Talk:Manzanar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 2, September 16, 2007

GA Review #1

I have reviewed the article and found the following issues:

• Jumplinks such as for "Manzanar Historical Site", "Manzanar Committee" and "Stand up for justice" in the body of the text are discouraged - especially if done so repeatedly every time they are mentioned.

OK. Will correct. Was under the impression that having more jumplinks rather than less was preferred. Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Done

• Third paragraph of the lead is journalistic, speculative, and POV.

Disagree. Other than calling the history "rich and vibrant" (which I am removing), there is nothing that is speculative or POV in that paragraph. Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strike "So everyone can learn about the internment" in 5th para of lead - clumsy and unnecessary.

 Done Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• The article is plagued with choppy structure; there are many, many one- and two-sentence paragraphs which should be aggregated into larger, smoother-flowing paragraphs.

"Plagued?" Wow. I've fixed the one-sentence paragraphs, at your suggestion, but I have to take issue with it being "plagued with choppy structure." Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)  Done

• The opening paragraph of "Manzanar Before WWII" is unnecesary; it duplicates information that should be, or already is, in the lead.

True. Removed. Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)  Done

• I have to take issue with the way this article is written in general; it romanticizes the experiences of some of the groups discussed, especially the Owens Valley ranchers and in the "life behind the barbed wire" and "resistance" sections. Certain parts of this narrative are very Howard Zinn-like, history with Marxist/socialist biases.

Disagree. Will re-nominate without accepting the above comments. Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strike "rich" in Wartime Manzanar intro; POV. If Manzanar is best-known for something, that needs to be supported with sources.

This entire article is very well-supported by sources. A lead is supposed to introduce the rest of the article, or in this case, the section. However, I have removed "rich," at your suggestion. Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)  Done

• "suffer the shock of being uprooted", "supposedly surged forward", "suffer the indignities of being forcibly relocated" - all POV. It's not Wikipedia's job to make people feel bad that this event happened; its job is to report that it did happen in full detail, without a moral judgment. (You may, of course, add a section about criticisms of the camp and quote those who do make moral judgments, if you wish; perhaps that would be a spot for addition.) The first and third should be rewritten, and the second, if it stays, needs to be better explained and supported. Were there differing accounts of the event?

Wrong. None of the quoted phrases above are POV. They are well-documented fact, and are cited. Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Preservation and Remembrance section begins by expaining that the first visit happened on a "cold, windy" day - Romanticization alert. This is unnecessary detail that does nothing to improve the article. Same with "determination and hard work" - subtle POV creeping in.

Again, not POV at all. The day of the first Pilgrimage was indeed cold and windy. A fact. And the climate of the area was a major factor in the lives of the internees, so it is not only NOT POV, it is entirely relevant. I did remove "determination and hard work," however. Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)  Done

• Subsection "manzanar pilgrimage" is very POV; it reads like an advertisement for the program.

Perhaps, but only if you read it without reading the previous sub-section, which describes how the Manzanar Committee and the Pilgrimage were crucial in the site gaining National Historic Site status. Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please reformat the sources such that, say, notes 58-60 are all listed in short form such as "Yoneda, Ganbatte, p. 5" or similar, and have the full citation placed in the general references section.

Will do. Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)  Done

How about leaving the first instance of a cited reference as a full reference in the list, and then using the abbreviated citation for the rest in the list? Gmatsuda 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Per MOS, External Links go below footnotes.

Didn't know that. Will fix. Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)  Done

Because this article appears to need a lot of work, especially in terms of style, before reaching GA status, I am failing it at this time. Feel free to renominate when concerns have been addressed. Chubbles 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but perhaps another user should review it next time. :-) Gmatsuda 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with your distinction regarding what is and is not a fact. Let me try to clarify what I mean. Take a statement such as "[they] had to suffer the indignities of being forcibly relocated once again." If this were reworded to say, "Many internees described the repeated forced relocations as an indignity", that would be a statement of fact, made verifiable by the reference so I can go and read exactly where the internees described the relocations as an indignity. It would be even better if it were changed to "internees described the forced relocations as 'an indignity' and 'a harrowing experience' - thus allowing the agents to speak for themselves. But a statement like "the forced relocations were an indignity" (a simple rephrasing of the above statement without changing the meaning) is not a fact; it is an opinion, and one that comes from a particular moral standpoint. It chafes at me as a historian, and I believe it is a misinterpretation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. If such a statement is backed up by references, it is evidence of working from biased sources. Noting the negative experiences of the internees and the condemnations of later observers is critical to reaching comprehensiveness, and is absolutely necessary for inclusion, but the current writing style overreaches into asserting that their judgments are "the truth". I really think this article would be vastly improved if such language were removed and a "Criticism of the internment camps" section were added, discussing the judgments of historians and the later statements of internees.

