Template talk:Internment of Japanese Americans
I had to be bold here and moved this template to the name "Japanese American internment camps". There were MANY MANY more WW2 internment camps than the ones listed here. See List of Japanese-run internment camps during World War II. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough - my bad for not looking at both sides of the conflict. Thanks for your help - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed the name to "Japanese American Concentration Camps." See the terminology section in Japanese American internment and in Manzanar for justification. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Typo in my last edit summary. These camps were NOT "internment camps." US Government had separate camps that were officially called "internment camps." These ten were not among them, so for this template to call them that would be entirely misleading. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the title of the template to "Japanese American Concentration Camps." See the Termnology section in Manzanar for details. Please note that the US Government had camps that were officially called "internment camps." The ten camps that this template includes were not among them. As such, the title, using "internment camps," would be entirely inaccurate. Also, "internment" refers to non-citizens. In this case 2/3rds of those affected were native-born US citizens. The remainder were prevented by racist laws from naturalizing. As such, "internment" is also inaccurate. They were really imprisoned, or incarcerated...more fuel for the fire against the use of "internment camps." -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I see that the template has been reverted back to "Japanese American internment camps." Again, "internment camp" is factually inaccurate. Also, I note the expansion of the template, which is great. However, it uses euphemistic terminology to describe the camps. While "relocation camp," or "relocation center" was the official name for the ten camps, it should be noted that these terms are euphemisms that were deliberately used to mislead. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, misleading readers is the last thing we should be doing. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
$1LENCE D00600D (talk wrote (on my talk page): "I read the talk page before I made the edit. Although "internment" may be inaccurate, "Japanese American internment" is still in common usage, hence the name of the article "Japanese American internment." Theres no reason to alter the name of the template because of something like this, especially when it is consistent with the main article's title. It is also consistent with the German American internment and the Italian American internment articles. Thank you--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)"
- Does consistency trump accuracy? Again, the ten camps in question are NOT among the internment camps operated by the US Government during World War II, so to call them "internment camps" is totally inaccurate, not to mention the other problems with it, mentioned above. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Regardless, "Japanese American internment" is still in common use, and therefore the name of the template should be consistent with the name of the main article. However, if you are concerned about the actual names of the sections within the template, you are more than welcome to do as you wish. The template turned out much bigger than I expected it to be. I originally had other ideas about what to name the sections (particularly the sections for the camps), but I decided on being as consistent as possible with the "Japanese American internment" article. As for "totally inaccurate," internment is exactly what happened. The Japapanese and Jap. Americans were interned by the US gov and concentrated at camps they called "relocation centers." Theres nothing inaccurate about the use of the word "internment," and if it is than why is the main article named "Japanese American internemnt?" Thanks again--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was merely using the names "relocation centers" and "isolation centers," for example, as a way of making sections within the template. But, like I said, you are more than welcome to make changes however you like. As for the actual name of the template, I feel that should be consistent with the name of the main article.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Again, "internment" applies to non-citizens. In this case, 2/3rds of those behind the barbed wire were native-born American citizens. As such, "internment," while commonly used, is inaccurate. "Incarcerated" would be accurate. And, once again, the ten camps included in this template were NOT called "internment camps" by the US Government. One cannot justify using this term if you're going to insist on using "relocation center," or "relocation camp" because "...they were called 'relocation centers.'" In fact, there were several other camps run by the Justice Department that were called "internment camps," but the ten camps in question were not among them.
- You also appear to have completely ignored, or disregarded the scholarly research and statements by Japanese American and Jewish American community leaders and organization on this subject, as cited in the Manzanar article. Perhaps if you read the cited references, you might understand what I'm talking about.
- Also, please don't use "Jap" as an abbreviation. It is a racial slur. The accepted abbreviation is "Jpn." As for matching up with the main article, I get that. However, the terminology is still inaccurate. Shouldn't Wikipedia be using accurate terms? It is an encyclopedia, after all. I would bring this up over on the main article talk page, but the main article is often mangled by historical revisionists, so it's a waste of time. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This would be a more useful template if the subject was Japanese American Internment, not just the camps. People, however, are sometimes not interested in listing notable people, books, or films in templates like this, and prefer a template where no value judgements are made. I wont do anything yet, but will see if anyone else cares to comment. other articles to link to : farewell to manzanar, fred korematsu, the film Topaz, densho archive, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)