also a part of "North America" and that they also interned people of Japanese descent. There's a photo of one of the camps if you check out the article: Internment! Shouldn't Canadian internment belong in this article as well, or did I miss something as I surfed through? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the section Japanese_American_internment#Other_detention_camps, and a link is provided to the main article Japanese Canadian internment — Myasuda (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Minorly" is not a word. Not sure what was intended. Unclemikejb (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry

1/16th ancestry is pretty vicious (sorry for the pov). There would have been no Japanese who traveled before 1860, essentially. So this would have included (unlike Germans with more history in the US) everyone with Japanese ancestry. No one would have had the required 1/15 or less to be excluded. Need a WP:RS that says that though. Student7 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

How many died in the camps?

Considering how the IC's were compared to the German Concentration camps where millions were killed, the death toll would be appreciated.Ericl (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Major Problem with "DOJ Internment Camps" Section

The section relating to the Department of Justice internment camps is written as if it were an editorial. Although it attempts objectivity, the section comes off as conveying a point of view. The problems start with the third paragraph and continue until the end. Lines like "your opinion of the facts", "one must wonder" and "This leaves one to guess", along with questions posed to the reader, need to be removed, and the entire section should probably be rewritten.