Talk:Manzanar/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1, July 26, 2007

Article title

Consistent with the reorganization of the Japanese American Internment article, I propose that we move this article under a new title Manzanar Internment Camp. The rationale for dropping the word 'Japanese' from the title is covered in the discussion concerning the Japanese American Internment reorg. It is reasonable to assume that "Manzanar Internment Camp" is unique; besides, it also reflects common usage. Comments from others? ishu 06:43 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why not just Manzanar? It is already a redirect here. --mav

I have no objection to that. Short, simple, to the point, and consistent with common usage. Let's do it.--ishu 07:12 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Done. --mav

I believe that the word Japanese internment camps is to the point and basically that is who was there, "the Japanese". It really isnt any of the united states fault at all and im sure i speak for most americans by saying that the relocation camps were the best and safest idea just because of what was going on at the time because we all know know that if we were in school or working with a "JAPANESE AMERICAN" we really wouldnt feel very comfortable and we couldnt trust them.The "JAPS" Bombmed us we didnt bomb them so there fore thats why we dont feel bad and all for the titles that are going on these informational papers and everything should say " JAPANESE OR JAPANESE AMERICAN INTERNMENT CAMPS" so be it. and besides its all done and done so dont try to change it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.75.197 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 June 2006

Not the United States' fault? The historical record proves that it was. As for how one felt about their personal safety or security in the presence of someone of Japanese ancestry during that time, again, the historical record proves that the US Government knew that the Japanese in the US were highly loyal at the time, but they chose not only to ignore that, but perpetuate false charges of espionage and sabotage. Indeed, the US Government bears most of the responsibility for how the American people felt about their neighbors who were of Japanese ancestry. And as for bombing, I guess those two atomic bombs dropped on Japan, not to mention Doolittle's raids, weren't dropped from US warplanes.

Next time, try learning the facts before spouting off. Gmatsuda 21:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I have a NPOV issue with the term "loyal" and "disloyal" to describe the detainees sorted out in 1943. It implies that those who refused to take the loyalty oath, which was required to avoid being evacuated to the Tule Lake Segregation Center, by definition were "disloyal" to America, when they were simply resentful of the treatment they had received by the federal government and the WRA. The loyalty oath, by the way, would have also made them eligible for the draft.

It may be more accurate to say that in 1943, a policy decision was made to transfer anti-administration internees away from Manzanar and other relocation centers to a segregation center at Tule Lake. --khaosworks 09:15, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Relocation/Internment/Concentration

Not to sugar coat anything, but I think that it is POV to outright call Manzanar a concentration camp, because of the general association of that term with genocide. -Willmcw 21:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's not confuse concentration camp with extermination camp. --mav

Let's not confuse any terms. ;) "Relocation camp" is too much of a euphemism, while "internment camp" is the commonly accepted term for Manzanar, etc. Those camps certainly resembled the concentration camps of the Boer War but not those of Nazi Germany. Just as the swastika had a different connotation before being employed by the Nazis, so too does the term "concentration camp". -05:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Americans were scattered along the Pacific Coast before the war began. When the war broke out, they were forced to gather in designated areas. This is something more than relocation. --a user from Japan3 March 2005

"Relocating" is a synonym for moving. I guess I'm not sure what your point is. -Willmcw 20:53, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The temptation to magnify the injustice by adopting the semantically loaded term "concentration camp" has induced the predictable backlash effect that occurs when victims are perceived to be exaggerating their trauma. Non-victim groups don't want the additional implied guilt and social debt. People who had family in Nazi concentration camps don't want their family sufferring diluted by additional "lesser concentration camp" members. Confining people perceived as a threat during wartime is internment.

"Relocation" is the official name, thus the most correct. "Internment" is what was done in the relocation centers, and "internment camp" is a less-formal synonym which can us used interchangeably within the body of the article. While "concentration camp" is technically accurate, that term has pretty much become the property of the Holocaust survivors. -- Critic-at-Arms 15 APR 06

As a former member of the Manzanar National Historic Site Advisory Commission and a current member of the Manzanar Committee, we have long maintained that Manzanar, by definition, was a concentration camp (look up the definition in Webster's dictionary for confirmation). Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who signed Executive Order 9066, has been quoted as saying that the camps were concentration camps. Officially, the US Government called them "relocation centers." But that was their euphemistic term for what they really were. In fact, the US Government did the same thing that the Nazis did with their camps, only "concentration camp" was their euphemism. In fact, they ran death camps. And if you ask Holocaust survivors, including many who are active in or support organzations such as the Anti-Defamation League and/or the American Jewish Committee, they indeed call them "death camps." Further, no one has ever claimed that the camps where Japanese Americans were imprisoned were anywhere near as bad as those where Jews were exterminated in Europe.

In addition, using "internment camp" to describe Manzanar and the nine other camps is factually inaccurate, at least according to their official titles (since that is what many use to justify the use of "relocation center"). Japanese American community leaders who were arrested on December 8, 1941 or shortly thereafter were usually sent to Justice Department Internment Camps...not the same as camps such as Manzanar. There were also Citizen Isolation Camps for those who were thought to be "troublemakers."

*Weglyn, Michi. (1976, 1996). Years Of Infamy: The Untold Story Of America's Concentration Camps. University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295974842. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help) -- Gmatsuda 19:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The target article is titled internment, and discusses the various related terms; it's in our interest to use the least loaded term here in order to maintain NPOV. If you're involved with an advocacy group related to the subject, it's particularly important that you avoid POV terminology - the fact that such an advocacy group insists on the use of one term does not constitute a rationale for its use here. (As for FDR, I suspect that the term 'concentration camp' carried decidedly different weight prior to his death than it does now, as the Nazi camps had not been liberated yet at the time.) In addition, you reverted numerous changes which were made to conform with style guidelines; I'll also add that unit conversions for acres are usually converted to hectares rather than kilometres. MisfitToys 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, where POV comes into play is in restricting the use of "concentration camp" exclusively for the Nazi death camps. By definition, according to more than one dictionary, these were concentration camps. Also, FDR referred to them more than once as concentration camps. Also, as stated above, "concentration camp" was the Nazi's euphemism for what their camps really were. In the case of the US Government, "relocation center" was their euphemism. Also, if you want to get official, the US Government had separate camps that were called internment camps. Manzanar was not one of them. As such, I will revert the terminology. Gmatsuda 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI: The Manzanar Committee's opinion on this matter only matters in the sense that those interned have a right to self-determination in terms of describing their experiences during the war. After all, it happened to them. They witnessed it first-hand. Like the survivors of the Nazi death camps, only they know first-hand what happened to them, and most of them refer to those camps as death camps. Although no one in their right mind would compare the American concentration camps to the Nazi death camps, there are a few similarities in the experiences and how their captors handled the situation, especially in terms of how they tried to portray what they were doing to the world. Use of euphemistic terms for their camps was, perhaps, the biggest one. Gmatsuda 21:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What I would find acceptable is something they have done at the Manzanar National Historic Site Interpretive Center...let's add a section to the article dealing with the debate over the terminology. I don't have time at the moment, but I can add that sometime in the next few days. I do, however, believe that to be factually accurate, "concentration camp" should remain in the article. Gmatsuda 21:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how the internees desribe their own experiences, no one has the right to dictate how other people (such as an encyclopedia) must describe them. I've already commented on FDR. And for heaven's sake, even if you feel the urge to revert the term 'internment camp' to 'concentration camp', PLEASE don't revert all the corrections of grammar, style and wikilinking. That's an even bigger pain. MisfitToys 22:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the corrections of "grammar, style and wikilinking," this article passed GA review before you came along (no offense intended), so it was fine before. As for the terminology debate, your insistence on calling these camps "internment camps" is factually inaccurate, given the fact that the US Government had other camps that were called internment camps. And is my suggestion to add a section on the terminology unacceptable to you? Seems that it is given that you're reverted the article again. Gmatsuda 22:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing...what you suspect about FDR isn't relevant (respectfully). Basing your actions on your suspicion does not pass muster. I am basing my position on facts. Gmatsuda 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the article passed GA at some point in the past doesn't mean it is not subject to further copyediting. As it stands, I can't really take the article seriously due to the POV issue. MisfitToys 23:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but clearly, the fact that you think using "concentration camp" is POV and I think using "internment camp" is POV is evidence that we need a section discussing the terminology used and the debate surrounding it. What's wrong with that? After all, this is exactly what they've done in one of the exhibits at the site. Gmatsuda 00:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

