Talk:Manzanar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Manzanar on front page, April 26, 2008

Manzanar on English Wikipedia's front page, April 26, 2008

Since we probably won't see Manzanar on Wikipedia's main/front page again anytime soon, here it is, for perpetuity... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comparison

I wonder whether a link to some of the Japanese-run internment camps in the Far East would be of interest to readers of this article? Camps like Stanley Internment Camp and Batu Lintang camp. It is interesting to compare the very different ways the two governments dealt with their civilian internees. The Japanese treated their internees with great brutality. Internees died as a result of lack of food, illness and violence. Death orders were made at the end period of the war, stating that all surviving internees and POWs in the camps were to be murdered. The Japanese ignored international conventions for the treatment of prisoners and regularly denied Red Cross aid. There is a culture of denial or at best collective amnesia in Japan about this shameful period in its history. The treatment of the internees at Manzanar was decidedly humane in contrast. 86.134.50.59 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Might be appropriate. The discussion of terminology is overly long (there is a whole dedicated article to the terminology debate) and no one group-- including the internees themselves-- gets to unilaterally decide what the terms used are to be for these places. Concentration camp, in particular, doe NOT seem appropriate as it creates an impression that they were no different from those run by the Japanese govt, Nazi Germany, communist bloc countries, etc. That comparison is just as inaccurate as "evacuation" centers is. Internment camps seems like the most appropriate term. Venqax (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate at all. The Japanese camps were in areas they occupied as a result of war, and held POW's and citizens of nations with which they were at war, not residents of their own nation.

By contrast, the US gave in to its own racial fears, and arbitrarily interned law-abiding legal residents and US citizens whose "fault" was they were descended from nations with which we were at war. That's quite a difference. In retrospect, most historians think that economic competition and fearfulness on the West Coast played a bigger basis in the plan for the internment camps than any realistic assessment of wartime risk by the Japanese American populations. These are not the same case at all.--Parkwells (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Over the years I've met a few people (not Japanese-Americans) who lived in California during WWII. Based on these conversations, it seems to me that the major factor in the creation of thees camps in the US was the fear of invasion, however realistic or unrealistic that fear was. They described as similar to, but much more intense than, the anti-Arab feelings in America after the 9/11 attacks. I'm not saying this justifies what occurred, but it does perhaps provide some explanation. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When I was growing up, I had neighbors for a while who were Japanese Americans from CA. The woman of the couple had parents who had moved her family from CA to TX to avoid the internment. Her father was a dentist and had a hard time reestablishing his profession. Yes, fear runs wild, especially when linked to other kinds of difference, and in CA the anti-Japanese/Chinese discrimination had been deep. Part of the problem was that the national government, rather than acting with a larger strategic view, gave in to CA's hysteria, and authorized carting off a huge batch of people, non-citizens and citizens alike, for internment. The national government's failure is one reason why a bill for compensation finally passed.--Parkwells (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There were some who correctly labeled what was happening at the time. Japanese Americans did challenge the internment. Associate Justice Frank Murphy introduced the word "racism" into the lexicon of U.S. Supreme Court opinions in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), in which he charged that by upholding the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the Court was sinking into "the ugly abyss of racism." This was the first time that the word "racism" found its way into the lexicon of words used in Supreme Court opinion.--Parkwells (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It also turned out (I'm reading from cases in Wikipedia), that later it was found that the government suppressed evidence in the Supreme Court case that said the military did not think a real emergency existed. "Korematsu v. US" was overturned. Judge Patel concluded:

"Korematsu remains on the pages of our legal and political history. As a legal precedent it is now recognized as having very limited application. As historical precedent it stands as a constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutions must be vigilant in protecting constitutional guarantees. It stands as a caution that in times of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. It stands as a caution that in times of international hostility and antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and judicial, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused."--Parkwells (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the ruling in the case was not overturned. A lower court cannot overturn a decision of the US Supreme Court. Rather, the ruling was vacated. Technically, the rulings in the 1944 cases are still the law of the land. However, based on the falsified, altered and omitted evidence that the government used in 1944, the ruling in the 1984 cases completely undermines the evidence upon which the 1944 cases were based on. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, this kind of moral reductionism is the equivalent of kid's on the playground who claim "Billy did it first!" or "Jane stole more cookies than I did!" when caught by the schoolteacher. It wasn't a good excuse when we were schoolchildren, and its not an especially great one now. It also presumes that pointing out one's own flaws means an instant support of the opposing side; a kind of extrapolated "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This too is flawed, and reduces everything into a "us vs them" mentality. The world, despite how much people want to say otherwise, is a morally complicated place, with a great amount of gray. The fact that this perturbs people who want their decisions quick and simplistic is not something Wikipedia should cater to. SiberioS (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Do not edit other's statements...

