Talk:Farewell to Manzanar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Farewell to Manzanar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Asian Americans Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Asian Americans (assessed as High-importance).

California: Southern California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mess

I just wanted to say that this page looks like a formless mess. We need to add more info and divide it up a bit more. Specificaly, the "shikata na gai" part seems awfully random. -Anonymous -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.59.171 (talk) 20:52, February 19, 2007

Well, I fixed it up a bit, but each section is a bit small. -Anonymous -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.59.171 (talk) 21:17, February 19, 2007

Cut:

It has been described as the American equivalent to Anne Frank's diary.^{[citation needed]}

What they have in common is that they are both war diaries by girls. But weren't the purposes of the camps different?

If there are partisans who assert that internment camps and concentration camps are similar, I'd like to see something about that in an article. But the percentage of survivors should be mentioned. --Uncle Ed 19:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Japanese American internment and Manzanar for more on the terminology issue. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary deletion of this article

A tag has been placed on Farewell to Manzanar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

this book is really famous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.156.41 (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

temp. deletion

I think that is article is misleading I can't verify the reference(s). I think this article is a NO-GO and should be deleted (or dramatically re-done). Sorry, I've never heard of it and I am an american teen. Thanks-Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you've heard of it or not is irrelevant. An internet search for this book yields over 40,000 hits (this excludes WP mirrors and forks, and the film adaptation). There is clearly sufficient reason to keep this. Mind matrix 16:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is even a cliff's notes for it! Just needs expansion. DGG (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even a teen-ager should possess far better research skills. If you had bothered to actually do the necessary work, you would have found this book in libraries, on Amazon.com, and a myriad of other places. My guess is that you have something against this book or the topic it deals with. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a list of critical studies about the book, taken from the MLA database, which focuses on literature. I'm sure there are more studies available from ethnic studies databases. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Banners

I have added the WikiProject California and WikiProject Southern California banners, the latter because the majority of Manzanar's prisoners were from Southern California (see Manzanar).

Woody needs clarified

The parts about Woody could be clarified. It says he fought in the Pacific but also that he was in the 442nd RCT, which fought in Europe. Is this an error, did he change units, or what? It is also likely that he visited Toyo AFTER the war but it reads like it was during the war (hardly true). PumpkinSky talk 00:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Context of how each side treated civilians or military

Granted that a direct link to My Hitch in Hell is not warranted, I wonder how we can place Manzanar in the context of how America and Japan treated civilians and POWs during WWII. Considering that the general impression of people I've met is that the US was unusually harsh in the whole relocation thing, I thought a comparison with the Bataan Death March and Japanese atrocities might help provide some needed perspective. (Reports of US soldiers gleefully chopping off Japanese POWs' heads are hard to come by; kids at Manzanar had schools, and no one in the camp was shot if a detainee escaped.)

What's the right way to do this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all saying the relocation was right, for sure it wasn't, but compared to the way the Japanese treated our captured guys, the relocatees were treated extremely well. PumpkinSky talk 20:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like Vietnam, all the bleeding hearts like Commie Jane Fonda whine about American atrocities, but they ignore the totally despicable way our guys were treated in the POW camps or killed outright and then had their cut off penises shoved in their mouths, etc. There are atrocities by all sides in all wars and all wars have friendly fire losses.PumpkinSky talk 20:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the Empire of Japan did with American prisoners of war as an act of war is totally irrelevant to this discussion. After all, what the author describes in her book is how those incarcerated by the United States, 2/3rds of whom were native-born American citizens, were treated by their own government (not an act of war). A totally different issue. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for shootings, several Japanese American incarcerees were shot. Some were killed. At least one was shot in the back. In each case, guards were protected by camp administrators and were never found to be at fault. None of these incidents were related to escape attempts. In fact, one was a rather elderly, deaf man who was walking near the barbed wire fence. He could not hear the camp guard up in the watchtower who shot him in cold blood. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disagree. Both topics deal with how incarcerated people were dealt with by both sides. Both sides were wrong and did bad things, but face it, the Japanese treated their incarcerees far more brutally and trying to hide that fact by not linking to such articles does not change that.PumpkinSky talk 12:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have not boldly jumped into editing the article is not just to avoid an edit war. I really want to know how to place the issue of "prisoner treatment" into context. If there is a good, general article on "prisoner abuse" or something, which Manzanar and Bataan are both related to, that might serve. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book does not deal with the Japanese treatment of prisoners of war AT ALL. This was a story about her experiences, nothing else. As such, the comparison you wish to make isn't at all relevant. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it does deal with the treatment of internees/captives/POWs/etc during WWII, so yes it is relevant.PumpkinSky talk 22:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. What you're not seeing is that there's a huge difference. What the Japanese did to American prisoners of war was an act of war. What this book deals with is the US Government's treatment of its own citizens during wartime. The two are completely different and unrelated in this context because of that. To equate can only be interpreted as an attempt to defend what the US Government did, or to make it appear to be a humane act. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BULLSHIT! I don't condone either. You are clearly trying to hide what the Japanese did.PumpkinSky talk 22:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. What you're not seeing is that the two are entirely separate issues. What the Empire of Japan did to American POWs was an act of war. What the US Government did was 1) an act against its own citizens; 2) was an act against civilians; 3) was not an act of war. What you're talking about are heinous atrocities, but they were committed as part of Japan's prosecution of the war against their enemy. What the US did was to its own citizens and to civilians. ~~ Gmatsuda (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details about the atrocities should be in articles about the Bataan Death March, World War II, etc. Adding it to an article such as this one can only be intended to discredit it, or to accomplish one of the motives I've already mentioned. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comparison people make is the wartime attitude of the respective governments:

The US government locked up Japanese people who - despite being (nearly all?) US citizens - were considered potentially disloyal. This was considered racist or "biased against their national origin". They lost houses, businesses, etc., and a few years of their lives away from the communities they settled in; plus the camps weren't so nice (at first anyway).
The Japanese government made captured American soldiers walk far and fast (see forced march) with almost no water and hardly any food (Bataan Death March), not to mention atrocities on the way

Some people compare these two types of treatment, and "judge" the two governments and/or nations on the basis of this comparison.

I don't think this article is the place for this comparison; rather, I am asking (a) what to link the article to, if a good article already exists, or (b) for help writing a comparison article. If it's answer b then clearly the three of us know enough to get started. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you must, create an article for it. It does not belong here. BTW: They were considered to be potentially disloyal based on nothing even closely resembling fact. Again, these are two entirely separate issues. One was an act of war against the enemy. The other was an act committed against civilians, the majority of whom were native-born American citizens while the rest were denied citizenship by racist laws preventing naturalization. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to compare how the US treated Japanese prisoners of war (i.e. members of their military or Japanese nationals captured during battle), that would be a valid comparison. But the one being put forward here is comparing apples and oranges. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC) The article is not that bad it just needs a little bit of work. I agree that it does need to be cited because it is a formal article on the Internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.18.51 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC) This is a great article but that doesnt mean it couldnt use some work. I dont believe you guyys should be trashing it though. Also, this is a really great book just not such a great article. If you are interested in World War 2 you should definatly read it. If you have read the book I hope you agree with me!!! Plus it is a great way to learn Social Studies while reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.18.51 (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]