More on the terminology debate...I plan on adding a section dealing with this in the coming week (I hope; might not be until the following week). In the meantime, the following are good sites that deal with exactly what we're talking about here The Manzanar Controversy, Smithsonian Institution: A More Perfect Union: Internment: Permanent Camps (see Harold Ickes statement) and Smithsonian Institution: A More Perfect Union: Justice: Court Cases (see dissenting opinion by Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts). Another interesting reference is We Were Still The Enemy Gmatsuda 06:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The camps in Nazi Germany were termed concentration camps because that is what the Nazis referred to them as. Konzentrationslager, in German. It is beyond cavil that when the term concentration camp is used, what comes to mind is such camps, and their crematoria, and genocide. To say as one editor does above that "In fact, the US Government did the same thing that the Nazis did with their camps, only "concentration camp" was their euphemism," is to highlight precisely the problem with the use of concentration camp here. It would foster such misunderstanding. These camps were terrible, admittedly. But they were a far cry from crematoria-filled killing centers. While some may like to bring more attention to how bad this camp was by connecting it to camps that were demonstrably worse by using such a term, such efforts can only lead to misunderstanding. The term relocation was the term used here with these camps. The War Relocation Authority was the name of the authority that ran the program under the authority of Executive Order No. 9066 of February 19, 1942.[1] No genocide or crematoria were involved. Encyclopaedia Britannica calls it an interment center set up by the relocation authority.[2] Encylopedie Universalis calls "Manzanar Relocation Center" an interment facility. [3] An approach parallel to those would appear appropriate. --Epeefleche 18:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is many believe that the Nazi death camps have the exclusve right to use "concentration camp" to describe those camps. The fact remains that Hitler's regime used "concentration camp" as a euphemism, which does a massive injustice to what those camps really were. The same goes for the War Relocation Authority, who made a conscious effort to deny that the American concentration camps were not really prisons, and that those behind the barbed wire were not prisoners. "War Relocation Center" was the WRA's euphemism. "Concentration camp," by definition, is entirely accurate, and it is POV to deny its use here, just like it's POV to insist on using "internment camp," not to mention that use of "internment camp" to describe the ten camps is factually inaccurate.

Also, no one made any attempt whatsoever to compare these camps with Nazi death camps, as stated earlier in this discussion.

In any case, I believe I have found an acceptable alternative, as you'll see on the page when I make the edits. Gmatsuda 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Gmatsuda--good job. Thank you.--Epeefleche 04:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. None of this was a personal thing towards anyone. :-) My objection to "relocation center" is that is a term that was used to obscure/hide what these camps really were, just like what the Nazis did by calling their camps "concentration camps." The idea here on Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) is to educate, and use of the euphemistic term flies right in the face of that purpose. I still maintain that use of "concentration camp" is accurate and justified, and that objections to its use to describe Manzanar and the nine other camps is really POV, given the facts (as stated earlier). However, "incarceration" accurately describes what happened as well, and it also describes the severity of what happened. Unlike "relocation" or even "evacuation," it does not obscure/hide the reality. As such, I believe it is an acceptable alternative. Gmatsuda 06:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. It's a good sign that we can have different views to start, and you can find a way to compromise by focusing on all of our underlying goals. Not every editor here has that skill.--Epeefleche 23:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For me, it's the broader goal of education. Although I maintain that "concentration camp" is both accurate and justified, getting caught up in a semantics debate does nothing to accomplish the broader goal(s). There are bigger fish to fry, so to speak. I would not have been able to accept "relocation center" or "internment camp" for reasons stated earlier, so I was very happy to find that others, namely Densho, an organization that has done/supported a lot of research on the camp experience, had a very good alternative. Gmatsuda 23:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. And I could (and, given the energy, would) no doubt discuss the issue with you at length if the circumstances were other. But yes -- there are bigger fish to fry, and your approach was good because it followed a focus that was summarized in the book on negotiation entitled "Getting to Yes." The focus being to figure out what the other person's real goal is, and see if you can satisfy that while satisfying yourself. Rather than limit yourself to looking at what appears to be the goal on the face of the discussion. Sadly, the real goal of some people here is to argue, or disrupt, rather than to build something better. Those people probably have few friends, and come here to communicate with others, as they are shunned in the real world, but it is harder to avoid them here. You have in contrast been a pleasure to work with in spite of our havin different views.--Epeefleche 04:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bottom line is...I'm right and you're wrong. So there!! :-) Gmatsuda 05:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Sounds like every marital dispute I have ever heard.--Epeefleche 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on discussion between myself, Epeefleche and Miss Mondegreen, I have added a "Terminology debate" section. I've also reverted "incarceration camp" back to "concentration camp." Does this work for you? Let's hear it! Gmatsuda 09:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not for me. For the reasons stated on this page. Btw, the following may be of interest: Godwin's Law.--Epeefleche 18:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Respectfully, are you basically saying that only the Nazi camps can be called "concentration camps?" By pointing to Godwin's Law, it seems that way. As I've stated before, no one is making any comparison whatsoever to the Nazi camps, or to the experiences of the Holocaust victims or survivors. Or, going back to the above, are you saying that we should use the official term used? Gmatsuda 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am saying that concentration camps raises in peoples' minds the Nazi camps that they called (in German) concentration camps, along with images of genocide. Here, I would be fine with us either using the term that the authorities used (in fact, that is what we do with the Nazi concentration camps), or alternatively using a descriptive term that is accurate in its description.--Epeefleche 01:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit that "concentration camp" does raise the Nazi camps/Holocaust in many people's minds. I never said that it did not. Putting the alternative we came up with aside for now (I kind of agree with MM; it works from a semantics point of view, but it does not work as an accepted term because it isn't widely used), let me ask this, again with respect: Why is it acceptable to use "concentration camp" for the Nazi camps, even though many believe that is a euphemistic term for what they really were? Just because that's what the Nazis called them? What about the larger goal of education? And since there is clearly now a differentiation between the Nazi "concentration camps" and their death camps, we get into even murkier waters. And as stated earlier, if we were to stick to what the government's official name for the American camps, once again, we have the euphemism issue. Gmatsuda 01:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gmatsuda. Answering your questions, I view it as acceptable to use concentration camp for the Nazi camps for two reasons. 1--It was the officially used name. 2--As you say, it raises in many peoples' minds the Nazi camps/Holocaust ... but since these were those camps, the image raised is the correct one. It does not bring to mind a softer image, no matter what the words concentration and camp mean when not joined together. As with the phrase "xerox" when used as a verb, the term concentration camp has taken on a meaning that transcends its use on the first day it was used. Xerox is now used to mean copy ... and a copy by a xerox machine or another machine might be the same. But when the output is different, we use a different term -- fax, for example, or scan, or print. Here there is a difference as well. I think that what happened here was terrible. But to use the phrase concentration camp, which brings to mind in many an image that is not accurate, is I believe misleading. Again, I would support any attempt to use either the official name (with commentary .. indeed, that is how the term concentration camp came to have its current understood meaning over time), or a term that is descriptively more accurate, and brings to mind what really happened -- not a pleasant summer camp, nor a Nazi genocide camp. As the article at concentration camp notes, "The term concentration camp lost some of its original meaning after Nazi concentration camps were discovered, and has ever since been understood to refer to a place of mistreatment, starvation, forced labour, and murder. The expression since then has only been used in this extremely pejorative sense; no government or organization has used it to describe its own facilities, using instead terms such as internment camp, resettlement camp, detention facility, etc, regardless of the actual circumstances of the camp, which can vary a great deal."--Epeefleche 02:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK...you've made your point clear. The issue I have with the Nazi camps having the exclusive right to use "concentration camp" is that it forces those describing other camps to use either inaccurate terms or euphemisms that do not accurately describe what they were. It is an injustice, not only to the former prisoners of the American camps, but to history, IMHO, to reserve use of the term ONLY for the Nazi camps, especially now that differentiation is being made between the types of camps run by the Nazis.

