Talk:Crystal City Internment Camp

add German-American internment camps category

I find it odd that this is under the "Japanese internment camps" category when just as many if not more German-American civilians were shipped here. Please add the category, if there even is one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.207.191 (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Serious problems with this article

I've noted the recent edits to this article by GabrielF and others. Assuming good faith, I appreciate the efforts, but as it stands now, this article is very poorly researched using just two sources. After all, if those two sources support the conclusion that, in the case of Japanese Americans and their immigrant parents, that, "...During World War II the United States government created detention camps for mainly German and Japanese Americans, as well as German and Japanese Latin Americans, in order to protect the country from any suspected attacks and harm," then the editors clearly haven't done sufficient research, as the historical record on this matter is quite clear: these camps (yes, even Crystal City), were not created out of concern that Japanese Americans were a security risk. Instead, "racism, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" were the root causes, as documented by the federal Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, not to mention a load of scholarly work done well before the Commission hearings in the early 1980's.

Another statement is inaccurate: "The United States government interned Latin American Germans and Japanese because of suspicion that they were untrustworthy enemies who might help launch attacks on the US." The next sentence then refers to them as "foreigners." Again, the suspicion mentioned in that statement was bogus, and not all Japanese Americans who were incarcerated at Crystal City were immigrants. Some were native-born American citizens. Again, very poorly researched, and I'm guessing some assumptions are being made here.

The following statement is also untrue for reasons already stated: "American-born Japanese and Germans were not excluded from internment because INS officials feared they might participate in subversive activities."

There is a plethora of solid, scholarly work that is available on Crystal City, and the Japanese American Incarceration. I wish I had to time to fix this article (and it needs a boatload of repairs due to the glaring inaccuracies listed here, and I'm probably missing some), but I don't. I hope someone will take the time to do the necessary research and fix it. A good place to start is Michi Weglyn's Years of Infamy. — Gmatsuda (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll try to chip in a few places where I can. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I look forward to an accurate article! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice work so far! Friendly reminder: once you feel like you've addressed the issues flagged at the top of the article, feel free to remove the the ones you addressed. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs pruning

There is too much in this article that is non-WP:TOPIC to Crystal City. Needs to be moved (except it's probably already there) to Japanese American internment. This article is strictly limited to Crystal City. Each camp article is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the issue of interment, which is covered quite adequately in the parent article. Student7 (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. If anything, this article lacks a lot of necessary information about the history of Crystal City. Some duplication will be necessary and unavoidable, given the subject matter. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I moved some key information into the lead and deleted the history of several other camps which are inappropriate and distracts from Crystal City. If it's not in Crystal City it really doesn't belong here unless essential for understanding the article. It is germane to tell the reader where the original internees came from (Seagoville). I left that. Student7 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Barbed wire subtitle

Wikipedia is neither pro internee nor anti-internee. The caption "life behind barbed wire" is clearly intended to generate sympathy for the internees. That is not the intent of the article. Fine for a blog, but not for here. It appear to be an Appeal to pity. Student7 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Never said Wikipedia took a position. As for the caption, that's your subjective interpretation. As for the fact of the matter, they were indeed incarcerated behind barbed wire. As such, I don't see the problem. Facts are facts. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Assuming Crystal City was different, it would be interesting to the reader to discover "other things" about the confinement. Was there really barbed wire? Guards on towers with guns? Security in and out? Telephone access? The size of "quarters" for the internees for families and adult unmarried people. Restrictions on possessions. (assume no weapons, but what about other stuff that might be considered contraband in a regular prison?). Did children play baseball/sports?

If common to all internment centers, perhaps some of this should be in the parent article. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Then what are you waiting for? Do the research and add it. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of challenged wording

Here is the quote that has been challenged as non-neutral: "Crystal City INS officials justified the segregation as a way to monitor both groups."

Here is a direct quote from the source: "The camp's segregation apparently was justified as much by a bureaucratic rationale for control of internees as individuals in both groups accepted it as necessary."

And reading the quotes in context (it would take many many quoted paragraphs to explain) I feel the current text accurately represents what the source is saying. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Large. Really, really large

I replaced the adjective "large numbers" of detainees with "a number", citing WP:POV. This was reverted. Perhaps I should have cited WP:SUBSTANTIATE. This is not a matter of media trying to slant news, for which they have no particular data to report, but an encyclopedia, which (hopefully) has accurate figures. It can be left to the reader to decide if the number is "large", "small", or to leave it WP:NPOV in their subsequent report or memory.

We are not trying to "lead" the reader. If there is no data to support the material, then please omit any adjectives. The report may well have used the pov wording (and still be WP:RS). We are obliged to omit material that is pov, even if the rest of the material is reliable. Slanted material should be skipped or reworded npov. Student7 (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The source describes it as such, so we do as well. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There is much WP:BIAS in most large WP:RS. Wikipedia removes these. There is no excuse for copying pov adjectives. Particularly when there may (or should be) actual data supporting these words. The problem is (as with other gratuitous adjectives}: "What, exactly, is "large?" 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? Why deliberately try to mislead the reader? Student7 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We go where the source goes. The source calls the numbers "large", so we do. There is nothing "misleading" in that, and it is offensive that you would call following the reliable sources "deliberately try[ing] to mislead the reader." Please refrain from doing that in the future, as it casts aspersions on me that are unfounded and unfair. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; the word "large" is nonspecific but well-sourced and it certainly makes an important part of the statement. If we had an exact number, that would be nice, but we don't, so "large" will have to suffice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's well-sourced from very reliable sources. That's all that's needed to justify its use. Makes me wonder if someone has some ulterior motives here. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but I'm seeing a pattern of trying to water down Japanese American incarceration-related articles with edits like this with claims that it's to remove POV, or something similar. Just 'sayin. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF please.

How much, give or take a few thousand, is "large?" That question still has not been answered. It is poor editorship to allow the use of adjectives to substitute for actual facts.

Quoting from another Wikipedian, "Sources are not required to be neutral. Only Wikipedia editors are." We should edit out obvious WP:POV subjective parameters that have no basis in figures supplied by the otherwise WP:RS. Like saying that person x is "handsome" or "ugly." Presenting a photo might allow the reader to judge. There is nothing here for the reader (or anyone else) to judge. The author has merely substituted his/her judgement (read WP:SYNTH) for the actual facts, which may actually cover the fact that they don't know what the actual figures were. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The word "large" is not POV, it is simply descriptive. There is no issue with using it, and the reasoning behind using it has been explained to you. It's not coming out of the article, so discussing the same point any further has no purpose. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Try to look at a neutral article Atmosphere of Earth. It does use the word "high" to describe "the sky", but does qualify it quantitatively at all times. It does not say the sky is high in the Dead Sea area, and "low" on top of Mt. Everest. It is objective. It contains the facts from some specialists pov. (Doubtless, they have differences as well). But it does not confine itself to the subjective. Student7 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the stick. The word "large" is not POV, and is not coming out of the article, since it is reliably-sourced and has no POV issues. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

According to a reliable source, the camp never held more than 3, 374 internees. That seems to place a cap on "how large is large." Can't have exceeded that number at any one time though it could have over a period of time, of course. Student7 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"people of Japanese, German, and Italian descent"

That phrase could be misleading by implication, since as I understand it, the majority of interned Germans and Italians had actual German and Italian citizenship (though some may have been dual nationals), while Japanese Americans were interned regardless of citizenship status. Certainly only a tiny percentage of the German-American and Italian-American communities were detained, while a large percentage of the Japanese-American community in the contiguous U.S. was detained... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Boston College supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)