Talk:Internment of Japanese Americans/Archive 5

Revision Roadmap/List of to-dos
User:Justforasecond has been making a number of edits recently after a "pause" for various reasons. I think a list of to-dos is a good idea, since it provides a prospective rationale for edits. Up-front clarity is helpful considering the debates that have occurred on this page and the substantial work needed on the article. That way, if when someone new comes along to the page, we can refer to the to-do list. This should encourage discussion the talk page, since the intentions will be laid out on the to-do list. Comments? --ishu 16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the first item on the list should be to revisit the entire regime of headings. Then we can state some intent as to what should go in each section, and begin to move things accordingly.  For example, Conditions in the camps probably does not need to be a Level 1 section, but there isn't a logical current heading for it to go under.  Just thinking off the top of my head.  --ishu 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My "style" as an editor is to make adjustments within the existing structure, rather than change the structure to fit the existing comments. That said, I have no problem with others changing the structure to improve the article as a whole. I'll just jump in from time to time with individual points which need attention (as I've done a few times above).--Ogthor 19:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article also should have a timeline of exclusion orders, no-move orders, and evacuation orders. If this is too list-y, we can describe a sample sequence for a major city. A timeline will give a clear sense of how easy it was to move voluntarily. --ishu 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC) The really glaring POV stuff should be addressed without a to-do list. HS was...a little hard to deal with...and made me lose sight of the forest. There is a LOT of POV in this article. First priority should be ripping out the really bad uncited stuff. I found a few different places that said things (without citataions) like "such and such action called into question whether the internment was necessary", which seemed like pov-guided original research. It also misses the import point of the perception of military necessity.

Other to-dos
 * 1) remove redundancies
 * 2) move text to appropriate sections
 * 3) shorten or break-up history section (it is quite long)
 * 4) comparison to other internments (U.S. and non-U.S.)
 * 5) inclusion of sampling of MAGIC transcripts
 * 6) Tule lake should get its own mini-section with a photo of protests if possible
 * 7) Scrutinize claims that support of internment was "primarily members of the American Legion and US military veterans of the Pacific theater)"

Justforasecond 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree about the perception of military necessity. I think that's the linchpin, because acknowledging some perception of military necessity recognizes the urgency of the situation at the time while allowing that the perception may not match the reality from the perspective of history.  This is the point that was made in Korematsu.  And as I've stated several times, it's far from certain just what considerations went into the decisions.  All of the evidence appears to be circumstantial.


 * While I think that many of the POV-ish statements you mention can be referenced to one of the two main sources cited by internment critics (Weglyn, CWRIC). However, I basically agree that the article needs to be reworked nearly wholesale, and I've considered starting from scratch on a subpage.  (That's why I'm looking for an overview structure, actually.)
 * Overall, I think that editors must be extremely vigilant about citations of major and "demimajor" claims. The current reference structure is woeful.  Let's dig in for the long haul and hope that we can make headway to head-off the next edit war.  --ishu 19:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. I'll help when and where I can. Also, a potentially helpful resource may be Greg Robinson, By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001); the book deals exclusively with the question of what influenced FDR's decision to issue EO9066, whereas most other accounts of this history that I've seen seem to give the impression that FDR simply went on the advice of McCloy and others in the War Department.--Ogthor 19:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring the article
I have created a subpage with a proposed version of the article, substantially restructured. This edit has removed very little text and added even less. The intent is to obtain consensus over the new structure before editing the actual content of the article. . In the spirit of full disclosure, the removed content has been logged on a separate subpage along with my reasons for the removals.

If you believe any of the removed text should remain in the article, please suggest a section where this text would be most appropriate. If you disagree with another editor's appeal for restoring text, please hold that discussion until (and if) the restructured article is promoted to the main article. Assuming we obtain consensus on the restructuring, we can revisit the issue of removed text.

I recognize that there are significant content issues regarding the article. I hope that we can achieve a quick consensus on a new structure (not necessarily everything I have proposed), then move forward onto the content. It is my hope that a restructured article will make it easier to address the content issues. --ishu 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the restructured article for comment for a week or two and then promote it to the article with any suggested changes. I will try to parallel edits made to the main article as well. --ishu 17:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Other camps" doesn't fit as a header. The info on the decapitation arrests probably belongs in the "Government actions," not only for timeline continuity, but because it better fits as an illumination of the timeline.
 * The list of camps should be up in the Exclusion and Detention area, between the 3rd and 4th paras. Otherwise, it looks pretty good 68.178.65.194 02:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As of today, it's been two weeks (and half a day) since the restructured article has been available for comment. Aside from the minor suggestions directly above, it seems that the proposed changes are sufficiently uncontroversial to warrant moving forward. Let's post the new version and see what kind of comments we start getting. Let's try to get this article on the Main Page! Ogthor 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added "place holder" copy to the draft in the sections under Facilities. Most of this copy was taken from the National Park Service web site, or from Wikipedia. The sources have been noted in HTML comments. I am not committed to the text placed there, but it is there to give a general sense of how the article would flow. I chose mainly descriptive copy, but I did not review it very carefully, and it needs much work.

Per Ogthor's suggestion, I have promoted the proposed restructuring to the main article. We can adjust the minor changes to the new article. Have fun, everyone! --ishu 15:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation Style
Given the wretched state of citations on this page, we have the opportunity to select a style of citations for the article. We have a number of embedded citations, but these are not catalogued well in the references section. Given the controversies over sourcing, I think citations should be footnoted to encourage open citations. It is much harder for a reader or editor to review the individual references with embedded citations. Comments, anyone? --ishu 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * footnotes are better. they're a little harder to click to but when to a website, they make it easier to sort out what that website is, when the article was published, etc.   they also have the advantage of sticking around if a website shuts down or changes its url scheme.  Justforasecond 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will agree to footnotes, however as i have expressed in my comments on EXTERNAL LINKS and SEE ALSO some formalization of the article's references is needed.Dezertfx21 06:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)