I've been unclear. The use of the phrase for the Nazi genocide killing camps was twofold. One -- it was the official Nazi name for them. Two -- that name is associated with genocidal killing. Neither applies to these camps. Were these camps camps of genocidal killing lined with crematoria, I would have no problem with your using the phrase. They were not. Your suggestion below that the use is an accurate term ignores this point, which I and others have made. I'm not sure why I have been unable to communicate this point emphatically enough. I and others, indeed the first comments above, focus on this.--Epeefleche 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So..what we're left with is 1) Relocation center - euphemism; 2) internment camp - inaccurate or; 3) concentration camp - accurate, but a term many claim should be reserved exclusively for the Nazi camps. IMHO, it would be unjust to use option 1. Option 2 is inaccurate and should not be used. If we use option 3, we'd be accurate, and again, IMHO, the Nazi camps should not have an exclusive claim in the use of "concentration camp." As horrific as the Holocaust and those camps were, by definition, the camps Japanese Americans were imprisoned in were indeed concentration camps.

Of course, we're now back where we started, sort of. :( BTW: Aside from what term to use in the article, what did you think of the Terminology section by itself? Gmatsuda 03:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Regarding "understanding its meaning over time..." that's an easy argument to make for the Holocaust, which resulted in mass genocide. It will always be far more well-known that the Japanese American internment. To this day, few people know about it. As such, it will likely not ever have the benefit of "understanding its meaning over time." This, to me, makes the use of the most accurate term essential, and "relocation center" and "internment camp" don't qualify. Also, virtually every scholar who has researched this subject refers to these camps as "concentration camps." Are they all wrong, too? Respectfully... Gmatsuda 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article (used as a reference in the article) also provides a good reason for "calling a spade, a spade." Concentration Camp Or Summer Camp? Gmatsuda 04:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your "unclear" comment...I understand your point. However, by definition, "concentration camp" does not require genocide, crematoria, etc. Basically, what you are stating, is that only the Nazi camps can be called "concentration camps," and that no other camp, even though it meets the definition, can be called that. That's where I, and many others, disagree. I acknowledge that many associate the term with the Nazi camps. But that doesn't mean the Nazi camps are the only ones that can be called "concentration camps." If that was the case, Webster's dictionary would say so, and virtually all scholarly research on the subject would agree on that. But that isn't the case. It seems rather unfair that "concentration camp" can only be used to describe the Nazi camps. It is certainly unfair to the prisoners of the American camps who would all tell you that they were not merely "relocated." Gmatsuda 05:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing...I have seen no credible reference that proves that "concentration camp" must only be used to describe the Nazi camps. All I have seen is the opinions of others. However, I have seen lots of credible research, along with numerous dictionary definitions that support the use of the term to describe the American camps. None of the dictionary definitions state that genocide must be part of the deal. Even Oxford's English Dictionary, although it states that there is a strong association with the Nazi camps, it says nothing about genocide and its definition still describes the American camps as well.

I just looked at the Internment article. It needs a lot of work. I had to laugh when I read, "The term concentration camp lost some of its original meaning after Nazi concentration camps were discovered, and has ever since been understood to refer to a place of mistreatment, starvation, forced labour, and murder. The expression since then has only been used in this extremely pejorative sense; no government or organization has used it to describe its own facilities, using instead terms such as internment camp, resettlement camp, detention facility, etc, regardless of the actual circumstances of the camp, which can vary a great deal."

That statement is incorrect in that a government and quite a few organizations have used "concentration camp" to describe its own facilities. We've been discussing that fact above. Quite frankly, I believe that it is POV to claim that only the Nazi camps can be referred to as concentration camps, especially when multiple definitions and lots of scholarly research is out there that contradicts this.

So now...that leaves us with the bottom line: What do we do now? Gmatsuda 05:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that there is no definitive difference between internment and concentration camps. That's why I merged the article on internment with the one on concentration camp. However, to suggest that there is no difference in people's minds (at least in the english speaking world) borders on ridiculous. People most definitely think of nazi camps when the term concentration camp is mentioned. It may be different in other languages - the word "ghetto" is more or less harmless in the north america where people consider it a place where poor people live, but in most european countries, the same word brings to mind WW2 Jewish ghettos, a different phenomenon altogether. As far as camps for ethnic Japanese in the United States and Canada during WW2, they were awful (and in my opinion, motivated by racism and greed) and most certainly were camps designed to concentrate the japanese, so they do fit the basic definition of concentration camps. They do, however, also fit the definition of internment camps. I would suggest that to choose the term concentration camp is to consciously suggest strong similarities with Nazi concentration camps, which simply isn't accurate. Even aside from Death camps where people were gassed, enormous numbers of people died in regular Nazi concentration camps from starvation, overwork, etc. The same is not true of japanese american/canadian internment/concentration camps.