In any case, I am happy to leave further reviews to another editor; more eyes always helps an article improve. Chubbles 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fake References

Thanks for your comments. I'd agree with you if the indignity of the internment wasn't so well-documented in numerous books, articles, journals, documentary films, etc, many of which are cited in the article. And to claim that the references are biased is rather insulting because it's quite obvious that you haven't read them, especially since former internees are often quoted in them.

The problem here is that this is a subject where the emotional impact on those interned is an important part of the history. As such, this story cannot be told, even on Wikipedia, in an article that avoids that 100%. I've tried to do that as much as possible, and, IMHO, removed 99% of it. If this violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy, well, then this article will likely never reach GA status without removing an important part of the history of the site.

I also feel that the semantics issues we're discussing in this case are rather nit-picky, and I'm talking as somewhat of a historian myself.

Criticism of the internment camps is discussed in another Wikipedia article, Japanese American Internment, which is referenced in the Manzanar article, hence, I left it out. Thanks again. Gmatsuda 19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to insult by calling the sources biased; it is the nature of the subject for them to be biased. Most of the people writing about this event do so with a vested interest, and so working with POV sources is unavoidable. (I have the same problem with Resistance Records, an article I tried to improve recently.) It's okay to work from POV sources, if the material cited is correct, and the bias is not translated into the article's wording as well. This is a controversial issue, made more so by the fact that it deals with people who are still alive and who act as advocates for certain viewpoints on the subject. But that in no way absolves the writers from maintaining neutrality here. Thanks for the conversation, and best of luck with further changes. Chubbles 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I hold no malice towards you and appreciate your work on the review. I'll make the suggested changes that I agree with and see what happens. :-) Gmatsuda 19:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review #2

I will be reviewing this article sometime after midnight Central time. I will likely be placing it on hold but here a couple quick style fixes for now. One sentence paragraphs and short paragraphs should be combined throughout. The use of bold is reserved for the article's title in the lead, it should be removed from other locations. Review to come. IvoShandor 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the bold type and combined the one-sentence paragraphs. Hope that fixes those problems for good. :-) Gmatsuda 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am working on the review . . . I will let you know when it is done. IvoShandor 06:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if this takes a couple days. I am posting my review at User:IvoShandor/Manzanar GA review, so I can work on it tomorrow. I got a phone call from an out of town friend tonight and will probably spend some time working on some Frank Lloyd Wright buildings tonight so I will come back to the review tomorrow. I didn't get a lot done because of the call but feel free to address any of the points on that user page and edit it freely. IvoShandor 06:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's not like anyone's life is depending on your speedy attention to this task! :-) Gmatsuda 07:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The following text was copied from a User page that IvoShandor created for his GA review of Manzanar. It is important to retain for the article and the talk page, so I am adding it to this archive. -- Gmatsuda 10:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

łGA Review - Manzanar I am placing this nomination on hold as I can see that the main contributor is pretty well dedicated to this article and thus I am assuming that the issues outlined here can likely be fixed within the two to seven day time period allotted by the hold. 06:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   

7. Pass/Fail:

   a Well written:

   b Factually accurate:

   c Broad in coverage:

   d NPOV:

   e Stable:

   f Images:

   g Overall:

If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.

If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The "essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.