I came back today to find my statement not only erased, but merged with Parkwell's and signed with my user ID. I presume, looking at the history, that the person who did this was Parkwells. I presume it was intentional because you modified the dates and times on my signature to fit it. For obvious reasons, this sort of thing is forbidden on WP. Don't try and modify the talk page and other peoples statements.(Edited later after logging in) SiberioS (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't presume anything. I did not alter your statement. I don't even know how to alter the dates and times of signatures. Someone else apparently did. A third person interposed another statement between ours.--Parkwells (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be other vandalism going on, as the level of protection was raised on the article.--Parkwells (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional photos from HABS and NPS are available

I just added a link to the 1984 NRHP Inventory/Nomination document that supported NRHP and NHL designation of the site, with accompanying 8 photos (now footnote 101 or so in the article). It includes one dramatic HABS pic of the guardpost, and 7 photos by NPS employee E. N. Thompson taken in February 1984. All of these are public domain. Thompson's photos can be obtained individually as high quality JPG files by searching on Manzanar here in the National Register search site. There are also many other HABS photos available, obtainable by searching here in the HABS search screen, which are also all in the public domain.

The article is illustrated already, but perhaps some of these photos could be rotated in, or could be added to a Commons gallery on Manzanar that could be linked to the article. I leave it to editors more involved with this article, however. Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I tidyed up the citation you added and moved the PDF citation for the photos to an external link (more appropriate there) until I find time to find the jpegs of those photos and put them in the Commons. Thanks for fixing the infobox too! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable prisoners

In the course of identifying notable Japanese American internees at other war relocation camps, I found a few Manzanar internees with wikipedia articles that weren't mentioned in this article's Notable prisoners section. In case anyone thinks it's appropriate to integrate these persons into that section, I am listing them here for reference: Koji Ariyoshi, Paul Bannai, Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston (mentioned in another section of the article), Gordon H. Sato, Larry Shinoda, Iwao Takamoto, Takuji Yamashita, Wendy Yoshimura, and possibly Tommy Kono. This is an incomplete list. — Myasuda (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but keep in mind that these camp articles are about the camp, not specifically about those who were imprisoned there. Yes, the prisoners made and lived that history, but the focus of the article, after all, is the camp. As such, I actuallly removed Koji Ariyoshi and Iwao Takamoto in favor of those included in the Manzanar article because they are, I believe, more important to the history of Manzanar and of the Japanese American Internment. Perhaps the same focus would be best for the other camp articles as well. They should not become a list of all "notable" former prisoners. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Eventually, the notable prisoners sections in the other camp articles will need to be more thoroughly researched with more detail added. Then, assuming those sections grow significantly, they will likely need to be pruned a bit, as we had to do with this article. :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now each notable prisoner is profiled. For those with articles of their own it's sufficient to list them, or at most add a short description of the event surrounding their internment. Some of the folks already in the artilce might be spun off with articles of their own. Sue Kunitomi Embrey, for example, may be notable enough for an article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful image of farm work at Manzanar

Farm work at Manzanar

I came across this image from 1943 at commons. I think it might be useful in this article. The source at the Library of Congress identifies it as "Farm, farm workers, Mt. Williamson in background, Manzanar Relocation Center, California / photograph by Ansel Adams." –droll [chat] 05:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadao Munemori

In the section Manzanar#Notable_prisoners, it is stated that Sadao Munemori "volunteered for service with the US Army directly from Manzanar". This particular claim is not supported by a reference. In fact, the following reference

• Tamashiro, Ben H. (March 15, 1985). "The Congressional Medal of Honor: Sadao Munemori". The Hawaii Herald.

seems to contradict this when it states that Munemori had been inducted the month before the evacuation and was in an Army training center. Is there any reliable reference that indicates that Sadao Munemori was actually interned at Manzanar? — Myasuda (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

With the assistance of JANM staff, I have links that support the above reference and invalidate the claim that Sadao Munemori volunteered for service with the US Army directly from Manzanar. The link [1] shows that Munemori enlisted from Fort MacArthur in San Pedro, California in February of 1942 -- prior to the arrival of the first internees at Manzanar. Also, the link [2] shows that the rest of the Munemori family arrived at Manzanar without Sadao and that Sadao Munemori is not listed as an internee in the database. — Myasuda (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated reference/citation links