Oh, and if you can give examples of post-ww2 governments who've used the term concentration camp, please add them to the internment article, and maybe change "no government or organization" to "few governments or organizations." It's certainly got good for PR to use the term now. - TheMightyQuill 06:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It's good to have more viewpoints here. The one thing I must ask...Do you tell Japanese Americans who were imprisoned in the American camps that they must not use "concentration camp" when they describe their camps? As for "Internment camp," I agree the American camps fit the definition. However, as stated in the article, the US had separate camps that they officially called "internment camps." Also, by definition, internment generally refers to enemy aliens, not citizens. In the American camps, 1/3 of the prisoners were so-called enemy aliens, but only because racist laws prevented them from becoming citizens. As such, to the use "internment camp" would not only be incorrect given those facts, but it would add even more confusion. Oh...and no former prisoner of the American camps, nor any scholar or historian who has researched them extensively, nor any Japanese American community organization, has ever compared their experiences to those of the Holocaust victims/survivors. If anything, they have gone out of their way not to. As such, your statement that the mere choice of "concentration camp" is a conscious suggestion that the camps are similar to those in Europe is ludicrous. What your assertion does suggest is that, as stated earlier, many people believe that only the Nazi camps may be referred to as concentration camps--basically (and respectfully), some Holocaust survivors and their supporters (for lack of a better term) have claimed "ownership" of the term--and any other type of camp that is referred to as such is viewed as a slight or insult against the Holocaust survivors. Your statement about "good PR" is another indication of that. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Also, what's important is not the difference in people's minds (in this case). What's important is being accurate. Oh...and now that you mention it, I can think of a couple of instances where concentration camps in the US were/are an issue. Back in 1980, as a response to the Iran hostage crisis, the US actually built a concentration camp in Louisiana. It was called that by the US Government (after its existence was revealed; they were trying to keep it under wraps) and by the media. I never saw/heard any references other than concentration camp for this camp (as an aside, that camp was never used, mostly because of the outcry by Japanese Americans). Also, there has been talk here in the US of concentration camps for detainees (or whatever you wish to call them) from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. As far as I know, it's just talk so far, but that talk always refers to concentration camps, not internment camps.

I think my question above is a good indicator of where we should go with the terminology. Could you, in real life, go up to a Japanese American who was imprisoned in one of the ten camps and tell him/her that they must never refer to their camps as concentration camps? Could you honestly do that in good conscience? I know I could not. It would be a terrible, hurtful insult, and really, it would be far worse than that. Gmatsuda 07:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above coments of Willmcw, Critic at Arms, Misfit Toys, and TheMightyQuill. They do appear to reflect the majority of views expressed.

Concentration camp was the official name used for the Nazi genocide camps; that was not the official name used for Manzanar. So (in contrast to the Nazi camps) one cannot support the use of the phrase on the basis of the official terminology.

The meaning of the phrase -- were it not for the genocidal killing camps -- would be softer than what is sought here. So clearly the goal of anyone seeking to use the term here is to leverage the meaning that the phrase has embedded in peoples' minds because of its use with the concentration camps.

The term concentration camp has become associated with those genocidal killing camps. Manzanar was not a genocidal killing center; crematoria were not part of the program. The only reason I can fathom for this debate is the desire by some to evoke in readers the revulsion that the readers have to the Nazi killing centers. But that approach uses an innaccuracy to elicit reactions in people.

I object for the same reason that I would object to someone calling the MOVE bombings or the Waco bombings Hiroshimas. For the same reason that I would object to a child, being sent against his will to a summer camp, who called it another Manzanar because he was sent away against his will. Sure, as with Manzanar and the Nazi concentration camps, one could point to similarities. But the disimilarites are so great that it is innappropriate. So yes, to turn your comment around, I could go up to the Waco and MOVE victims and say -- terrible as your situation was, and -- in their case -- even though death was also involved, it was no Hiroshima.

If one googles Manzanar with relocation camp/center, one finds three times the references for those constructs than for concentration camps. If one googles Auschwitz, nearly every reference will be to a concentration camp. As with those commenting on this page, common usage is at odds with the approach suggested here.

I don't have a problem with a terminology section, as you suggest. I do have a problem with the lead reference being to this as a concentration camp. It is not the official name. It is not the common name. It does not comport with the consensus of opinions on this page. It is not the descriptive name (descriptively, to concentrate is less accurate than to inter, in this case). And it is only an attempt to make people think of the meaning created in the euphamism by the genocidal killing camps. --Epeefleche 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, no one has even tried to make any comparison to the Nazi camps. Your claim is that the mere use of the term constitutes such a comparison, then we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I made no such comparison and never will. Regarding your Google point, of course that's going to happen. The Nazi camps killed millions. They will always be more widely known. Again, I must ask you...if you were to come face-to-face with a former prisoner of the American camps, could you, with a clear conscience, tell him/her that they are not allowed to use "concentration camp" to describe the camp(s) they were imprisoned in? I can tell you that you would be told off instantly, or even worse, depending on who you talked to. The majority of Japanese American and former prisoners refer to their camps as concentration camps. All they all wrong? Should they be ridiculed and persecuted for using that term and offending Holocaust survivors/victims?

BTW: As stated earlier, this isn't a personal thing. My only goal is to make sure we're doing the right thing and being as accurate as possible. Gmatsuda 02:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I must have misread you, then. Above, at June 1, I saw a post in which you wrote: "Officially, the US Government called them "relocation centers." But that was their euphemistic term for what they really were. In fact, the US Government did the same thing that the Nazis did with their camps, only "concentration camp" was their euphemism." That sounded like a comparison to the Nazi camps to me.

I missed this earlier; C'mon...I was not comparing what happened at the camps, the conditions, etc. Rather, I was referring to the fact that the Nazis and US Government both used euphemisms in obvious attempts to obscure and disguise what their camps really were. No other comparsion was made. Of course, now that we're dealing with the issue by not dealing with it, perhaps this is all water under the bridge now. Gmatsuda 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And it is not just my claim that the term evokes those camps. Read the posts again of the others on this page who say that. Which it should -- that was what they were called by the Nazis! Of course that term will evoke those camps.

If you disagree with all of us who say it, I do not believe you have a consensus for your view.

And I fear I was not clear enough in my google explanation. It was not that there are more references to the Nazi concentration camps. Rather, it is that when those camps are referred to, they are virtually always called concentration camps. In contrast to Manzanar. When Manzanar is referred to, it is typically referred to not as a concentration camp, but as a relocation camp or relocation center. The "official" name is used. Just as the official name was used for the Nazi camps.

Yes, if I were to come face-to-face with a former prisoner of the American camps, I could, with a clear conscience, tell him/her that 80% of my family was killed in crematoria in "concentration camps," and to describe US camp(s) they were imprisoned in as being the same is IMHO offensive to the memory of the 12 million killed in the concentration camps.