Review by: IvoShandor

IvoShandor 06:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Further comments:

• Criteria #1: Well Written: Concerning prose and the Wikipedia Manual Style

• I saw a pretty long sentence standing in as a paragraph right off the bat (first section)

• Manzanar was first inhabited by Native Americans nearly 10,000 years ago, and approximately 1,500 years ago, was settled by the Owens Valley Paiute,[1] who had settled the Owens Valley from Long Valley on the north to Owens Lake on the south, and from the crest of the Sierra Nevada on the west to the Inyo Mountains on the east.[2]

Take a look at it now. :) Gmatsuda 07:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• The phrase "not to mention" in the lead seems a bit informal, consider altering.

Fixed. Gmatsuda 07:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• These sentences: The Owens Valley was first visited by white settlers in the mid-19th century. These settlers found a number of large Paiute villages in the Manzanar area.

• If they were settlers they weren't really visiting.

Good point. :-) Fixed. Gmatsuda 07:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Take your time on the review. It's not like life as we know it is going to end if you don't finish it soon. :-) Gmatsuda 07:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• White settlers first arrived in the Owens Valley in the mid-19th century. These settlers found a number of large Paiute villages in the Manzanar area Combine. Possibly with this John Shepherd was one of the first white settlers in the Manzanar area too. Try not to have so many short sentences in succession it makes the prose choppy. Look over the whole article for this kind of thing.

 Done Hope I found everything! :-) Gmatsuda 08:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• This article is very long. Read WP:SUMMARY if you haven't. It looks like you need a main article History of Manzanar that can be summed up here in the Manzanar page.

It might be a bit long, but I am extremely reluctant to split up this story into more than one article because this IS the story of the Manzanar National Historic Site. The site interprets the history of the site, as well as how it came to be what it is today. To split it up, IMHO, would separate the story and would not give readers a complete picture because not everyone would read multiple articles to get the whole story.

If this prevents the article from ever becoming a GA, so be it. The most important thing is that the story be told accurately, and in the best possible way. If that doesn't fit into Wikipedia's criteria for a GA, oh well...there are worse things in life. :-) Gmatsuda 02:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The further reading section is too long to be useful. Pick the most important works and include only those, more than eight or ten is unnecessary. Same with the external links, it is becoming a link farm. See the appropriate sections of WP:NOT.

 Done Gmatsuda 08:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The references (footnotes) need tighter formatting, it is pretty inconsistent. Many lack publication dates that should be readily available.

 Done Some publication dates were unavailable. What other formatting needs to be fixed? Looks pretty consistent to me. Gmatsuda 08:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This stuff is pretty major and I am inclined to fail it on account of it, go ahead and fix it if you can and I will come back with more commentary, good work addressing other comments. I also plan to comment on some of the prior review but I haven't really assessed those complaints against the text yet. IvoShandor 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Other than the length issue (which I've responded to), I'll look at the other stuff a bit later and see what I can fix. Thanks. Gmatsuda 02:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I really think an article this lengthy is a disservice to readers. There's nothing adverse to the story when you split up an article, it helps the reader, who is much more likely to come to this page, see it's dauntingly long and move on to another source, of which Wikipedia isn't the only one. By splitting it up you can more properly focus the article and still present a damn good summary here. I think it helps rather than hinders the article, this is an opinion I have slowly come to over my time at Wikipedia, not something I just believe because Wikipedia said so. I too was resistant to this idea but given the nature of what Wikipedia is and is not, this particular guideline is one worth following. IvoShandor 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but if the article is broken up, the History of Manzanar article will have the "meat" of the aritcle, and the Manzanar article will be sketetel, at best, with little material that would be interesting or even all that useful by itself. Without the context of the history, the importance of the site will be lost. The site and its stories are inextricably joined together. FYI: I'm also a contributor to Los Angeles Kings, and although it is not a GA (hasn't even been nominated and needs work before we get to that point), I believe that under what your have stated, it never could be, given its current structure, ie. it's too long. But then I look at New Jersey Devils, an article that Los Angeles Kings, I hope, will eventually be modeled after. That article is an FA, even though it is long. And in both articles, it would be insane to separate the history of the teams from the rest of the article just to shorten the main article. In both cases, the history is an vital part of the main article.

