Talk:Manzanar

Talk Page Archive

Archive 1, 08/02/07 Archive 2, 09/16/07

Featured Article Consideration

The peer review was archived after just two peer reviews. I don't know if that's a good sign or a bad one, but since it was archived, I've submitted the article for FA review. Cross your fingers!! Gmatsuda 17:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PRs have become pretty useless. Many articles submitted don't get any comments.Rlevse 14:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, what's the point of keeping the peer review process alive? Gmatsuda 13:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The FAC is going really slowly, at least, it seems to be. If any of you participate in FA reviews, put in your two cents at Manzanar FAC. -- Gmatsuda 09:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Lead: Yet as different as these groups might seem, they are tied together by the common bond of forced relocation at Manzanar. The reader is puzzled, and so am I. I don't think you can be relocated "at" anywhere, and I'm inclined to doubt that the Indians sense any "common bond" with the ranchers, or the Nisei, for that matter.

Fixed. However, the Paiutes (and other residents of the area) worked closely with the Japanese American community and others to help create the National Historic Site. As such, your doubts are misplaced (no offense intended). Gmatsuda 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Better, but I still think it's a stretch to call what happened to the white folks "forced relocation", and I also still think that the reader is rather caught on the hop. As for my doubts, I didn't express myself clearly; to say that they are "tied together" by a "common bond" means that each group as a people feels a certain kinship with the others. That may well be the case now, healing after adversity being a wonderful thing, but they didn't feel any such thing historically, and that's what the paragraph is about.

Actually, the interpretive center at the site uses forced relocation across all the "eras" of Manzanar's history, including the ranchers/miners, as a base theme, so I don't think it's much of a stretch at all. They were indeed forced to move away from the town of Manzanar because LADWP denied them water. As for your comment about kinship way back when, you are correct. However, I think you are interpreting "common bond" too strictly. However, I have changed "bond" to "thread." How does that sound? Gmatsuda 19:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Terminology: It wouldn't make sense to end a debate over conflicting terminologies still having more than one term on the table. And "and/or" is to be avoided.

Thanks...agreed. Gmatsuda 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Owens Valley Paiute: It says that the forced march took place in the early 1860s, but then it said that "after" 1863 many "had" moved back. I hope you see the problem with this without a long-winded explanation on my part (not that I mind being long-winded, mind you). I tried to fix this and relieve a slight stylistic redundancy. Does it still mean what it should? Also, the bit about "gunpoint" and "inflicted" doesn't seem strictly NPOV (a little anguished), but to speak impassively of atrocity is per se bias, so I left it. You might want to iron that out a little, even so.

Yeah, it's OK. As for the use of "inflicted," I had a hard time coming up with another term that didn't trivialize the experience. Also, they were marched at gunpoint to Fort Tejon, so I'm not sure how that can be considered POV. Gmatsuda 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. Gunpoint is gunpoint. I wouldn't have known how to handle that, either.

Wartime: There is a copy of Executive Order 9066 here: <http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:1SYTW2sBPLgJ:usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/eo9066.htm+%22executive+order+9066%22+text&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us>. Nowhere does the word "relocation" appear, so "The order also authorized the construction of 'relocation centers' to house those who were to be excluded" is a false statement. Perhaps "Implementation of the order inevitably resulted in the establishment of 'relocation camps' ...". --Milkbreath 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not explicitly, no. However, EO9066 states, "...The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary..." This is the passage that essentially gave the War Department the authority to imprison them in the camps. If you want to interpret the text of the order strictly, you're right. However, the War Department did not interpret it as strictly as you have, so Wikipedia should follow the interpretation used by them and by scholars who have studied it. Gmatsuda 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I guess it was the quotation marks around "relocation centers" that hit my copyeditor's nerve. They seem to mean that such a thing by that name was authorized in the Order. Come to think of it, that's what they do mean.