I do not feel like I am being heard, but yes, to answer you last query, I also have as my goal accuracy. Your approach is not to use the official name. Or the name commonly used (per google). Or a name that -- were it not for its connection with the Nazi killing camps -- would have little oomph to it. Or to note that there is no consensus for your approach -- I think the only person echoing you is Miss M, who has disagreed with me on myriad issues that appeared to annoy her, and so she followed me here from her talk page. Among others, I see a consensus at odds with your view. Yet you do not seem inclined to respect that either. If you want to use a descriptive phrase, use something other than a euphamism based on the killing camps. Use English, if you like. Say ... "camps in which Japanese were forcibly detained and imprisoned that had harsh conditions." Or something like that. That would be accurate. This is not.--Epeefleche 03:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

I think it's incorrect to call "concentration camp" the most controversial name for the camps. Indeed, I believe relocation camp and internment camp are more controversial. Also, I'm not sure if anyone saw my comments at the bottom of the page, but I go into this more there. I also think that it's important to mention that the Resolution on Terminology adopted by the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund specifically says that relocation camp is not acceptable and that concentration camp is. This resolution was adopted at least sometime after 1995 (as it refers to a text published that year)--well after the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps was known. It suggests that rather than use the term "relocation camps", the terms "internment camps, detention camps, prison camps, or concentration camps" are more accurate terms. The real issue that people have with internment is not only that it's misleading, it's that it's confusing. There were two types of camps. There were camps for people that the government deemed possible enemies--that was a relatively small number, and they all could go through a trial and be released from the camp. And then there was any Japanese or Japanese American who happened to live on the West Coast (sans Hawaii of course). Lumping them all together is incorrect, and the first group, technically that are internees. So to use that term for the second group is not only inaccurate according to a large number of historians, but it lumps together two very different groups of people. Miss Mondegreen talk 08:12, July 20 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have been saying this earlier. However, I do believe that, given the insistence by those who believe that only the Nazi camps may be called "concentration camps" and any other use of the term is either wrong or an insult to Holocaust survivors/victims, "concentration camp" is really the most controversial. Also, the CLPEF statement is included in one of the publications cited in the Terminology section. I just didn't use the web version. :-) I guess I could change that... Gmatsuda 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So...to sum up the points made here...

1) "Concentration camp" may not be used to describe any camp other than one of the Nazi camps because that term is, for all intents and purposes, owned by Holocaust survivors/victims/families, and that use of the term to describe any other camp is an affront to the millions who were killed by the Nazis and their families.

2) Others dispute the "ownership" of "concentration camp," noting that by definition, it describes more than just the Nazi camps, that a large body of scholarly research and publications use that term to describe the American camps (this is more reliable than a web search; a good number of those publications are cited in the article), and the fact that the vast majority of Japanese Americans who were imprisoned refer to their camps as concentration camps.

At this point, the only thing I can think of doing is submitting this for arbitration. I would rather avoid that, but I don't see any viable alternative. In a way (although I don't feel that it's intentional), I feel like Japanese Americans are being pushed around by a larger group and being forced to accept inaccuracy and "lower position on the totem pole," so to speak. Since when was this article about degrees of suffering, etc.? This article has absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust, the Nazi camps, etc. regardless of the terminology used. Gmatsuda 04:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Manzanar Notables

I was wondering where or how it might be appropiate to place a wiki link for Koji Ariyoshi on the Manzanar page. He was interned there shortly after the war began, then left to serve in the U.S. Army for the duration of the conflict. Would it be suitable to place him in the See Also category, or should a new heading for individuals who spent time in Manzanar be created? If no feed back in a week or two, I'll go ahead and simply place him in See Also. RebelAt 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The most notable former Manzanar internee who served in the US Armed Forces was PFC Sadao Munemori, who dove on a grenade to save his platoon and was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was a member of the 100th Battalion/442nd Regimental Combat Team.

No offense to Ariyoshi, but If anything, a link to Munemori's story should go up on the Manzanar page before anyone else, IMHO.

*"Medal of Honor Citation: Sadao Munemori". Retrieved July 4, 2006.

*"World War II Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient Pfc. Sadao S. Munemori, US Army 100th Infantry Battalion". Retrieved July 4, 2006.

Gmatsuda 18:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, Munemori certainly deserves the precedence. As is, I wasn't even aware of him at the time of my posting. I know only of Ariyoshi due to work unrelated to Manzanar. I'll establish a list of names, and perhaps depending on how large it is, it can be decided if they should be included in the article or another article or category established for them.RebelAt 19:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Another notable that must go up here (whenver a bio page for her is created) is Sue Kunitomi Embrey, the former chair of the Manzanar Committee who passed away at age 83 back in May, 2006. She was the primary force behind the creation of the Manzanar National Historic Site and one of the founders of the annual Manzanar Pilgrimage back in 1969. Without her efforts, Manzanar would not be preserved for future generations to learn from. Hopefully, a Wiki bio page will be created for her. Gmatsuda 10:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Map v. Pic

That map doesn't add anything to the article, an ambiguous red dot in California. I like the picture better personally. The National Register Wikiproject always prefers pictures. A mcmurray 20:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, a set of photos by Dorothea Lange of the internment process has just been released after being locked up for sixty year. They were made on government contract, so they are PD. -Will Beback 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Added Pre-WWII Section, Changed References section

I just added a section on the pre-WWII history of Manzanar. Everything in the article is also now fully cited, and the References section is now using reflist. One of these days, I will add a bit more detail in the Wartime Manzanar and Manzanar today sections. Gmatsuda 09:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

More Additions

I am in the process of adding to the Wartime Manzanar section. I stopped (for now) at climate. I put the Other Information sub-header as a temporary "marker" for where I left off. :-) I will be picking up at that point sometime later, perhaps as early as later on April 18. I also plan to add to the Manzanar Today section.

Once I finish my additions, I will clean up the references/footnotes as much as possible. But given the subject matter, this article requires a lot of citations to avoid disputes, IMHO. Gmatsuda 09:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK...as it turns out, I have completely re-written this article, although I left the "other works" section alone. The entire article is also fully cited and thoroughly cited to avoid conflicts that always seem to arise with material related to the concentration camps. I'm done for now, but does anyone know of any public domain photos of the days of the Owens Valley Paiute, the ranch days or from the town of Manzanar? We should include a photo from those eras as well. Gmatsuda 04:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not use this image from the Paiute article? They're Southern Paiute, who the article says lived in Southeast California, where Manzanar appears to be located. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The caption on the Southern Paiute page mentions that the photo is of someone from the Las Vegas band of Paiute, so I'm inclined to think that it would not be an accurate depiction of the Owens Valley Paiute. Good intentions, though! :-) Gmatsuda 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Details, details, details, yeesh. ;) No problem. Great work on the page, by the way! ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 10:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Found some public domain photos for the Owens Valley Paiute and for the ranch/town of Manzanar period. Also added photos for the Pilgrimage section. I think I'm finished now. :-) Gmatsuda 23:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So I lied about being finished! ;-) Just re-wrote the Notable Internees section and converted it to prose. Also added more detail, added Ralph Lazo, along with references. Also dug out my old copy of Ganbatte by Karl Yoneda and also found a good reference on the web, so Karl Yoneda has been added. Gmatsuda 06:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Added Aiko Yoshinaga-Herzig to the Notable internees section and moved the photos around a bit. Gmatsuda 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article looks great, you should definitely apply for FA nom after GA. However, I think you should change some of the subtitles of the page, specifically "Quenching Los Angeles’ thirst" and "Life behind the barbed wire." Although great titles for a book, it's not so well suited for an encyclopedia, where titling should be a little less literary. Also "life behind barbed wire" describes little about the barbed wire (seen in the previous section) or other authoritarian presence and therefore the info should be added, or the title changed. Good luck. falsedef 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Got any suggestions for replacements for those titles? As for adding more information, can you be more specific as to exactly what should be added? I'm not sure a lot more detail needs to go in since this IS an encyclopedia, as you mentioned. Gmatsuda 22:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe "Los Angeles’ water and land acquisition" would be more descriptive and more direct. My main problem with the other subtitle, "Life behind barbed wire," is that the subsection says nothing about the barbed wire or perimeter, making the title indirect in its meaning. They are good names, but encyclopedic information should be direct. falsedef 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in the Owens Valley for the Manzanar Pilgrimage tomorrow. Just added a new photo that I took today of the replica watchtower that was constructed by the National Park Service in 2005. Gmatsuda 06:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaced one photo and added two photos from the 38th Annual Manzanar Pilgrimage. Gmatsuda 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Created Additional Reading section, with Owens Valley, Wartime and Post-War sub-sections. Gmatsuda 05:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Added William Hohri to the Notable Manzanar internees section. Gmatsuda 09:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times published an article on Ralph Lazo, so I added a bit more detail about him. Gmatsuda 08:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review #1 Redux