My point is that yeah, Manzanar isn't a short article. But IMHO, it details what the site is all about...its history and how it became a National Historic Site. As such, I still can't see how separating out its history into another article would improve it. Gmatsuda 08:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first section has nothing to do with why it became a National Historic Site nor does the notable internees section, which really amounts to a whole bunch of trivia and is one of the longest sections. Notable is a pretty subjective term, some of these folks don't even have wikilinks and I fail to see how listing every notable internee, albeit in prose, helps to tell the story of Manzanar. The story of Manzanar isn't really told by what notable internees were there. The place is a historic site because of the info in the wartime section, anyone vaguely familiar with this period of American history knows that, you're arguement seems flawed is what I am sayingm, perhaps not a history article per se, but this article badly needs trimmed, maybe removal is the way to go. IvoShandor 12:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For clarification before I respond..."First section..." are you referring to the lead?

As for the Notable internees section, not every notable internee is mentioned, and four are actually highlighted in the exhibits at the Manzanar Interpretive Center because they were pivotal people in the history of the site. Also, the history is indeed told, in large part, by those who were imprisoned there. After all, the people and what happened to them are what made Manzanar worthy of becoming a National Historic Site. FYI: In this case, I added to an already-existing section.

Not sure what you mean by "removal." ??? Thanks again for your work on this review, BTW... Gmatsuda 07:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm...are you just busy, or should I take your silence as the review being done? If the length issue is a deciding one for you, I can just withdraw the nomination... Gmatsuda 04:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I hear that another matter is taking up your time. No problem... :-) Gmatsuda 01:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

GA assessment – on hold at this time

Thank you for nominating this article as one that may meet the Good Article Criteria. As you will see I have placed the article on hold at this time.

I prefer to give as reasonable amount of feedback as is possible in the case of on-hold and failed nominations. Please do not take the on hold too badly – the article is very close and just needs a little bit of work to reach the stage of a pass. I also note for the record that I have looked at the previous reviews as detailed above. I note that most of the suggested adjustments are made (but on the next review I will more carefully assess against my own opinion and that of the ones above) and on that basis I am a little concerned that some of the article still reads a little bit like a fan review (even though I note that there has been an argument made that POV is not an issue because it comes from referenced sources). In my opinion this is a dangerous position because it may either breach POV or Copyvio guidelines and policy. However once the issues I raise below and your adjustments to those issues are made we will see if that fixes that problem.

Sounds reasonable. :-) Gmatsuda 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To assist in this process I normally also suggest that as each adjustment is made, that editors place the template {{done}} after each part that is completed as this will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion. Done

1. As you will note – on this occasion – I have made a number of minor adjustments throughout. In my view the adjustments I make are of a nature that they do not affect my ability to fairly assess the article.
2. Importantly I note the difference between the Lead section and everything that follows in so far that the lead uses the words ‘internment camp’ whilst the sections below it use the words ‘concentration camp’. The photos also refer to the camp as a War Relocation Center. I suggest that you should carefully choose one of these words and stick with that throughout the article. Whichever word you choose will affect the story so this may require some discussion between editors. If it helps you to decide I note that you refer to the people in the camp as ‘internees’.

Fixed the lead  Done Gmatsuda 03:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The photo captions, generally speaking, are the original captions that accompanied the photo. Those photos were all taken by photographers working for the WRA. Their official terminology was "War Relocation Center." The question here is, should we edit the captions to help it pass GA, or can it pass with the original captions?

As for use of "internee," that is what the prisoners of these camps were generally called, regardless of the terminology used--internment camp, concentration camp, etc.

I hope this explains the use of these terms and won't adversely affect the review. Of course, you'll let us know if it does. :-) Gmatsuda 03:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The article links to WRA but that just leads to a disambiguation page. Please adjust. Done
2. With respect there are some peripheral components in the article which are not required. In particular sentences such as this (They leased it to the Independence Veterans of Foreign Wars, who used it as a meeting facility and community theatre until 1951. After that, the building was used as a maintenance facility by the Inyo County Road Department.) should probably be removed.