Life behind the barbed wire: The first sentence praises with faint damns. Outrage is too strong a reaction to inconvenience. Too, it is unspecific: sub-standard how, exactly? How is "primitive" different from "sub-standard"? And a one-sentence paragraph can be acceptable as a topic sentence for the section, but this is not that, as the section goes on to describe a fairly tolerable state of affairs, all things considered. This section is skimpy, especially considering its importance and its interest for the reader. --Milkbreath 15:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The conditions in the camps is covered in more detail in the Japanese American Internment article, so the idea here was to avoid duplication. I've added a seealso link.

Yeah, in afterthought I began to realize that this article can't launch into a full-blown study of the internment, and it is therefore a tricky feat to touch on a thing so compelling briefly. Good luck with that.

Also, the sub-sections on climate and the camp layout and facilities provide details on the conditions. Gmatsuda 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Resistance: As a result of what was Harry Ueno arrested? Also, "After negotiations with camp administration, Ueno was returned to the Manzanar jail...". Grammatically, this says that Ueno negotiated with camp administration, surely not what is meant. It would be better to say who negotiated with camp administration—the whole mob, a few prominent prisoners among the mob, the leaders of one or all of the organizations mentioned, etc.

OK...check it out now. Gmatsuda 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Better. I'll tidy up the English a tad, if you don't mind.

Closure: OK, irony, with the removal business, but we are left wondering what form the forcible removal from Manzanar took, exactly. We can reasonably imagine that the initial round-up was at best discourteously executed, but we must also imagine that four years of contact would have bred a certain amount of mutual respect, if not affection, between the soldiers and inmates, neither of whom wanted to be there. So the reader takes silence as to the details of the removal as bias in favor of the prisoners on the part of the writer. --Milkbreath 15:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There was generally no such respect towards the prisoners exhibited by the MPs. There were very, very few exceptions. After all, these were "Japs" we were at war with and they could not be trusted...this was the prevailing sentiment. In any case, take a look at the article now.

That was, of course, the situation most to be expected, but one can hope. I was just trying to explain what I saw as a conceptual problem with the section. It's better to write it out than leave doubt, yes?

Thank you for the edits and the comments. Hopefully, I've addressed your concerns. Gmatsuda 18:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the roving copyeditor. I'm currently picking through the list of FA candidates for stuff I care about, and you're one of the "lucky ones". --Milkbreath 18:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks! Your attention to this article is appreciated. Did my edits address your concerns? Gmatsuda 19:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The interleaving was getting confusing, so here we are at the bottom where we belong. Yes, "thread" is brilliant. You're not as dumb as I look. I've just finished the rest of the piece. No issues. Good luck with the FA thing, it's a worthy topic. --Milkbreath 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not as dumb as you look? Ummm...I have no idea about your appearance, and you really don't know how dumb I can be, so this one could go either way!! :-) Gmatsuda 20:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sentence in the intro

I'm a little confused about the last sentence in the intro:

Although the primary focus is the Japanese American Internment era, as specified in the legislation that created the Manzanar National Historic Site, the site also interprets the town of Manzanar, the ranch days, the settlement by the Owens Valley Paiute (the indigenous people in the area), and the role that water played in shaping the history of the Owens Valley.

What does "interpret" mean here? Is that the best wording, to say that the site interprets something? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It interprets the history of the area. FYI: The "museum" at the site is called the "interpretive center," so I just followed that. Gmatsuda 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

FAC appears to be dying

No one is supporting OR opposing the Manzanar FAC. Looks like it's going to fail due to lack of response. :( -- Gmatsuda 07:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't voted yet. It's just that the article is very long and I haven't read through it in its entirety. You might try leaving messages at WikiProjects that might take an interest in this issue. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm WAY ahead of you on that! :-) -- Gmatsuda 18:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Further copyedit

Before I forget, what happened to the map?

