Talk:Topaz War Relocation Center/Archive 1

Maintenance / cleanup tags noted on this page
The page is tagged for multiple issues, but I don't think they are all justified.

It's been tagged for:
 * 1) Expansion needed -- I just dropped that, as the article is substantial in size, and is no longer a stub article.  If someone wants more, add to the article, or discuss here on the Talk page what should be added.
 * 2) It is missing citations or footnotes.  -- There are sources included in the article, including some footnotes and sources listed in "Additional reading" section, but in-line citations would be nice.
 * 3) It needs additional references or sources for verification -- Okay, fine.
 * 4) It may contain original research or unverifiable claims -- I am dropping this one, as it is a vague accusation, and is redundant given other calls for more specific references.  If you want to question a particular assertion, please insert a  tag.
 * 5) It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. -- Well, still seems like piling it on, but okay.

So i am dropping 2 of the 5 tags. doncram (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit
Proxy User has changed the phrase "Caucasian boss" to "local employer," which I have reverted because "local employer" is too broad a description and implies that Dave Tatsuno was employed by someone outside of the Topaz camp. It is not descriptive enough. If you have a more descriptive term to use instead, by all means, go for it. If not, I'd leave it alone until we can come up with one. Also "Caucasian" is not an offensive term. If it read "honky boss," yeah, that would be offensive, but it does not. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, "Caucasian boss" is a POV bias term for the same reasons "Jap boss" or "Negro boss" would be offensive to many. A better, more accurate, and less offensive term must be agreed on. Second, you suggest Mr. Tatsuno was not employed by someone outside of the Topaz camp. Yet read the stroy: After security was relaxed, the internees where allowed to work outside the camp. And the article states "...had a movie camera smuggled into the camp, at the urging of his Caucasian boss." So, was this "Caucasian boss" a camp employee? Or did Mr. Tatsuno work off camp in the local area? It is unclear, but I would suggest that camp employees would not be referred to as "boss". Proxy User (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since prisoners were most usually employed inside the camp they were imprisoned in, no, it isn't clear, especially given the fact that there are so few verifiable citations in this article. And i disagree regarding the whole "boss" issue. "Caucasian" is not a racial slur, while "Jap" is and "Negro" is now considered to be offensive. And if Tatsuno's boss was indeed Caucasian, which is a virtual certainty, how does this violate WP:NPOV?


 * I'm not saying it's the best terminology to use...far from it. However, "local employer" is even less accurate and it leaves it too wide open to interpretation. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no documentation either way about the nature of Mr. Tatsuno's employment. Therefor, it can not be accurate to say "Caucasian boss", which I believe to be biased. Also, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#Usage which defiantly implies that the term is "depreciated" as used to describe ethnicity. In addition, "boss" in the context of this article implies slavery.


 * I don't really see an issue with "local employer", which seems much more accurate since it is likely that his "boss" was not a camp employee, and likely he worked outside the camp in the local area, and we don't know if his "boss" was Caucasian or not (maybe likely, but it's not possible to say factually. Is it even relevant?). There is certainly nothing offensive about "local employer" as it is completely unbiased in any way.


 * But if you must have the term "Caucasian boss" to emphasize racial servitude, I guess I won't argue about it (my employer is a Russian Jew, but I don't say my "Jewish boss"). But it is a bias terminology that is not proven to be factual in this specific case. Maybe since the camp was in Utah, we should say his "Mormon boss"? His "Caucasian Mormon boss"? Just know that it's POV where it doesn't have to be. Proxy User (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the context you speak of regarding your boss, yes, that would be inappropriate. However, in this particular case, it may not be. I don't know what the author had in mind, but given the fact that racism played such a huge role in the internment, it might be relevent to note the ethnicity of Tatsuno's boss. No one said anything about "racial servitude" in the article that I could see. And while it may not be proven to be factual, it also isn't proven to be inaccurate. The fact is, there that entire section has no inline citations and the entire article is pretty much devoid of verifiable references to begin with. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than enter the debate, I've gone ahead and replaced the language in question (no, I didn't author that section originally . . . and I agree that it's not well worded). I hope that the new text will be acceptable to all parties.  &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice work. Turns out I was right, although that's not the point. :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The new wording is excellent, unbiased, factual. No, Gmatsuda, you where not "right", "Caucasian boss" is still bias language. Yes, clearly, Mr. Tatsuno's employer was a white guy, how could it have been any other way? The question was never what race was his employer, the question was about racially charged terminology. But the new text is very good indeed.