This may seem to be "peripheral," but keep in mind that although the legislation that created the Manzanar National Historic Site specifies that the primary focus of the site is the World War II period, what happened at the site, especially to one of the four remaining (intact) structures left from the camp period, is relevant. As such, I am inclined to retain it, but I could be swayed to remove it. :-)

Can you point out other instances where you believe peripheral components should be deleted? Thanks. Gmatsuda 02:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I do not have a general problem with the length of the article BUT I do have some issues with the section titled Notable Manzanar internees – which I believe displays information that does not belong in this article. In particular the dates of death of these people is absolutely peripheral (with respect) to the article itself and should be removed in each case. Similarly sentences like the following are peripheral (and probably POV in some cases) and should be removed. (a task that would grow far beyond herself and her own family); (Hohri resides in Chicago, Illinois.); ("Being brown has its advantages," Lazo explained.); (Lazo died in the Los Angeles area on January 1, 1992, at the age of 67. He had three children.) etc etc.

 Done. Please let me know if I missed anything, or if there are other instances where we should remove peripheral information. Gmatsuda 03:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I’m sorry but the section titled ‘Preservation and remembrance’ reads like a review in a newspaper and needs to be severely tightened. For example language like (on a cold, windy December day in the Owens Valley) is not particularly encyclopaedic.

 Done I have removed "cold, windy day" from that section (even though, according to first-hand accounts it was indeed cold and windy), but...see comments below. Gmatsuda 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The title of the film (Rabbit in the Moon) should be italicized. Done
2. Finally I make this as a general comment (as I do not think that it will effect GA status but it would certainly effect further progression). The comment relates to the Image Gallery which is a little repetitive at times and does not particularly assist. I would suggest that a Commons category re Manzanar be created and a link just be put through in this article to point to that link. This will tidy up the article and also speed up the loading. If you need help let me know. If other editors have a view as to whether this is in fact important enough to delay the promotion to GA please let me know on my talk page as soon as possible. Done Gmatsuda 06:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you please spend the appropriate amount of time carefully adjusting the article where suggested – and once you are totally happy please let me know and I will reassess. As always the system gives you 2 – 7 days to achieve these adjustments but in some extraordinary circumstances a few extra days can be made available. Please let me know directly on my talk page if you need that extra time. Also if you have any other questions please come to my talk page and I will try my best to answer or assist. Cheers --VS ^talk 08:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

About issue #2 that you raised, on the usage of "internment camp" and "concentration camp" - at the time of this comment, the only place I notice the term "internment camp" is in the "See also" section and also as a category for the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Having a lot of trouble connecting to Wikipedia tonight. Will try to continue addressing issues listed above later, if not on Thursday (Pacific time). Gmatsuda 03:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed for POV and for peripheral information, but I may be "too close to the forest to see the trees," so to speak. Would appreciate other editors taking a look to check for POV and peripheral information. As it stands now, IMHO, the article is good. But a second opinion would be helpful, I'm sure. Gmatsuda 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: If there's more to do to get this article to a point where it can pass the GA review (I'm assuming there is), I hope it can be addressed by Sunday night (July 1, Pacific time). After that, I will not be near a computer much until July 5, and won't be able to resume work on it until then. Don't mean to rush everyone, but that's my situation. Sorry about that. Gmatsuda 01:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

GA assessment – passed

Congratulations to all editors who assisted in this article. I have read the changes made (and noted the couple of arguments against my suggestions - all of which I can live with). The article is well presented and passes the WP:GACR. Editors who greatly assisted the progress of the article to GA standard may wish to cut the following template '''{{User Good Article|Manzanar}}''' and paste to their user page or other suitable location. Well done!--VS ^talk 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

VirtualSteve: Thank you for your work on the GA review. Making it to GA status wasn't the important thing...what was important was making the article better, and that has been accomplished. That said...should we now go for FA status? I'm not sure I'm up to that yet! :-) Gmatsuda 23:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review?