I changed the lead around. I think it's stronger now—hope you like it. The first sentence should be a concise description for the reader coming in cold, and now it is. The location is now all in one place. The bit about its being a Site belonged in the general description paragraph, if only because it was a single sentence. "History included" was clunky, so I rewrote that part a little. I removed the hodgepodge of parenthetical explications that were obscuring the delicate point the writer was trying to make about forced relocation; they were unnecessary anyway, fortunately, because all will be revealed in the body of the article, including who the Paiute are. I remarked that stuff out rather than deleting it just to be nice, though I strongly advise against putting it back in. I'm on this, now, but I'm getting tired. I might have to address the issues I raised on the FA page tomorrow. I want this article to succeed. --Milkbreath 02:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there's a problem somewhere...Manzanar isn't the only article with that problem with Image:US_Locator_Blank.svg. As for your edits to the lead, they work for me. You can go ahead and add your support on the FAC page now!! :-) -- Gmatsuda 07:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wartime lead: I couldn't look at myself in the mirror, dumb as I look, if I hadn't changed "relocation centers" to "shelter". The quotation marks around it meant that the Order specifically mentioned such a thing by that name, as they did around "any or all persons" in the previous sentence. I think that "shelter" better conveys the dark irony of the situation, anyway. --Milkbreath 18:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the one and only place where the term "relocation centers" should be used because it was the government's official name for the camps. Let's not get too nit-picky with the copyediting (again, no offense intended). -- Gmatsuda 20:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the copyeditor's job to pick nits. He is supposed to be able to pick nits that mortal man can't even see, let alone pick. He must pick them against all opposition, whatever the consequences to himself, as befits a martyr in the crusade for good English. These quotation marks are not nits, though, they are adult lice. They cause the article to misquote a document. Put "relocation center" someplace else, or make it "what the government came to call 'relocation centers'" or whatever. --Milkbreath 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK...I can live with that. Fixed. -- Gmatsuda 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Now, I can see that the word "gunpoint" is, like, your girlfriend or something. So be it. Just let me slide her back in the sentence a little, so that they are made to start walking at her and not actually walking at her. OK? Do you watch "Monk"? --Milkbreath 22:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Check the FAC page for my comment on that. But...we now have "forced at gunpoint to walk..." and "under armed escort by..." My sense is that with the former, the latter is unnecessary. -- Gmatsuda 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what happens when a committee tries to write a sentence. I defer to you at this point, though I think it hobbles along as it is. I'm outta here for now. (see FAC) --Milkbreath 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're good to go at this point...thanks for your contributions! -- Gmatsuda 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Second archive page

I've moved the GA review discussion and the other stuff before the FA review to a new archive page (see above). -- Gmatsuda 00:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured article!

Finally! Due to the efforts of a number of people (you all know who you are), Manzanar is now a Featured article. Congrats to everyone who contributed! -- Gmatsuda 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your message, as I dont visit wp too often anymore. Thank you for getting such an important JA article up to FA status. falsedef 06:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

New Wikiprojects added

I've added this article to a few Wikiprojects that weren't listed before (see banners above). If anyone questions why WikiProject Southern California was added (Manzanar isn't in Southern California), its because the vast majority of Manzanar's prisoners were from Southern California. -- Gmatsuda 10:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since most of Manzanar's prisoners were from the Los Angeles area, I've added the WPLA banner. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology Redux

Sorry to start this all over again, but someone who read this article pointed out to me that back in 1998, the American Jewish Committee initially objected to the use of "concentration camp" when an exhibit about the American camps was set to open at Ellis Island. But after a meeting between Japanese American and Jewish community leaders, the AJC agreed that use of "concentration camp" was appropriate, as long as the difference between the American camps and the Nazi camps was explained. The AJC even pointed out that other concentration camps have existed since World War II.

Given this fact, I think there should be little reason for anyone to object to the use of "concentration camp" to describe the American camps. No disrespect intended, but the above is what I've been saying all along and IMHO, I think we should respect what the majority of former prisoners of these camps and, as of 1998, at least one very prominent national Jewish community organization, have said about this terminology debate.

