Jump to content

Talk:In Defense of Internment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vote for Deletion

[edit]

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

[edit]

"Prior to 9/11, Malkin held a different opinion of the Japanese internment. In May, 2000, she wrote: "There is no denying that what happened to Japanese-American internees was abhorrent and wrong."" manner.

Yet the article nowhere says that the book called the internment right. If the book doesn't claim it was right, then claiming it was wrong isn't a different opinion.

If Malkin actually claimed the internment was right, then that seems like a rather large omission in the article. If Malkin didn't claim the internment was right, then the paragraph should be removed, since it's not a different opinion. And if you think Malkin claimed the internment was right, but can't directly say that in the article because you can't prove it to the satisfaction of Wikipedia, then you shouldn't be saying it in a roundabout If nobody produces a quote from the book stating that Malkin thinks the internment was right, I'm going to remove the paragraph. (Note that "some aspects of the internment that are commonly believed wrong were right" doesn't equate to "the internment was right".) Ken Arromdee 07:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may add that the quote (only available at the Internet Archive now) is taken out of context. Malkin, in fact, was denying the connection between the internment and discrimination against Asian-American soldiers. She said the internment was wrong to emphasize that she was only disagreeing with one particular belief about it, not the whole thing. It's misleading to use this quote to imply that Malkin had no disagreement about the internment before September 11. Ken Arromdee 07:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone now. Ken Arromdee 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ken, the book is actually quite confusing. Malkin seems to have many opinions, very few of which she sticks too. She defends the internment as founded on the MAGIC transmissions and fair. As John Herzig so deftly wrote in his article the MAGIC transmissions were shown only to about a dozen people. None of the people who fought in favor of internment had access to these transmissions, in fact the opposite is true. Stimson and McCloy had access and they were initially against the idea. On top of this Malkin presents an idea that the internment was fair because the other Axis races were treated with equal enmity. This is not true by a long shot. General DeWitt when questioned about Italian and German Americans stated “You needen't worry about the Italians at all except in certain cases. Also the same for the Germans except in individual cases. But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map.”(Personal Justice Denied,66) This shows the double standard that Malkin claims didn't really exist. --Monkeyman08854 19:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malkin goes out of her way to dirty Japanese-Americans, lumping them in with Japanese nationals & equating acting as drivers with spying. (I notice the Bush Administration is equating it with terrorism, so this should come as no surprise.) Moreover, her credentials as a historiographer are in serious question. Blogger & political hack don't qualify you as a historiographer. And Malkin's weakness show. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:InDefenseOfInternment.jpeg

[edit]

Image:InDefenseOfInternment.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by CltFn. Thanks! CWC 11:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Criticism

[edit]

Someone recently added this 2004 column by Tom Ikeda and Scott Oki as an External Link in the Michelle Malkin article. I'm not sure it's a WP:RS here, but it might have some use as an example of the reaction to this book. Cheers, CWC 11:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:InDefenseOfInternment.jpeg

[edit]

Image:InDefenseOfInternment.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "Alex Jones Confronts Malkin" section

[edit]

All it states is that Jones confronted Malkin. He is a marginal figure at best, and it adds nothing to the article to observe that he briefly followed her around while yelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.161.156 (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And it also is linked to a disambiguation page, not the actual Alex Jones (is he even one of the three)? TCO (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted it. The confrontation doesn't appear notable and the text didn't add anything to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

This article is awful in its current state. There is no discussion of the content of the book, its cultural impact (if any), or historical context or placement in any kind of political discourse. We have a one-sentence summary of the content followed immediately by criticism and responses - we devote more space to criticism and response than we do to the subject itself! I'm no fan or supporter, but this is outrageous. --64.172.173.138 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their is limited discussion of the book because the book flopped. Past versions of this article featured praise/discussion from obscure racist white nationalist sites like VDARE, which was the only audience which paid attention to this nonsense. The only thing here that is outrageous is the "thesis" (if you can even really call it that) of this book. Sans culottes 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that a book "flopped" that was on the NYT Bestseller list seems like a mistake. Did you read the book? I thought it made its difficult and outrageous point well, had lots of interesting detail, and was a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. The fact that lots of Japanese-Americans were understandably offended and lots of others too doesn't change that.MikeR613 (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BIAS ALARM! But what else do you expect from Wililiberpedia? She's a supersmart gal and I love her. She makes you think and is bold and proud to be an American. Just like Ann Coulter. --24.177.0.156 (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book summary

[edit]

How about the author of this article address the contents of the book instead of merely quoting authors and "civil rights" activists who are critical of it? Does that sound like fair treatment of the book, for crying out loud?

Answer: No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.221.148 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on In Defense of Internment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on In Defense of Internment. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Defense_of_Internment&oldid=1252603154"