I went through each of the citations (under References) and updated any URL's that needed to be updated. Also fixed the format of one of the citations. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Forced relocation

Regarding the current debate over a sentence in the lead, tying together the three "eras" of Manzanar's history with the common thread of forced relocation, this is detailed (and referenced) later in the article. The Manzanar National Historic Site even documents this in their exhibit at their Interpretive Center. As such, I'm reverting the edits that removed it. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which group was displaced other than the Japanese - there are two other groups mentioned. the Ranchers and the Indians. Maybe they were all displaced. The statements seems ambiguous to me. Maybe It could be reworded.  –droll [chat] 07:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's in the body of the article pretty clearly. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As it stood the statement was ambiguous. Maybe just reword it a little.  –droll [chat] 19:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it stands on its own two feet, so to speak, just fine. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I support Droll's proposal to reword the text. As stated, it appears that the relocation thread applies to the ranchers and miners. — Myasuda (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As it should. The ranchers and miners were forced to relocate from Manzanar when LADWP denied them water, another example of a governmental agency with political power forcing a group of people from their homes and communities. It was a different means of forced relocation, to be sure. Nevertheless, it is what it is. That's the common thread. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources I've seen (newspapers of that era) state that the city of Los Angeles paid the landowners for their property and then often rented it back to them until, as has been pointed out, the water was needed in L.A. Then all agriculture was abandoned (no water). Yes, the rancher-renters left Manzanar, but as for being "forced," the only forcing might have been eviction notices for non-payment of rent, although I've seen no sources that say that. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's a very cheery way of characterizing what happened, I'll say that. See California_water_wars and (not historically accurate, but also not to be missed) Chinatown (1974 film). EEng 06:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It's an interpretation, I'll admit. So is using the word forced. I remember Chinatown mostly for the very gripping sequences near the end. Good movie. Heh heh. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Problematic category

The problem with tagging this article in Category:Concentration camps is that the main article for the category is Nazi concentration camp. I think there's something to be said for the use of the phrase, but... Manzanar is obviously not a "Nazi concentration camp". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an issue. Sadly, the root of the problem is that assumption that only the Nazi camps can be called "concentration camps." It's only a category, though... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I was just looking for relevant categories, and kind of recoiled for a moment when I clicked through, which is why I initially knee-jerk deleted it... but I realized it's not really wrong, it's probably been discussed before and the problem is more as you say, that the relevant article doesn't have as broad a point of view as is really necessary to discuss the phenomenon. We really should have an expanded article on the term "Concentration camp" and its various uses through time. One more project for the Augean stables, I suppose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

IPC

Per this RFC, IPC entries need reliable secondary sourcing to support the significance of entries to the topic. The books and movies listed are not secondary with regards to information about themselves, and IMDB and similar are not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Right. But your first "solution" was to delete those works that didn't have the sources, rather than flag them or find the refs yourself, which is what I initially took issue with. You're not helping the situation by doing that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Gmatsuda, that simply isn't true. I first added the IPC template, and then later removed some inappropriate sources and flagged the unsourced entries. At no point did I delete any works here, regardless of sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Quotations within the Terminology Section

The consensus is that the terminology section depends too much on block quotations.

Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the Terminology section of this article depend too much on block quotations? 00:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• FYI: This section was added, with added quotations, because of the insistence on the use of the factually inaccurate term, "internment camp" by many editors. Sadly, that behavior continues. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• We don't need these long quotes. They are hard to read and add nothing to the article. As for "factually incorrect," there are other ways to handle that. Sincerely, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

* Could you elaborate on why they "add nothing to the article?" IMHO, they add credibility to the article, in terms of its scholarship. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• If that were the case, every contentious article on WP would have long block quotations. But that is simply not the case- good cites are sufficient to get the point of accuracy across. If anyone takes out the cited information, you have grounds to add it back in. Further, both sides of the issue need to be included. The scholarly consensus is NOT to call them concentration camps- there are opinions on both sides. Using long block quotes to overwhelm any opposite opinions is the opposite of what WP's NPOV is about. All legitimate mainstream viewpoints should be included. But none should drown out the others by including several paragraphs of block quotes which no one will bother reading. In every scholarly publication I have ever been involved in, there are guidelines to use as few quotes as possible, with exceptions only when there is a very good reason to include the quote. There is no such reason here. WP has guidelines for over-quoting, hence the template I added, and you removed. This sort of excessive quoting is not the kind of material that should be in any article, let alone a featured one. I realize these quotes were added after reaching feature status, so if they remain it may be worth re-assessing. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