Again, let's call a spade a spade. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I respectfully, but strongly, differ. I agree with the contrary views expressed by many -- differing with your often and repeatedly expressed views -- in the past months, on this page. For the reasons expressed by them. You raise nothing new of moment above. Rather than have everyone re-hash the prior discussions, I think if anyone would like to she or he can look through the archived discussions. At this point this just appears to be an effort to tire out all that disagree with you.--Ethelh (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Please note, however, that the discussions you referred to occurred before I knew of (actually, was reminded of) the controversy and subsequent accord that happened in New York surrounding the exhibit there. The point is that if they can agree on the terminology, why can't we? If a nationally recognized and respected Jewish community organization, a major newspaper in a city with a huge Jewish population as well as writers for a Jewish publication all agree that "concentration camp" is accurate and that no one has the right to claim exclusive use of the term, why are we back to that now? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How about if we contact the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League and ask them for their opinion? Would that satisfy you? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Nomination

With the 39th Annual Manzanar Pilgrimage coming up on April 26, I have nominated this article to be on Wikipedia's main page on that date. Please add your support for that at Today's featured article requests -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess there can be only five requests on that page at any given time...so it was removed. I'll re-nominate ASAP. Keep an eye out. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The nomination was removed intially because there can only be five nominations on that page, but it's back, so if you are so inclined, please offer your support. Thanks! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Success! Manzanar will be featured on the main page on April 26, coinciding with the annual Manzanar Pilgrimage. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Excellent! --Parkwells (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Build?

Yoneda arrived at Manzanar on 22 March 1942, one of the first Japanese Americans to arrive as a volunteer to build the camp. It's unclear to me why he did this. Did he support the idea of the camps, or did he just want to ensure the best possible living place for people like him who would be interned there or what? Nil Einne (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A number of Manzanar's prisoners "volunteered" to help build the camp. Most were single men. It was the latter reason that you guessed rather than the former. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of "imprisoned"

The opening sentence of the article uses the word "imprisoned". Strictly speaking, it may be true, but it is in contrast to Japanese American internment which does not use "imprisonment". Internment makes a distinction between the two, noting that "internment" has political connotations and "imprisonment" is associated with punishment for a crime. Moreover, "internment" is the term most often used by historians in discussion of this part of American history. Why was "imprisoned" used? It seems both misleading and degrading to those who were (in my view) "interned". Simishag (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Interned" is a confusing and inaccurate term in this case, even though it is widely used. The reason is that "internee" generally refers to those who are not citizens of the nation incarcerating them. In this case, two-thirds of those "interned" were native-born American citizens. The other reason is that the US Government had separate camps that were officially called "internment camps." Manzanar was not one of them. Also, if you ask most former "internees," they will say that they were indeed prisoners within their own country. After all, they were not free to come and go as they pleased and were under the watch of armed military police who were under orders to shoot anyone trying to leave the camp without permission...that was often interpreted by MPs as if one got "too close" to the barbed wire fence, shoot to kill. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Manzanar on front page, April 26, 2008

Manzanar on English Wikipedia's front page, April 26, 2008

Since we probably won't see Manzanar on Wikipedia's main/front page again anytime soon, here it is, for perpetuity... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos courtesy of.....

I am deeply offended by the photo captions photo courtesy of... If they won't let us use the photos without such a caption, then we shouldn't use the photo.--345Kai (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but you sure are easily offended. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I’m surely not offended by it, but I do think an encyclopaedic article just looks better without the credits in the article itself. Contributions to the article can be found in the history of the page and on the image description page. That should be sufficient isn’t it? Apparently even policy. --Van helsing (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, sorry I missed that. A related policy proposal can be found here. --Van helsing (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comparison