 * On a different note, in recent years, the "memorial" at the site, such as it is, has been vandalized often. Standing in the dirt parking lot and looking about at what remains is a moving - and disturbing - experience. Proxy User (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While it was not the best language, I disagree that it was "racially charged." In fact, even the question of bias is dubious, at best. Regardless, what Myasuda did is better and I'll leave it at that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Caucasian boss" is the most appropriate for the simple reason that this is how the man was described by Tatsuno, which was his way of showing that he had the support of non-Nisei in this project. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology
Since we were talking about language above and since I had a little spare time, I "polished up" one bit of terminology in this article. It referred to Topaz as an "internment camp." While that is commonly used, it is not accurate:


 * Internment generally applies to enemy aliens/non-citizens. More than 2/3rds of those imprisoned in these camps were native-born American citizens.


 * The US Government had separate camps that were officially known as "internment camps." Topaz was not one of them.

As such, I removed "internment camp" whereever used in this article. I also added a section on Terminology, which is also included in the Manzanar article, which is a Featured Article. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good grief! "Political Correctness" run a muck. How about something called "discussion" before unilateral P.C. changes like this? Is there to be an "ownership" issue with this article? Where is the discussion of this? To remove terminology which is both widely used and commonly understood for the purpose of P.C. is almost typical at Wikipedia these days. But it doesn't make it accurate in terms of history of fact and usage. Proxy User (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow..."political correctness?" Sorry. Wrong. If you have any verifiable justification for not including the terminology section that I added, by all means, please add it to the article, as I did. However, if you do not, please don't remove someone else's edits simply because you disagree. Your opinion is just that. An opinion. Unless you have something that you can document (this is an encyclopedia, isn't it?), it's you who are "running amuck." -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you prefer, we can use the description given by FDR, who signed the order: "concentration camps." Better?  No?  Then perhaps we should use the term most commonly identified with these camps.  "Internment" is synonymous with "imprisonment," which accurately describes putting someone under armed guard and behind barbed wire.