Ok folks...what do you think? Should we take the next step and submit for peer review? Gmatsuda 09:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. This is a pretty good article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure when I'll be up to it after the "Battle for GA" took almost two months! Gmatsuda 18:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK...I decided "what the hell" and submitted Manzanar for peer review. Let's see how that goes. If the road to GA is any indication, I'm expecting a bumpy ride! Gmatsuda 08:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Luck.--Epeefleche 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh...the way the GA review process went, we might need it! Gmatsuda 23:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK...now that we've got the terminology debate resolved (I hope!), let's hope the peer review gets moving quickly! Gmatsuda 08:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not bad...two days after we ended the terminology debate, we've got our first comments on peer review! Check it out...Wikipedia:Peer review/Manzanar/archive1 Gmatsuda 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work. A suggestion. The Notable Manzanar prisoners, while interesting and important, seems too large for this article. I tried to clean it up a bit, but barely made a dent. Since I did not add the content, and others are closer, perhaps someone could look at pruining it? It is nearly as large as all other sections in Wartime Manzanar combined, and has information that at times is much less important that the preceding sections. It also needs, I believe, careful attention to the lawsuit. While the lawsuit was thrown out, it is made to appear in the article as though the lawsuit in some way proved what the courts suggested it did not prove. On any of its many counts. To avoid appearance of POV, I think this might be addressed.--Epeefleche 23:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it now. However, I don't see a problem with the section on NCJAR's lawsuit. The article has it right, based on everything I've read about the case and my fairly extensive knowledge of the redress and reparations struggle. Gmatsuda 23:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken an initial run through this section. Got any suggestions on what you think can be trimmed? Gmatsuda 00:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Another 3 points. 1) Your wrote, in RVing an edit in which I sought to bring 3 short paras into 1 para, "Notable Manzanar prisoners - Quotes are usually in a paragraph by themselves in articles." I am not familiar with this convention, and it certainly makes that particular already long section appear even longer. Could you point me to your basis for it? Tx. 2) The discussion of the Pilgrimage should, I would suggest, all be under the title Manzanar Pilgrimage. At the moment, a large percentage of the discussion appears two sections above it. 3) You might wish to consider taking out all but the last word in the section title "Note on Terminology."

Regarding point 1: As a freelance writer, I do this all the time, especially most books on style suggest isolating quotes. I didn't see anything in WP:MOS about it (unless I missed something?), so I tend to do that here. Something I learned in school...

Point 2: I'll take a look at this later.

Point 3:  Done Gmatsuda 00:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Point 1 -- conflicts with what I have learned in school, and in this case (though I generally like short paras) with such a long section makes it longer IMHO. As to the notable prisoners section, your edits were an improvement, and along the lines of what I was thinking. But it still is overly long relative to the article I think. And still has info on these people that is of very little value considering that this is about Manzanar, not the backgrounds of the prisoners of Manzanar. So, for example, language re what they did in Manzanar, or how they otherwise served the country, seem more appropriate than "returned to Honolulu after the war and established the Honolulu Record, a progressive newspaper that he edited from 1948-58," and "taught Ethnic Studies at the University of Hawaii." Just looking at the first person's info. Tossing this in detracts IMHO from the reader focusing on the focus of this article. It looks more like something prepared as a document to reflect an homage to the people, which perhaps is what it was taken from.--Epeefleche 00:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at this again later, when I have more energy and time. Regarding Point 1, looks like we went to different schools in more ways than one. :-) Seriously though, I do believe it looks better with the quotes in their own paragraph. Gmatsuda 05:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed Koji Ariyoshi from the section completely, because, and no offense to User:RebelAt, he isn't as noteworthy as the others included. But at this point, I don't think we can remove more without taking away important, relevant information. Also, keep in mind that Manzanar's history was made by the people who were there. As such, I don't have a problem with the length of the section as it is now. Also, five of the seven people featured in the section are people who are also featured as part of the permanent exhibit in the Interpretive Center at the Manzanar National Historic Site. Oh...and this section was never intended to be an "homage," as you put it. Gmatsuda 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I just expanded the pre-WWII sections a bit, and made a few other, minor additions. Gmatsuda 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Restored where Sue Embrey moved to after leaving Manzanar. Although the article doesn't go into this specifically, I feel this is important because the prisoners were not allowed to move back to the West Coast until after the camps were closed. She was allowed to leave Manzanar, but was not free to go whereever she wished.