* OK. I'll buy that. However, the "consensus" winds up being that, for all intents and purposes, only the Nazi camps can be called "concentration camps," when that is factually inaccurate. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot) I endorse what El cid says, the effect of so many long quotes (the content of which could easily be paraphrased), is to 'bludgeon' the reader that only this term is the proper one - when there clearly is controversy over which term to use. It is a legitimate PoV that the 'proper' term is 'concentration', in the same sense (though I think not as brutally) as the British built camps during the Boer war. Apart from needing to be shortened, any discussion of terminology should be moved to towards the end of, the 'second world war' section, not claiming 'pole' position before the older history of the place, with which it is completely unconnected. A grave injustice was done to these people, the nature of that injustice is of greater interest to the reader than exactly how to label the camps, though I acknowledge that some feel that the injustice is compounded by the ongoing use of euphemistic terms. I note that the section is longer than the terminology debate, which this article's terminology section should be a brief summary of. In short the info is not only overlong for this page and in the wrong position in the page, it's even in the wrong article, since it is discussing ALL such camps, not simply Manzanar. Pincrete (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, the Terminology section of this article depend too much on block quotations. I refer to which existed when this RfC was initiated. I came here to !vote based on invitation of RfC bot.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem with not leading with the Terminology section is that readers really need to have a grasp of the terminology used in order to better understand the rest of the article. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Forcibly removed (incarcerated)

User:Gmatsuda regarding this edit, the text you restored is just bad English. One can be forcibly removed from somewhere (their homes I presume) and then incarcerated in the place that one is forcibly moved to. but the text implies that the bracketed '(incarcerated)' is an explaining synonym of 'removed', which it patently isn't. The advantage of my change was that it simply said 'forcibly interned' (ie 'imprisoned'). The only justification I can see for restoring 'removed', is if this was the euphemism employed by the authorities, if so the text should make that clear. Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

* Actually, the problem with "interned" is that it's inaccurate. More than 2/3rds of those incarcerated in these camps were citizens. Internment applies to those who are not citizens. I'll fix it. Thanks. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

'Interned' neither includes nor excludes citizens, it simply means "confine (someone) as a prisoner, especially for political or military reasons". The British locked up many suspected IRA sympathisers during 'the Troubles', the term used was 'internment', even though 100% were British citizens. If anything, the term implies "without due legal process", ie without charges or trial, which is an accurate description of this instance. Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

* "Interned" has usually been used to refer to non-citizens, and not only in the United States. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, it certainly means 'mass incarceration', usually for political or military reasons, (ie not 'judicial' reasons) and has been used both for citizens and 'alien' groups. The main point being that the term should be clear, accurate and AFAP 'neutral'. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

One other note...the US Government had camps that were officially called internment camps during World War II. Manzanar was not one of them. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Unjustly incarcerated"

Why was a very biased term like "unjustly" allowed to be used on a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