 * We use a lot of phrases which aren't exactly accurate. Not all kidnappings involve the abduction of sleeping children, propaganda generally doesn't involved the dissemination of truth, and the traffic cop doesn't write you a ticket -- he prints on a citation form.  Unless you intend to spend your life making such minor corrections, then maybe you ought to not be so picky about terminology. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As an interested but neutral observer, I went back and read the article title again. The article is about the Topaz camp. The lead section has four relevant sentences with one citation. The section immediately following the lead, with a dozen citations, is a general terminology dissertation that tells me nothing specifically about Topaz. The "terminology" section is about a larger, more general issue, not specifically about the camp, per se. The "Terminology" section is out of place in this article. I suggest that this section be merged with the "Terminology debate" section in the "Japanese American internment" article and then linked from a "See also" section, or footnote, at the end of this article — "terminology", as written, is only incidental to the subject of the Topaz article. Think like Wikipedians. — Wjwalrus (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The terminology is covered in the Japanese American internment article, but it also need to be covered in the specifc camp articles. If this article had more meat to it, it wouldn't seem out of place. Check out Manzanar, which is an FA, to see what I mean. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wjwalrus. The terminology section feels out of place, and having it redundant in each of the camp articles is not a good solution.  It feels like a defensive move, made in anticipation of future arguments . . . which is not (in my opinion) a justification for its presence here.  Wjwalrus's suggestions are reasonable alternatives to consider. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless you want to allow those who demand that "concentration camp" be reserved exclusively for the Nazi death camps, then by all means, do what you wish. If you want a more balanced view, it's a good idea to deal with the terminology, especially since this particular issue--what to call them--has been part of their history all along. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear you, but I would like to make another point: I think it's important to consider the practical merits of placing content that applies to several articles in one common place. If this is not done, future editors who update the "terminology" section in one article might not realize they should update the other camp articles with the same information. These articles would then remain without the update. By linking the camp articles to the common section, the reader would always be taken to the most recent update.  Furthermore, it brings the "terminology" discussion among editors to a common place.  That said, I think it would be within encyclopedic tone to leave at least one or two sentences somewhere in the individual camp articles — perhaps after the word "internment" is used — to more directly alert the reader to the terminology issue, and to provide a WikiLink to the common "Terminology debate" section. — Wjwalrus (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Under better circumstances, I would agree. However, Japanese American internment is often being ravaged by historical revisionists who are attempting to distort the facts about the internment, I would agree. However, until that article isn't "under attack." it's better to have the section here as well. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's ten years later and the terminology section in Japanese American internment duplicated a lot of information on this page. I removed the extra information about terminology on this page. If you disagree with this removal, let's talk. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Notable Topaz internees
One thing...it doesn't bother me personally that Henry and Rose Tani are included as notable Topaz internees. However, according to Wikipedia guidelines, notability is not inherited. Just because their son is notable doesn't mean they are. I don't see how what is currently in the article about them makes them notable. This will be a problem when the time comes for this article to go through evaluation for Good Article status and beyond. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My personal inclination is to remove the Tani's from the list. If the original contributor desires, the additional level of detail given in the list can be added to Daniel Tani. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd go ahead and remove them and move the content over. I don't think you need the original author's permission. A note on his/her talk page should suffice. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A good rule of thumb for notability is that individuals should have notable wikipedia pages; Henry and Rose Tani don't. Tedder (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but it's not necessarily a definitive factor in this particular case. With the Japanese American concentration camps, there are several people who would have to be considered to be notable among the former prisoners, even though they might not necessarily meet WP:NOTE. A good example is Sue Kunitomi Embrey, a former prisoner at Manzanar. There is no Wikipedia article for her (maybe I'll write one someday), but that doesn't mean she isn't notable (trust me, she would definitely meet the notability requirements). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sue is an example of someone who is notable even outside of the camp (and should probably have a page). Notability inside the camp doesn't mean much- I think my cat is notable inside of my apartment, but that doesn't make him notable on Wikipedia. Tedder (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another good example would be Ralph Lazo. Might not be notable outside of the Manzanar article, but is certainly a notable former prisoner. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Being in your apartment is one thing. Being imprisoned in such a camp is an entirely different story, with totally different circumstances. Not a very good analogy, really. No offense intended. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying. But the point is that not all internees are notable. An internment camp has a higher degree of inherent notability than my apartment, but that doesn't make everyone in the camp notable. If the internee has some degree of notability external to the camp, it probably means they are notable. It's kind of the "fame in x" argument. I do agree, however, that the camp has an inherent notability that makes "marginally notable" people move up the scales. I don't agree that makes anyone who was notable within the camp eligible for notability. Tedder (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're reading WAY too much into what I said... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno. To me, someone who has been the subject of numerous network news and mainstream media articles, and whose death directly led to a policy crisis in a Federal agency . . .well, someone like that is "notable."  Likewise, Henry Rose was an important member of the Japanese American political community, and this article is not only about a portion of the Japanese American community, but his time in the camp was the basis of his later political and social activism. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Meteorite Found Near Topaz War Relocation Center
While interned at Topaz during World War II, Akio Uhihera and Yoshito Nishimoto were on a rock hunting expedition in the Drum Mountains, 16 miles west of the concentration camp. Akio noticed an interesting rock near a sagebrush, and after some excavation found that it was a 1,164 pound rare iron meteorite. What is left of the meteorite is now on display at the Smithsonian Institution. More details are available from the December 20, 1944 article in the Deseret News published here.