I have fixed what I agreed with following the GA review by Chubbles and am re-nominating for GA status. Gmatsuda 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Farewell to Manzanar

I was surprised not to see mention of this book in the text, only in the "further reading." It certainly doesn't deserve heavy mention, but considering that it is how many young people in the U.S. first learn about Manzanar in detail, it seems worth a line or so to mention it. Just one opinion. Lawikitejana 22:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Farewell to Manzanar is a fine book for children, it is not what the Manzanar National Historic Site is about. It tells the story of the Wakatsuki family's experiences during WWII, but there are other books that one might argue had a greater impact, despite not having the notoriety. Gmatsuda 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Nom?

What's the status of the GA Nomination here? Is it still being worked on? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question! IvoShandar seems to have disappeared for now. Gmatsuda 21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, IvoShandar has stopped working on the GA review. :( Gmatsuda 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He put his name on the GA candidate list to say it was being worked on. Maybe we can take his name off and hope another editor will come in and review the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see it's taking so long to get a 2nd review for this article; you had to wait so long for the first one! I picked this one the first time because it was the oldest remaining GA candidate at the time, if I remember correctly...Chubbles 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC

I was just looking through this article and it looks very well done and thorough. I think it could be ready for Featured Article Candidacy before too long. Take a look at the criteria and make any necessary improvements and get it peer reviewed. After you've done that I definitely think that it would make a good candidate. Good work! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Someday...when I'm up to it. See the section on peer review above. :-) Gmatsuda 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

I don't know if this is happening on other browsers, but on my browser (IE), some of the images in the body of the article are sandwiching text in between them. WP:MOS#Images says that we should avoid sandwiching text between pictures. I think there may too many pictures in the body of the article anyway. Maybe we should get rid of some or move them down to the gallery. Opinions? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be as much a matter of screen resolution as browser. Another alternative, which would be less drastic, would be to remove the size coding from the images so that they'd appear at about 180px, more or less depending on user preferences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How does it look now? Gmatsuda 04:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm

'the internees found themselves having to endure primitive, sub-standard conditions' Compared with the conditions in the Japanese-run civilian camps in WW2 these were luxurious. No-one at Manzanar died of malnutrition or physical brutality, did they? 86.138.105.18 11:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has to die in order to find themselves having to endure such conditions. Gmatsuda 15:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that as long as there is a citation to a reputable source, it is fine. Sub-standard seems like an easy call. "Primitive" ... is ok with me if sourced.--Epeefleche 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations throughout the article that describe the conditions, in one way, shape or form. I think we've got this covered. :-) Gmatsuda 18:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW: What do the Japanese-run camps have to do with Manzanar? The comparison mentioned above isn't valid or relevant. Gmatsuda 19:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps his point is if that "standard" conditions for civilian camps are the standard (an obvious term of comparison) of the Japanese run camps of the time, that one might quibble with the use of the word sub-standard. Actually, while I have no problem with it as it is, as you say we could probably suffice with descriptions of what the conditions were (which, as you say, we have many of already) without engaging in subjective characterizations of the conditions. But not a major point to me. Just reacting to your query.--Epeefleche 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but I have strong suspicion that 86.138.105.18 wasn't trying to make the point you just did. I believe his/her motivation for making that statement lie elsewhere. Gmatsuda 23:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm positive that when I clicked on the user link for that anonymous IP editor before, it took me to a user page for that IP and then a talk page that was filled with warnings about vandalism, and I saw a six-month block message from an admin, mentioning that this was the second six-month block. I believe that the user page and talk page were deleted...maybe because the block is now extending to a year? I don't think I've lost it, gone insane, hallucinating, etc. :-) Gmatsuda 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

More Terminology

Just noticed that someone replaced "imprisoned" with "confined" in the article. What is the objection to the use of "imprisoned?" Is the argument that those interned were not prisoners? If so, what is your basis in fact for this claim? The historical record is conclusive--there is no doubt that they were prisoners behind barbed wire with watchtowers armed with machine guns pointed inward at them. They could not leave without permission and would have been shot if they did (some who were even just close to the barbed wire were shot). As such, i am reverting the term back to "imprisoned." Sure, "confined" sounds nicer. But the purpose isn't to sanitize what happened. Gmatsuda 08:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Manzanar, located in California's Owens Valley, between the towns of Lone Pine to the south and Independence to the north, is most widely known as the site of one of ten American incarceration camps.

Whatever Manzanar is referred to as in the first paragraph should be the terminology used in the rest of the article. I don't know where the term incarceration camps is coming from--I looked at the references and they are completely unexplanatory for that word choice. This is so off that people might not actually know what's being referred to. The generally terminology is "internment camps". Also, this should be wikilinked--probably to the Japanese American internment article, and piping it to read incarceration instead of internment is weird.

It's also completely inappropriate for the only information on the controversy about the usage of the term concentration camps to be in a reference (http://www.pbs.org/weekendexplorer/california/mammoth/manzanar.htm) and an inappropriately placed one at that. Considering that the plaque calling it a concentration camp was controversial and that internment camp is the more well known name, it should be called internment camp in the first paragraph, but with a note about the controversy, and the full information about the plaque and the controversy surrounding it should be found later in the article. Miss Mondegreen talk 11:11, July 16 2007 (UTC)

As to imprisoned vs. intermenent vs. confined, I will go with whatever the consensus is among others. It is not as clear to me as was issue in the concentration camp characterization. Whatever is most accurate works for me. As to the reference to incarceration camps, in lieu of concentration camps, that was I believe a fine compromise that works for me as well, spanning in my view the former disputing parties' positions, and I commend Gmatsuda for it -- recognizing that he and I started with differing views,--Epeefleche 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

References are completely unexplanatory? Wow. They sure are explanatory when I read them. And "internment camp" might be more "well-known," as you put it, but once again, that name is factually inaccurate. The US Government had other camps that were called "internment camps," separate from the ten camps we're talking about here. Gmatsuda 17:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The references provide additional information that should be in the article. But the are inappropiate as references there. Perhaps the better word is that the refernces don't verify, which is their purpose. A refernce should be providing verification of material--and while the references are great things to read, they functioned more as additional reading, and in fact did not verify the use of that term, but verified the usage of other terms.. The material in the references was great, but some of it needs to be added to the article, and the rest just didn't belong. Miss Mondegreen talk 04:34, July 17 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gmatsuda here. The references support and amplify the material that they follow.--Epeefleche 04:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is where the references are placed:

Manzanar, located in California's Owens Valley, between the towns of Lone Pine to the south and Independence to the north, is most widely known as the site of one of ten American incarceration camps[1][2][3]

Given the placement, those references should either be about the term "incarceration camps". The first one says,

Although [internment] is a recognized and generally used term even today, we prefer "incarceration" as more accurate except in the specific case of aliens."