How is a well-established fact, one that you acknowledged, biased? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Adverbs are enemies to verbs, adjectives and other adverbs. "Incarcerated" is accurate. "Unjustly" does nothing more than add a fillip of shade to the word it precedes. So it is unnecessary, considering that some folks might take exception to its usage. No sense in roiling the waters. Thanks to all. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, the injustice is a well-established fact. Those who would take issue with that have no basis in fact to base their opinion on. There is a plethora of credible, scholarly research to support that, much of which is cited in this article for exactly this reason. Seems like people might be trying to obscure the facts here. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gmatsuda: - it looks like there is a 3 to 1 consensus (plus another IP, so 4 to 1) to remove the adjective from the sentence. Please gain consensus before re-adding the adjective 'unjustly.' It is not about sourcing, or whether it was in fact unjust - Unjustly is a value judgement, and it is not neutral. The article goes into plenty of detail regarding the camps, we don't have to feed them adjectives. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, the facts surrounding this history are well-documented and cited more than once in the article, so that "consensus" you refer to is wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be about fact, not the opinions of its editors. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And yes, "unjust" is an adjective. But when it is so clear that its use is supported by the facts, it is no longer about NPOV. It's about what is factual and not watering down history to make it more pleasant or lessening the impact of what really happened. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The word 'unjust' is unnecessary. There is a 4 to 1 consensus against using it. Develop a different consensus or stop re-adding it. You are currently on 3 reverts. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I get that Wikipedia operates on consensus. But when that consensus runs against the facts, that's a problem. I won't revert the edit further, but it is really pathetic that those who are, obviously, lacking in this history insist on watering down this history or {with or without intent} lessening the impact of what really happened. It's a total joke and in the end, does an injustice to those who were incarcerated in these camps. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Another thing: you're really saying that four people make up a consensus? Really? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Gmatsuda was wrong to insist on the retention of the term "unjustly", and I have removed it. It is not for us but for the readers to decide whether these incarcerations were or were not justifiable, and I doubt we would all agree. Dr Horncastle (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It's accepted fact, based on a plethora of scholarly research (much of which is cited), not to mention findings by a federal commission. Those who argue otherwise are generally unaware of the facts while others have political agendas behind their claims. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Talking about "agendas," the above user has on his or her page the following: "I am a member of the Manzanar Committee, and I served as a member of the Manzanar National Historic Site Advisory Commission, appointed by the US Secretary of the Interior, from 1994 - 2004." As such, we can appreciate his or her contributions but discount the opinions. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's called "full disclosure." Discount what I write as much as you want. That said, my contributions here are solid and backed up by a ton of scholarly research and other hard facts. again, much of which is cited in the article. I cited this article heavily because of my association with the site to compensate as much as possible. So if you want to discount my work here, that's your right. But it certainly isn't wise, for obvious reasons. The fact is, I have credibility regarding this article that no other contributor here has. That should be viewed as an asset, IMHO. But if you believe otherwise, so be it. Do what you wish with the article. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As such, we can appreciate his or her contributions but discount the opinions.

Nope, it means that he knows what the hell he's talking about. And your expertise -- as opposed to your agenda -- is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 14:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Incarceree

There is no such word as incarceree. Why are we using it? I made the fixes at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manzanar&type=revision&diff=920820020&oldid=920817743, but they were reverted. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

New words are created in every language all the time. There are at least two references regarding that specific term in the article and an entire section on Terminology that deals with the issues regarding choice of words used to describe this experience, most of which are euphemisms that distort the reality of what happened, not to mention accuracy of wriiten works about it. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on terminology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the term ‘’incarcerees’’ be used as an acceptable word for those people housed in Manzanar in the body of the article outside the section headed “Terminology” (where the word itself is being discussed)? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Yes. For reasons described above on this talk page and because those who were incarcerated in these camps have adopted this term. They do have the right to self-determination. Also, use of "internee," while popular, is inaccurate. Internment refers to those who are not citizens. More than two-thirds of those incarcerated at Manzanar, and the other World War II camps and other confinement sites, were native-born American citizens. Further, the U.S. Government operated camps that were officially called, "Internment camps." Manzanar was not one of them. As such, using "internee," as BeenAroundAWhile specified, is both inaccurate and misleading. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• No It's a made-up word, it sounds like a Boy Scout meeting, and where from comes this idea that Internment refers to those who are not citizens? EEng 05:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well...all words are made up. Presumably what you are meaning to suggest is that 'incarceree' is a neologism. But it isn't: the term has been around for a while as a generic noun referring to anyone in a form of custody they did not willfully consent to (basically a variation on 'prisoner' that is broader than one including only persons presently accused of a crime). It's not super common, but you do see it on occasion in a criminal justice context. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Lean no. In most instances, this one included, labels on Wikipedia are not rocket science: use whatever is the term most consistent with that adopted by the balance of WP:reliable sources--in other words, the standard WP:WEIGHT test. With all respect to Gmatsuda's well-intentioned argument, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and we won't be adopting a term for any class of persons (no matter how unacceptable the treatment they endured), just because it happens to be their favoured form of self-identification. We're here to present the objective history of these events using terminology that emphasizes two factors above all others: 1) what makes the prose most approachable and as clear as possible for the largest number of readers, including those have previously been wholly unfamiliar with the topic, and 2) terminology that reflects the greatest fidelity with what we find in the sources used to support the article. Now, as I explained above in my response to EEng, this term is fairly accurate to this context, but as his initial response to it demonstrates, it's not the most common term in the world, and I think if some of our editors have never come across it before, it's reasonable to presume a fair number of our readers haven't either.