December 1944 Article, Deseret News — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.105.67 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Topaz War Relocation Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609235643/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/35.3/daniels.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/35.3/daniels.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624065352/http://www.densho.org/default.asp?path=%2Fassets%2Fsharedpages%2Fglossary.asp%3Fsection%3Dhome to http://www.densho.org/default.asp?path=%2Fassets%2Fsharedpages%2Fglossary.asp%3Fsection%3Dhome
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027001849/http://www.doi.gov/news/07_News_Releases/070404.html to http://www.doi.gov/news/07_News_Releases/070404.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

pre-2006 source for Delta residents protesting a "prison for the innocent"
I recently found a source for the "curse"/ residents of Delta not wanting a "prison for the innocent" named after their town. The book was self-published by a person with a history PhD. I found another reference in a 2013 obituary originally in the SF Chronicle and in a historical sports book. However, the wording of the references is so similar that it makes me think they came from a common source... and it could have been Wikipedia. The information has been on the page since its beginning in 2006, so I'm looking for a source that predates it to prevent circular referencing! Let me know if you find one. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the information for now. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Potential problems with use of "Caucasian" in collections description in WP
If that is a supplied title by a WP editor i would serious advise against it as it very well may never be known just what is the "racial" identity of non-internee personal and occupants at Topaz. The word can be a very divisive term to some people and although the situation may be a Japanese-origin and non-Japanese origin of people there we cannot universally apply a term of Caucasian that would from day one until infinity remain accurate. Especially with DNA gnome identification today who knows what may come up if those that worked and were associated with Topaz were to be tested. All you can be certain about with people connected with Topaz is that group which were interned, those that are connected because of interactions with the internees and the government employees. But use of the word "Caucasian" is like asking for trouble. Ask someone with an anthropological background the potential misperceived implications. I really hope that the use is not a creation of any "official" government related agency.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I supplied that title. When I did research for this page, the racial division between Caucasian administration and Japanese internees was a common subject of analysis. Jewel of the Desert specifically mentions "caucasians" many times. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The book is written in 1993. Race relations then, and now have changed, and how one interprets the usage of racial labels has also changed. Perhaps this is the reason why some may see the usage of the term Caucasian as incorrect, while others do not. I cannot say as I can speak for other people.
 * please be careful, as I have seen two reversions of content, and this is coming close to the WP:3RR rule.
 * I am searching their catalog and do not readily see a collection by the name "Papers from Caucasians who worked at Topaz", perhaps my google-fu is failing me. While off line reliable sources are utilizable, I think the actual collection name needs to be verified. I will label accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I called them directly Wednesday afternoon to understand what is and what is not the "collection" title. BYU Special Collections does not have a collection of that subject with the word Caucasian in it. That title was created by the WP editor of that content. The sub-parts are collections of theirs but they are not part of a larger collection except the holdings of Special Collections. What the originally supplied collection title did was impose on BYU Special Collections the name of the collection without their authorization regardless as to the intended useful purpose of the WP editor. As a historian, archivist and records manager I would counsel against using any collection title that BYU Special Collections has not authorized. No one is denying that the issue of racial tension is part of the history of Topaz. Far from it. But setting up the groups that make up thr discussion may not be as acceptable all around by using words or terms that originate from one group of the participants and in the use of those words or terms what is expressed is negative connotation about the other participants2605:E000:9143:7000:3814:E722:AE2A:FB8F (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead you. You are absolutely correct. There is no official collection in the L. Tom Perry Special Collections that has to do with Topaz that has the word "Caucasian" in it. I made that up to make it clear to readers what I was linking to. There is no umbrella collection that holds all of the records related to Topaz in it. I searched through the records and found the relevant ones to link at the bottom of the page and invented the umbrella term. "Non-internee" is accurate, but I think the racial difference is important because of the racial tensions between the administration and the internees. Would "white" or "European-American" be a better descriptor in your opinion? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better title would be "Items within the L. Tom Perry Special Collections which are relevant to the Topaz War Relocation Center". Opinions? This way it can include any other parts of the Special collections regardless if the subject of that part of the special collections is produced by an internee or non-internee.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as what was reviewed and where it can be found is how they are linked in WP is full-filling the responsibility of any editor so that there is an opportunity to verify or refute the content. Being general about the content of the collections leaves it to the research as to why they will use the link to seek out what can be found about Topaz o anything else in those collections. Only one aspect of the WP Topaz article is about race relations which certainly if pursued in an appropriate and full forum give us a better understanding just how did people refer to each other and what connotation that can be revealed with that use. The only mention of racial tension in the WP Japanese American Internment article is that between camp administration and Japanese medical personnel.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)