The second reference never uses the word incarceration--not in any form. It doesn't discuss that term at all. The third says that there is a difference between internment and incarceration, but calls the camps internment camps and concentration camps respectively.

First off, whatever term is used in the first paragraph should be used all the way through. There is a significant difference between the official Internment camps--for those suspected of actual crimes or "enemy sympathies" and the massive forced relocation and detention of the Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the West Coast. Internment camp is the proper term for the former, and the commonly used term for the latter. Which is problematic. Incarceration camps seems to be a rarely used term compared to "concentration camps" and "internment camps". I think the best thing to go with is concentration camps. It's the term on the plaque, it was the term used to refer to the camps originally, before the revalations about the Nazi death camps, and it's used in museums, etc, and, it conforms with the "Resolution on Terminology" adopted by the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund

Obviously it would need to specifically address the differences between concentration camps and internment camps and the controversy etc., but I think it's the most accurate and nuetral solution. At any rate, right now, the references don't support the terminology and the article is using inconsistent terminology. Both of those need to change. Miss Mondegreen talk 06:41, July 17 2007 (UTC)

I did plan on adding a section on the terminology, but I don't have time to write it at the moment. Gmatsuda 04:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

<Off-topic conversation/attacks/ranting removed>

Would love to see that entire thread moved to your talk pages! :-) Gmatsuda 22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done Miss Mondegreen talk 11:33, July 20 2007 (UTC)

The Densho reference details reasoning for use of "incarceration camp." Don't know how you missed that. The second reference deals with the fact that the terminology has been the subject of debate. The third deals with the debate between "internment" and "incarceration," among other terminology that's often used in an attempt to diminish what really happened. Gmatsuda 07:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind going back to "concentration camp." But I suspect others would object. Gmatsuda 07:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My objection to the term "incarceration camp" is that it doesn't seem to be very well used. While it may be less-objectionable to some people, it's just not a common phrase. You say internment camp, and while incorrect, I know what's being referred to. You say the Japanese-American concentration camps--and I know what's being referred to. The incarceration camps business gave me a serious pause, and in looking through various documents since, it seems to be less well used. At any rate, if it is used, the second reference is inappropriate and the third isn't particularly strong. While it discusses the usage of the term "incarceration" over "internment", it refers to the camps themselves as concentration camps. They are fine references for the debate about the terminology--so if there was a footnote there that mentioned the controversy and that footnote included those references, that would be fine, but in terms of referencing the usage of the term "incarceration camp" they really don't work--the second especially.

The problem is that I think that it's not neutral to refer to the camps as something else. The plaque calls it a concentration camp--so a section devoted to the controversy is certainly both appropriate and necessary, but I feel a bit like we're trying to rewrite--it's controversial--so let's say that, and let's say why and present both sides fairly. Besides, concentration camp conforms to approved CLPEF terminology--if the government doesn't have a problem with the labeling of the camps as such, wikipedians shouldn't. Miss Mondegreen talk 08:04, July 17 2007 (UTC)

Gmatsuda asked me to drop in and offer my opinion. My usual response to debates over whether we should call something either "X" or "Y" is that we can, and should, reflect that both terms are used. (Or, in the words of Yogi Bera, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it".) Can we do that here? Something like "The Manzanar camp is officially called 'X', but advocates assert that "Y' is a more accurate term." However we describe it, we must also mention the other common terms and we should briefly mention the debate. But this article isn't about that debate so we should not get bogged down by it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. :-) Please take a look at the article, if you haven't recently. How would you suggest we implement your suggestion? Gmatsuda 05:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Per my earlier thought that this is not about the debate, my main suggestion would be to move the lengthy "Terminology debate" section to Japanese American internment, leaving a briefer summary focused on how that debate has affected Manzanar in particular and vice versa (roughly the last quarter of the material).
As for what we say in what's left, let's work on this together. For the intro to the article, where we first introduce the concept, can we summarize the debate in a sentence or two? Something like:
- Originally called the "Manzanar Relocation Camp", it is now widely known as an "internment camp", as an "incarceration camp", the term used by the Manzanar Committee, and even as as a "concentration camp". (and link to the [Japanese American internment#Terminology debate])
Regarding our description of the inhabitants of the camp, "prisoners" or even "inmates" implies they were convicted of crimes, which wasn't the case. OTOH, "internees" may be perhaps a bit too gentile, considering the term is also applied to enemy ambassadors who were "interned" at a fancy resort. I note that "detainees" is a term in common usage today. It may be widespread because it's fairly neutral. However "detainees" implies a temporary confinement that isn't quite right either either (though I suppose some modern day detainees have been detained for years as well). We should also think about using or at least mentioning the term used officially at the time. Do we know what the bureaucratic term was?
I know this is an important issue that can generate strong emotions. Congratulations to everybody for being so patient and understanding of each other. We don't have to get it right this week or even this month. Heck, we'll probably never get it right. Let's just keep making it better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think regardless of what terms are used, as long as it's used by very reliable sources, then it's fine. It seems like "concentration camp" and "internment camp" have both been used by reliable sources, but I do see that the plaque at Manzanar[4] refers to it as a "concentration camp". The use of "imprisoned" might be problematic though, because it looks like not even the Manzanar National Historic Site website[5] uses the word - at least I didn't notice it.

Regardless - I notice the recently added "Terminology debate" section. Depending on which FA reviewers the article gets when it goes to FAC, this section may be problematic. Controversial content on an article invites disagreements from editors and that's going to be an obstacle to FA status. My advice is that the section needs to be cut much much shorter. Just mention the different names and terminologies that are used specifically for Manzanar, and provide sources. If possible, just keep it as a short paragraph up at the top after the intro. There's no need to cover the actual terminology debate in this article. That information is probably better served if it was moved to Japanese American internment. One glaring problem that the section has is the use of WP:Weasel words. And a lot of the content itself reads like it was WP:Original research. For example, sentences like "Use of 'internment camp' is also incorrect in this case because..." - who exactly state that it is "incorrect"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