Regardless, I don't see the harm in using more generic words ('prisoner', 'detainee', and so forth) if it's the smoothest means of conveying the status of these people at the time. It's particularly un-problematic if the terminology section continues to discuss the term 'incarceree', such that it doesn't disappear from the article. There's something of a weight argument to be made here, based ona large number of scholars adopting the incarceree terminology in their own work, but it's not a uniform enough adoption, nor one which has broken through into mainstream language enough to presume the term will not just cause more confusion than clarity if we use it in Wikipedia's objective voice. Mind you, I think most persons could figure out what the term 'incarceree' means in this context, even if they had no previous experience with it, but at the end of the day there's no reason not to just opt for the path of least resistance here. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"Prisoner" or "inmate" would be acceptable terms. Again, "internee" is both inaccurate and misleading. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI: The National Park Service uses "incarceree" in many of its publications related to Manzanar National Historic Site, as well, as their other sites that deal with this chapter of history. They also use other terms that were commonly used during World War II, but only in portions of works where the use of the historic terms is necessary. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The National Park Service uses "incarceree" in many of its publications – Huh. The Park Service's use of this word seems to originate with this position paper [3] by the Japanese American Citizens League; what seems to be an earlier draft of this paper [4] says "The term incarceree is already in use. Stephen Fugita and Marilyn Fernandez used it in their book. That is not to say that this word is currently in popular use. It is not. Perhaps with a successful drive to increase the use of the word, Incarceree may one day make into Webster’s dictionary." That was in 2012. So yes, it's a neologism. EEng 13:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with your ultimate preferred approach, I have to disagree with how you get there, and with the veracity of some the factual claims you have repeated again. 'Incarceree' is not a neologism--not under our relevant policy and not under any reasonable pragmatic interpretation of what that label typically means as a descriptive linguistic matter. The word may have recently been claimed as a favoured term by the community of Japanese interment prisoners and their families (and by scholarship on the topic of said internment), but it also has a much broader usage. I mean, the term actually appears (with a legal definition) in the criminal code of some U.S. states and has done so for decades, which is pretty high-profile usage. It is by no means an out-of-nowehere/novel/strictly recent/has-no-widespread-acceptance-in-legal-or-policy-culture term. It may not be the most common of terms, but it does have some practical currency in the context of criminal justice. And WP:NEO doesn't require that the term be found in a dictionary, by any stretch of the imagination; the policy makes clear it need only meet a certain threshold of usage to warrant inclusion in the article. This is why we can at least discuss the term itself in the abstract. Rather the reason why we don't want to use the term as our main noun for describing such persons throughout the article, in Wikipedia's voice, is more subtle: we shouldn't omit it because its a neologism (because its not, really) but because no matter how you classify it, it's just not the clearest option for informing the average reader without confusion. It's no more complicated than that. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

For the record, Kentucky state legislators are hardly a group I'd hold up as exemplars of literacy. EEng 02:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that was a needless denigration of a state that serves no practical purpose for our editorial determination. But in any event, I assure you that the term is not unique to Kentucky, however it is you came to that conclusion. I AGF your assertion is genuine when you say you have never encountered this term before, nor indeed do I find that fact to be particularly surprising. But why can't you fathom the possibility that the term might be one you are simply unfamiliar with? Why is the word being "made-up" the only possible explanation for your lack of familiarity with it? Do you have some kind of formal background in law, criminal justice, or prison institutions that explains why it is so shocking to you that this word (which follows normal English morphemic rules for turning a verb into a noun representing one who receives the action of that verb) exists without your being aware of it prior to this discussion? Regardless, I assure you again that it's been in use for decades in formal, established contexts--and not just in regards to Japanese detainees, nor Kentucky legislators. I've personally seen it used not just in the context of prisoners in several U.S. and other anglophone jurisdictions, but also in reference to human rights abuses in other countries, and in other contexts besides. I agree that its not the right word to build the article's prose around, but it's important to that editorial call that we premise it upon the right underlying facts. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that Kentucky is a state that serves no practical purpose for our editorial determination but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
• When I was a teenager our superintendent of schools used irregardless a lot, but that didn't make it a word (or not, at least, a word a schools superintendent should be using).
• As quoted earlier, the very people advocating the use of this oddity in this context explicitly admit it appears in no dictionary (and just to be sure I checked OED, Webster's, and American Heritage).
• WP:NEO is irrelevant here because it's about the appropriateness of having an article about a given word. MOS:NEO is on point, and provides:

  Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.

• Here's the ngram for incarceree since 1940 [5]; there have been runs of years in which it's hasn't appeared even once. And here's all appearances of incarceree Gbooks English corpus [6].