• Mentioned husband Jack Herzig in Aiko Yoshinaga-Herzig paragraph. He was equally instrumental in the research in the National Archives. Gmatsuda 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Removed factual disputes from Aiko Yoshinaga-Herzig and William Hohri paragraphs. For Herzig-Yoshinaga, multiple references credit her and her husband for what is stated in the article (although I only cited one). For Hohri, It would take too long to detail here, but the class action lawsuit filed by NCJAR, even though the courts ruled against the plaintiffs, did indeed show that the US Government faced a lot of exposure to future claims. Please see the book cited in the article for more confirmation. It would not be a good idea to go into further detail in the article about this. If you can re-word the paragraph in a better way, feel free. :-)

• Nice work on the Preservation and Remembrance section. Gmatsuda 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tx. Why not limit the Embrey reference to when she returned to CA? It seems irrelevant that she was in Madison, etc., before that. And as to the Riot -- we already give the dates of it in the article. Seems redundant, which is why I had deleted it.--Epeefleche 21:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See above about Embrey's return to California. Same reason. And you're right about the date. I went back and removed it. Gmatsuda 00:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So...are we done with fine-tuning the article? Are we now just waiting for more peer reviewers? Gmatsuda 22:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We've only gotten one peer review since July 16, when the article was put up for peer review. Being unfamiliar with the process, does it normally take this long to get multiple reviews? Should we just submit for FA review? Gmatsuda 06:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We've received our second peer review, and I've responded to the comments/suggestions made. Check it out...Wikipedia:Peer review/Manzanar/archive1. Gmatsuda 05:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Los Angeles Aqueduct

A recent edit replaced the photo of the Los Angeles Aqueduct near Manzanar with a map of the Los Angeles Aqueduct system. If this article was about the Los Angeles Aqueduct, the map would work great. It would be quite relevant to the article. However, this article is about Manzanar, not the aqueduct system. As such, the photo of the aqueduct near Manzanar is far more relevant. Also, if the photo was replaced simply because the map was public domain, that's not a good reason. After all, permission was granted by the rights holder to use the photo in the article (click on the photo for details). Gmatsuda 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. Can you show us the diffs? My guess that whatever is more interesting to look at is better. If it actually makes sense to include either -- something I am not sure of. But I have no strong feelings on that, if others do I defer to them.--Epeefleche 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the image that replaced the photo of the unlined aqueduct near Manzanar. It's just a map. Owens River with Los Angeles Aqueduct Gmatsuda 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As for inclusion, the story of water in the Owens Valley is a vital part of the story at Manzanar, which was owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. They leased the land to the US Government during the WWII period, and they retained ownership of the site until 814 acres was acquired by the National Park Service through a land transfer agreement. LADWP still retains all water rights in the Manzanar area, including that 814 acres mentioned above. This story goes back to the early 1900's, and played a huge role, including forcing the ranchers to abandon the town of Manzanar and their ranches (see the article). As such, I believe the photo is entirely relevant and should be included. Gmatsuda 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no terribly strong feelings, but of the two I find the current photo more appealing than the map. Neither is tremendously informative in amplifying the article, but the current one does put a "face" on the subject. I do think inclusion of the story makes sense, and is nicely told. I don't know that either photo here is as informative or interesting as the other photos in the article, but at the same time I have no problem with inclusion.--Epeefleche 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that neither the map or the photo is all that informative in the context of the article. However, unlike the map, the photo shows what the aqueduct actually looks like near Manzanar (the only unlined section of the aqueduct is in the vicinity of Manzanar, which is just north of the Alabama Hills, where the aqueduct is concrete-lined the rest of the way until it hits Haiwee Reservoir in Kern County). As you said, it puts a "face" on the whole thing in terms of the story of water in the Owens Valley, including the Manzanar area. Gmatsuda 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it as is. Makes sense. If the article becomes photo heavy at some point, I might support it being one of the first to go. But at this point, I agree with you.--Epeefleche 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I added the name of the author in an article in the first EL, but someone might go through them and Wikify them if they have the time ..........--Epeefleche 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be wikified? Gmatsuda 02:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The external links. I just focused on the first one. It was not in quotes, which I think is the standard -- you might double check me on that. It did not say who wrote it. It did not indicate its date (I didn't check if that was something we know). I imagine all ELs might be double checked along those and similar lines.--Epeefleche 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL and WP:MOS don't say anything about quotes, or requiring author or date in external links...I think we're OK. Gmatsuda 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to glance at [1].--Epeefleche 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's for citations, not external links. All the citations follow those standards. Gmatsuda 21:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not all that clear to me, but [2] refers to citations, and appears to indicate that external links are a form of citation, and provides inter alia "Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional. For journal articles, include volume number, issue number and page numbers. Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online."--Epeefleche 15:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive Created