About "who stated it was incorrect..." it's all cited in the article. But I tend to agree...that portion is probably better in Japanese American internment, but I'm sure it'll never fly because of the Lillian Baker allies who have ravaged that article. When I get around to it, I'll reduce it to a list with brief explanations Gmatsuda 06:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the source. But the point is there is no absolute correct or incorrect terminology. These are opinions of experts and knowledgeable people. On controversial issues, it's always much better to say "So-and-so believe that it is such-and-such" and then provide a source, rather than presenting something as if it was absolute fact. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong is right about allowing all viewpoints, without adopting any one of them as the true version. I'd add that, IMO, the part of the material on the terminology debate that deals with Manzanar should be kept. The Manzanar Committee has been the very active in advancing the issue, if I understand that correctly. It could be a subsection under "Preservation and remembrance" or a paragraph or two covering the actions of various groups (the Committee, the NPS, et al.). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in terms of Manzanar specifically it is incorrect. There were two types of camps--one for people who were considered potential government enemies, and these people got trials and could be released from the camps pending the outcomes of their trials. The other type, and this is what we're talking about in terms of Manzanar is all of the Japanese and Japanese-Americans on the west coast of the contiguous United States. The term Internment Camp is the official term for the camps for enemies/potential enemies. The word and it's definition as a course may or may not be accurate applied to these others camps, but that's not the point, or the problem. The term internment, in this context applies specifically to one of the two types of camps, and to use the term for both, it's inaccurate--or confusing and misleading at best. Miss Mondegreen talk 10:08, July 21 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm actually more concerned about how that section (as it reads right now) will affect an FAC, more than I'm concerned about what terminology is actually used. I don't care that much which terms are used as long as those terms can be backed up by reliable sources. The rest, a short terminology section will be able to explain. And I noticed that Japanese American internment is already a pretty long article. Maybe a completely seperate article is in order, to cover this terminology debate, if there's really as much information on the debate as it seems like from reading that section in this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Confined" is definitely too mild. Is there a military term equivalent to "quarantined" for the medical field or "sequestered" for the legal field? Point is, these were people forcibly separated from the main population upon fear of what could happen, instead of crimes committed. For Colorado's Camp Amache, which I am deeply familiar with, these folks made model detainees, immediately setting to cleaning their environs, planting gardens and setting up institutions for however long they were to be held. Sabra and Shatila is not the right model, they're not refugees by any means; Displaced persons camp doesn't really help though the model is closer-while orderly and a semblance of civility, those unfortunates were not forcibly placed in their locales; maybe this goes more along the lines of Guantanamo Bay detention camp, though painted with much broader strokes to include whole families. Chris 09:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We can talk on and on amongst ourselves what we think are appropriate terms, but the important thing is that whatever terms we end up using come from reliable sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but what sources in the article are not reliable? Gmatsuda 22:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not saying there are unreliable sources here. I'm saying it doesn't matter so much how we rationalise amongst ourselves which terms to use, as long as those terms are used by reliable sources. What we should be doing is establishing which terms are most commonly used by our sources, instead of discussing what we personally feel are appropriate terms. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Per my above contributions, relocation camp/center is found 3x as often in mentions of the camps than is concentration camp.--Epeefleche 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're beyond "deciding" on which term to use. We have to find a way to use all of them (or mention them, I guess). Since we're on the topic, I spoke to a friend of mine who is heavily involved with his synagogue. He said this: "The term 'concentration camp' is used when people are, unconscionably, concentrated in a 'camp' due to ethnic or other background. Jews don't tend to find the term at all offensive if applied to camps other than the Nazi death camps. Use of the word "Holocaust" in any other context tends to be a bit offensive; by itself, it means the Nazi genocide directed primarily at the Jews. Not that there's any one person who can 'speak for' all Jewish people--as our old joke goes, get four Jews in a room and you'll have five opinions--but by and large in my experience there's no offense attached to the use of 'concentration camp." -- Mel Powell, former lay leader, Shofar Synagogue, Los Angeles, California. Gmatsuda 07:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't understand the objection to using different terms interchangeably. The article describes the history of the site in detail, so there should be no confusion about how it was operated in the context of what people think a "concentration camp" or an "internment camp" is, or in the context of what "imprisoned" versus "interned" means. But one way to try to resolve this is simply to avoid describing it with any of these terms. State simply that it was a "camp" for Japanese American internment, and that Japanese Americans were "held" there. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no one will notice that elephant in the room. Miss Mondegreen talk 13:09, July 22 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hong. As to the lead-in, simply use camp. In the later section on debate, discuss how different terms are preferred by some and why, though in more summary fashion, with appropriate references in each case.--Epeefleche 14:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. When I get the inspiration (and energy), I'll work on the re-write. Gmatsuda 19:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tx. I will be happy to look at it and see if I can help out at all after your rewrite.--Epeefleche 19:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Elephant in the room!! Nowhere in the definition of camp is there anything close to resembling this--are there tents, fishing poles etc? Dealing with it by not dealing with it? I respect that this issue is deeply personal for a lot of people, but this needs to be taken care of. And it's crazy to think that it isn't going to be offensive for someone reading the article to find that Manzanar is referred to as a CAMP! Wikipedia produces some great stuff--but one of the downfalls of the system is stuff like this. It's like the electronic voting machines for American elections that weren't programmed by people who had any idea how the system worked--if someone double voted, say for candidate a and candidate c, the person wasn't notified and told to change their vote, the vote wasn't thrown out, the vote wasn't mistakenly counted for both a and c--no, the two choices were averaged and the vote counted for b. Averages don't always work---and trying to solve a problem by not solving it--well that still is making a choice and often it's a worse choice then either original choice. Miss Mondegreen talk 10:53, July 23 2007 (UTC)

I believe the word "camp" - used singularly without a qualifier as to what kind of camp - has been used to refer to Manzanar and other locations for Japanese American internment. And if you want to be picky about it, the dictionary definition of "camp" does not necessitate the presence of tents. Anyway, the different terms are obviously being used interchangeably by the sources that we've seen. I do think this whole issue is a trivial matter of semantics, given that the article itself goes to length to actually discuss the the conditions and operations of Manzanar. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think this issue is trivial. I do believe that no one group should be able to claim ownership of the term, "concentration camp," since, by definition, it does not exclusively refer to the Nazi camps, and it's obvious that we're dealing with POV here on one side rather than fact, IMHO (again, no offense intended). But as I stated back when we thought we had a compromise term, there are larger fish to fry. Gmatsuda 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You quibbled with the tents? It would have been so much easier to go after the fishing polls. I agree that there are bigger fish to fry, and clearly, I don't have the time to deal with this--not to write the way I'd like to or to spend time researching--but terminology is not trivial, or a matter of semantics--if it was, you wouldn't have been arguing about it. It's hypocritical to say "you can't use these words" and that it's a big deal if we do, but to then say that as soon as we're using words that you're ok with, we should be as well because it is "a trivial matter of semantics." If that was true, what on earth were you arguing for? Miss Mondegreen talk 11:50, July 24 2007 (UTC)

I never said "you can't use these words" to any of the terms. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care which terms are used as long as sources can back up the usage of those terms. I offered "camp" as possibly the most neutral alternative to any of the other terms that have been suggested and discussed so far. And yes, I think this is a trivial matter of semantics. You are, of course, free to disagree with me on that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK...I've done the re-write. We're now dealing with the terminology issue by not dealing with it. :D I moved the Terminology Debate section to Japanese American Internment, but I have no doubt it'll get chopped to bits by the Lillian Baker cronies there. Gmatsuda 06:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I started fine-tuning this article slightly, in preparation of the review process. I agree with Hong and Will and you that this is the best way to move forward.--Epeefleche 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad we could move this forward without this getting into a major edit war/personal thing. It was never that for me. Gmatsuda 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)