It's a neologism, if not an outright illiteracy. I rest my case. EEng 08:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well that's one way to view those figures. Here's another ngram that shows that the word has actually been in use in English sources since at least 1810, with several spikes in usage long before the advent of the Japanese internement context. I don't think any 210-year-old word would pass even the most permissive linguist/lexicographer's test for the kind of word that the term 'neologism' is meant to apply to. The ngrams also show increasingly consistent usage in law and policy literature (as well as mass audience works) over the last few decades--and that's before you factor in the detail that Google's ngrams capture references from only a small portion of all law review articles, the area of publication where you can reasonably expect the lion's share of the use of this term to arise. All of that said, I agree that MOS:NEO is the closest thing we have to topic-specific policy on this question, and it helps to bridge the rhetorical gap between our two positions and explain why we both agree the word should not be used as the default noun for describing the detainees who are pertinent to this article (or at least not where we are referencing them in Wikipedia's voice). Perhaps we should just leave it at that, since we may not get closer and the cost-benefit analysis of this side-discussion dwindles with each extra post. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to start actually looking at the data you cite. Here are the actual works in the English corpus from 1809 to 1961 [7]. Every one of them is a French work mis-classified as English, or a French phrase quoted in an English work -- because that's what this word is: French, not English. My favorite is hernie incarceree, apparently something like a strangulated hernia. EEng 21:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Using a Google search to suss out the meaning of a word is WP:Original research, it seems to me. But the above editor is correct: It is French, not English. Je l'utiliserais volontiers dans le Wikipédia français, mais pas ici. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Morticia! You know that French drives me wild! EEng 00:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC) For the record, OR is perfectly fine on Talk pages; this kind of discussion is a classic example, and another is exploring source reputation and reliability.

• No. It should not be used outside that one section. The WP:neologism incarcaree is not a recognized word at this time. Inmate describes "a person confined to an institution such as a prison or hospital," so inmate could be used. The Manzanar camp was a prison. One could also use the term people in many places. To me, it seems pretty straightforward: The English-language Wikipedia writes in the English language, using simple words for the benefit of the reader. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Or, the incarcerated families, as another example. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with BeenAroundAWhile; the term "incarceree" is both ugly and unfamiliar. Dr Horncastle (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Why do you have to agree with BeenAroundAWhile that it's ugly and unfamiliar? Why can't you agree with me that it's ugly and unfamiliar? EEng 05:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  I suppose I don't have to do anything, as it appears that the combination of "ugly and unfamiliar" is only employed by me. But as there appears to be a hierarchy in place that I was unfamiliar with I'll amend my comment to make it clear that I'm not agreeing with anyone, merely offering my own opinion. Dr Horncastle (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  You do know I was just kidding, right? EEng 01:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  I don't know how to tell. Dr Horncastle (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  Check out User:EEng. EEng 21:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• No. It's a made-up word and the alternative "inmate" is not. Legal documents often synthesize words like this to opt for precision over common language, but Wikipedia should prefer common language. "Prisoner" also works, but prison usually has the connotation of a penal institution, so fits less well than "inmate". As for use of "incarcaree" in sources: Wikipedia gets its facts from sources, not its language. If "incarcaree" has a unique meaning and the sources use it for that meaning, then that would be a reason to prefer "incarcaree". Otherwise, the sources' choice of word is irrelevant. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• I really don't understand this fixation with the awful "incarceree", which is easily eliminated by rewriting or using alternative terms such as "detainee". Dr Horncastle (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• No, per MOS:NEO. WP doesn't communicate is protologisms, but in standard English. Also, per WP:SOAPBOX, WP is not a place for advocacy about hairsplitting and handwringing over potential (mostly far-left) re-interpretations of and baggage-accretion on particular words which have a broad, general meaning to everyone else. See archives of WT:MOSWTW for years of arguments about this sort of thing ("committed suicide", etc.), which again and again resolve with consensus against trying to avoid/forbid everyday-English words that some little camp doesn't like. The idea that "inmate" implies something in particular other than incarceration is basically just someone's strange fiction (see also WP:NOR).  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 06:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• No I agree with the statements above. The use of incarceree does not work for this section. Inmate or detainee both are alternatives that suffice in this scenario and are given due weight in the cited sources to be used for this article. Pedestrianswimmer (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

References

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving the Terminology section

FYI: The rationale for placing the Terminology section early in this article was for readers to understand the terms used so that they can better understand them before reading the rest of the article—those terms are used in the rest of the article, after all. I recommend moving it back to where it was. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The article is about Manzanar as a place. Perhaps it should be WP:split to reflect its use during and after WWII. What do you think? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The histories of the different "eras" at Manzanar are inextricably intertwined, given that they are all directly connected to forced relocation, in different forms. As such, that's not a good idea. Creative? Yes. I'll give you that. :-) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