I wonder whether a link to some of the Japanese-run internment camps in the Far East would be of interest to readers of this article? Camps like Stanley Internment Camp and Batu Lintang camp. It is interesting to compare the very different ways the two governments dealt with their civilian internees. The Japanese treated their internees with great brutality. Internees died as a result of lack of food, illness and violence. Death orders were made at the end period of the war, stating that all surviving internees and POWs in the camps were to be murdered. The Japanese ignored international conventions for the treatment of prisoners and regularly denied Red Cross aid. There is a culture of denial or at best collective amnesia in Japan about this shameful period in its history. The treatment of the internees at Manzanar was decidedly humane in contrast. 86.134.50.59 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate at all. The Japanese camps were in areas they occupied as a result of war, and held POW's and citizens of nations with which they were at war, not residents of their own nation.

By contrast, the US gave in to its own racial fears, and arbitrarily interned law-abiding legal residents and US citizens whose "fault" was they were descended from nations with which we were at war. That's quite a difference. In retrospect, most historians think that economic competition and fearfulness on the West Coast played a bigger basis in the plan for the internment camps than any realistic assessment of wartime risk by the Japanese American populations. These are not the same case at all.--Parkwells (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Over the years I've met a few people (not Japanese-Americans) who lived in California during WWII. Based on these conversations, it seems to me that the major factor in the creation of thees camps in the US was the fear of invasion, however realistic or unrealistic that fear was. They described as similar to, but much more intense than, the anti-Arab feelings in America after the 9/11 attacks. I'm not saying this justifies what occurred, but it does perhaps provide some explanation. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When I was growing up, I had neighbors for a while who were Japanese Americans from CA. The woman of the couple had parents who had moved her family from CA to TX to avoid the internment. Her father was a dentist and had a hard time reestablishing his profession. Yes, fear runs wild, especially when linked to other kinds of difference, and in CA the anti-Japanese/Chinese discrimination had been deep. Part of the problem was that the national government, rather than acting with a larger strategic view, gave in to CA's hysteria, and authorized carting off a huge batch of people, non-citizens and citizens alike, for internment. The national government's failure is one reason why a bill for compensation finally passed.--Parkwells (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There were some who correctly labeled what was happening at the time. Japanese Americans did challenge the internment. Associate Justice Frank Murphy introduced the word "racism" into the lexicon of U.S. Supreme Court opinions in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), in which he charged that by upholding the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the Court was sinking into "the ugly abyss of racism." This was the first time that the word "racism" found its way into the lexicon of words used in Supreme Court opinion.--Parkwells (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It also turned out (I'm reading from cases in Wikipedia), that later it was found that the government suppressed evidence in the Supreme Court case that said the military did not think a real emergency existed. "Korematsu v. US" was overturned. Judge Patel concluded:

"Korematsu remains on the pages of our legal and political history. As a legal precedent it is now recognized as having very limited application. As historical precedent it stands as a constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutions must be vigilant in protecting constitutional guarantees. It stands as a caution that in times of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. It stands as a caution that in times of international hostility and antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and judicial, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused."--Parkwells (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually,tl the ruling in the case was not overturned. A lower court cannot overturn a decision of the US Supreme Court. Rather, the ruling was vacated. Technically, the rulings in the 1944 cases are still the law of the land. However, based on the falsified, altered and omitted evidence that the government used in 1944, the ruling in the 1984 cases completely undermines the evidence upon which the 1944 cases were based on. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, this kind of moral reductionism is the equivalent of kid's on the playground who claim "Billy did it first!" or "Jane stole more cookies than I did!" when caught by the schoolteacher. It wasn't a good excuse when we were schoolchildren, and its not an especially great one now. It also presumes that pointing out one's own flaws means an instant support of the opposing side; a kind of extrapolated "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This too is flawed, and reduces everything into a "us vs them" mentality. The world, despite how much people want to say otherwise, is a morally complicated place, with a great amount of gray. The fact that this perturbs people who want their decisions quick and simplistic is not something Wikipedia should cater to. SiberioS (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)