I have created an archive for this talk page (see the top of this page). I moved the inactive threads (and one other) to that page. I did not move any of the threads discussing terminology or the GA review comments because they were either too current or may be useful during peer review or future FA review. Gmatsuda 04:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided to move the Relocation/Internment/Concentration thread to the archive. Gmatsuda 22:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Better! There may still be other material you may deem appropriate to move relating to the same, under terminology for instance. Your call.--Epeefleche 14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit

I have a problem with the sentence that says: "Despite the fact the Federal courts eventually ruled against the class action plaintiffs, the lawsuit ... showed the Congress and the Executive Branch that the US Government could have had considerable exposure to future damage claims resulting from the internment." To my mind, the opposite is suggested by the result. The courts ruled against the plaintiffs who brought those claims.--Epeefleche 16:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. However, it was made clear by the lawsuit that if appealed, the US Government would be on the hook for much more than the then-pending legislation in Congress that would pay $20,000 to each surviving prisoner or their immediate family. Congress and the President realized that they had a less expensive choice. I could go into much more detail, but this is the gist of it. As I said earlier, I don't think it's appropriate to go into this in detail in the article because it doesn't have much to do with Manzanar directly. Gmatsuda 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what the article presents that I can see, it does not make sense for the reasons I stated. And I'm not sure what the "on the hook for" language means in your above comment. The US government was found liable for that? It would be odd to my experience for a court to find the US government liable while throwing a case out. Without the detail, this just sounds not only suspect, but counterintuitive -- if the court found the US government was not guilty of all those counts against them and all that money claimed, the thrust of the case is to exonerate the government -- not the opposite. If anything, it suggests that the claim was wrong-headed. To toss it in as support for the notion that what happened was illegal or bad makes no sense to me. IMHO.--Epeefleche 21:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK...Check it out now. :-) Gmatsuda 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Checked it out, but for me at least the questions/comments that I have remain. Tx.--Epeefleche 06:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, but I don't know if I can make it more clear than by adding that quote. It really explains it all. FYI: The case was dismissed by the Court primarily on technicalities, such as the statute of limitations having expired, etc., mostly NOT on its merits. The bottom line is that the class-action suit was significant because it loomed large over a Congress and a President that was looking at every way possible to cut the Federal budget. The legislation before Congress was the less expensive alternative by a longshot. Gmatsuda 06:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

None taken. If that is the clearest you can make it, I am missing something. Especially couple with your above comment. My issue is with the phrase "showed the Congress and the Executive Branch that the US Government could have far greater exposure to future damage claims resulting from the internment." Nothing in the quote supports that notion. And your above comment -- that the statute of limitations had run -- would suggest to me just the opposite. That in fact the case showed that the Government did not have exposure whatsoever to future damage claims. Because the statute of limitations had run. I'm really missing something, but won't take it upon myself to revert it.--Epeefleche 07:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The key here is that the case was still pending while the redress legislation was being considered in Congress. With the merits of the case being pretty clear, Congress had a choice: spend $20,000 per prisoner or $200,000. The legislation was clearly the less expensive alternative, so they passed it and sent it on to President Reagan who signed the bill. It wasn't until after it became law that the Court tossed the case. In any case, I came up with something that might work for you. Gmatsuda 07:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And if that doesn't work, we go back to "I'm right and you're wrong. So there!!" :-) Gmatsuda 07:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I still have the same question/comment, but as I said I won't take it upon myself to revert your entry. I may be the only one missing it. Best of luck with the review.--Epeefleche 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...NOW I REALLY can't think of a way to make it clearer for you... Gmatsuda 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)