Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History Student

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * User:History Student

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

User is uncivil, fails to assume good faith, and edit wars, specifically on Japanese American internment. Has inserted enormous photos (600px+) in the introductory section, as opposed to thumbnails.

Other editors have been very patient with his claims that everyone editing the article are "reparations activists", etc. The user has some interesting content to add and does a lot of research but his conduct on the talk page appears  to be trolling and is at the least uncivil.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * "bite me", "what a crock", etc.
 * uncivil, AGF (Reparations pov activist "Will Beback" has attmpted to block my IP address and keep me from posting or editing. Nice form of historical debate Will. You can't debate the history so you attempt to ban people. What a load of crap!)
 * insertion of large photo; this is also the first edit after removal of semiprotection that was placed in response to editor's revert war over this same version
 * AGF: You know what? You guys all say the same thing then you provide no examples. You like Tom's piece because it's what you want to believe... Any information no matter how citable that is contrary to your own opinion is dimissed as POV. What a joke.
 * AGF (I believe Ishu is being civil but he also has a pov that he wishes to promote)
 * AGF (We are now back to tit for tat between the pro-reparations pov article and the article with my additions. I am willing to offer a truce as long as balance is brought to this article, all side are represented.)
 * AGF (Well I see we're back to the tit-for-tat monkey business regarding this article. Just cite your sources pro-reparations pov editors....)
 * User acknowledged circumventing IP block imposed following several warnings of user's behavior (why has my IP been banned, forcing me to spoof my IP just so I can comment here?), and strongly implied intention to repeat this action (Any re-edits are going to be changed and blocked by "Tom" and I'll return to being a Wikipedia rebel.).

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:AGF

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * My request:, his response: "what a joke" Justforasecond 22:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * History Student (HS) criticizes content in the existing article but declines to offer incremental edits, either in the article or for review on Talk, and often ignores other editors' suggestions. The best example can be seen in the entire section This is progress: Supreme court decision(s) to uphold exclusion.  I began the section to address a sentence in the current version that HS rightly noted is factually incorrect.  Instead of addressing my proposal, HS restated desire to use lengthy quotations, presumably by restoring HS's preferred version as user had attempted to do through edit war.  When I pointed out that lengthy quotations are not appropriate for the lead section of the article, HS agreed, but then added that "a non pov summary should be available" without commenting on whether the proposed edit is pov, much less offering an alternative edit (short of full restoration of user's previous wholesale changes).  Instead, HS asserted "I believe Ishu is being civil but he also has a pov that he wishes to promote," without supporting this accusation.  Additionally, HS has offered no further comment on the matter.  ishu 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Throughout HS's edits and comments is a strong and unyielding opposition to use of the term internment, to the point of repeatedly inserting as the first sentence of the article: "The Japanese American Internment is a misnomer..." which is blatantly NPOV. In the Talk section Terminology debate,  I noted that an existing section of the article addresses this point, and added the following invitation:  "HS is welcome to expand upon this argument, but an opposing argument is presented, and has been for some time."  HS replied, Okay, let's do so. Well the opposing argument is historically wrong, it's bad history and is intentionally meant to confuse the issue.  In a later discussion on the definitions--an apparent non sequitor in different talk section--HS dismissed my contributions, writing Ishu's opinion regarding the definition are groundless.  No further comment on the topic or the edit has been presented.  This is a recent example of this action, but it there are other examples. ishu 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Justforasecond 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ishu 03:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Will Beback 04:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * -- H·G (words/works) 21:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

Ishu you said, "Endo is relevant here, since the court was referring to the WRA program, as is clear throughout the decision. It found that detention was within the mandate of the WRA program, and also concluded that the WRA program, as implemented, amounted to detention. So if the court found that the WRA program amounted to detention, there is a case to be made for using the term internment."

To which I replied, " That's a stretch. You can also say millions of Americans were forceably taken from their homes and placed in camps surrounded by fences and gaurds and made to wear green uniforms and run around all day before being shipped off to such exotic locals as New Guinea and Okinawa. Were they "interned" too?

Those in real Dept. of Justice internment camps were surrounded by real high wire fences with real security and very few were ever given an opportunity to petition to leave. Your idea is interesting, though. We need to refrain from lumping "relocation", "evacuation" and "internment" into just "internment". It just confuses the issue. Lately the term "detained" has become popular. Sounds accurate."

Face it Ishu, your argument is groundless. However not surprisingly the wrong phrase is still up on the article. You guys can invent definitions all you want. The evacuation and the WRA Relocation Centers had nothing to do with the DOJ internment camps. Referring to the "Japanese-American Internment" is historically wrong and a misnomer. I don't know how you can call such a basic understanding of this history as that as "blatantly npov" (whatever that means).

I've done a search of every article related to this history and they are all pro-reparations pov including the slime of David Lowman that has been up since last year. Are most of you Wikipedians high school and college kids?

History Student --69.57.136.39 06:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.