But they're not, are they, as the history of forced relocation only begins in the mid-19th century. Dr Horncastle (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Every group that inhabited the area was forcibly relocated, either away from Manzanar or to it. No disrespect intended, but this is in the article and it's cited. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Split article

I propose the article be WP:split into before and after its change of usage in 1942. Before WW2, it was in the news quite often as a thriving agricultural area. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

See my comment above. That would be a mistake. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of splitting the article. Dr Horncastle (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• This is not a RfC matter, see WP:RFCNOT, sixth bullet. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  Isn't that a distinction without a difference? Dr Horncastle (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  Splitting has a set of templates: {{split}}; {{split dab}}; {{split section}}; {{split sections}}; {{split portions}}; {{split section portions}}; and {{split and dab}} - these put the page into one or more of the subcats of Category:Articles to be split. In addition to that, there are bots that look for these specific templates and post notifications at appropriate venues, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force#SPL. This means that this edit is sufficient to trigger this action (and several similar). Such notifications mean that you don't need an {{rfc}} tag as well; although the {{split}} tag should have the |discuss=Talk:Manzanar#Split article so that people clicking the "Discuss" link in the article, or the "discussion" link in the WikiProject page, are brought straight to this thread without having to look through the whole of this talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  I see, thanks for the explanation. Dr Horncastle (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I have a right to an opinion here but, for what it's worth as an outsider. I came to this article looking for information on the Camp -- whatever descriptor you want to use attach to it -- not the geographic area. I think the story and history of that historical site should have its own article, separate from the geographical site. It was confusing to be getting a geographical history when I wanted a camp history. I'm not sure it's possible to split up in that manner but that would be my preference. CáliKewlKid (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The physical environment was a major factor in why Manzanar was chosen as the site of one of the U.S. Government's concentration camps during World War II. It's all connected. There will be a great deal of duplication and a major weakening of this article, which is a Featured Article, in case you hadn't noticed. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It was promoted to FA twelve years ago now; I don't think it would pass FAC today. Dr Horncastle (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Dr Horncastle

Well, I certainly hope it wouldn't. For starters, it needs a severe copyedit to trim minutiae -- why do we care that the apparently nonnotable Ira L. Hatfield was the town's first postmaster, or that "articles of incorporation for a Manzanar Water Company were filed on September 15, 1910, with capital stock of $250,000. The incorporators, directors, and subscribers were G.A. Hanson, Isaac Baxter and C.E. Searls". What does any of this tell the reader? Then there's the odd placement of routine facts in quote marks:

He founded the town of Manzanar in 1910, "on the main trunk line of the Southern Pacific." By August 1911, the town had a population of "almost 200 people." ...

In summer 1911, a "one and a half story building, 40x50" was erected at the corner of Francis and Independence avenues. The lower floor included a hall to be used "for public gatherings, church, Sunday-school and dancing." Four rooms were to be used for a company office, a barber shop and "other small lines of business." The upper floor was planned for "a good-sized hall to be used for lodge purposes."

What is the reader to make of all that? Inappropriate sources are used; for example, the statement that letters "flooded" the National Park Service is cited to an opinion piece (not to mention that Wikipedia shouldn't be using words like flooded, except for actual floods). In fact, here's that whole paragraph:

After Congress named Manzanar a National Historic Site and gave the National Park Service the job of restoring the site in 1992, protests against its creation emerged. Letters flooded the National Park Service, demanding that Manzanar be portrayed as a guest housing center for the Japanese Americans. William Hastings, of Bishop, California, wrote to the National Park Service, saying that the portrayal of Manzanar as a concentration camp amounts to "treason." Protesters threatened to start dismissal campaigns against Bill Michael, a member of the Manzanar Advisory Commission who was the Director of the Eastern California Museum in Independence, California, and Superintendent Ross Hopkins, the National Park Service employee assigned to the site. They also threatened to destroy any buildings erected or restored at Manzanar. Further, Lillian Baker, and others in California, objected to the words "concentration camp" on the California State historical marker, which has been hacked and stained, with the first "C" of "concentration camp" having been ground off. Further, a man, who described himself as a World War II veteran, called Hopkins to say that he had driven 200 miles to urinate on the marker.

Read the source [8] for the full story. It certainly should be mentioned that some ignorant, misguided, people don't understand what happened at these camps, but the calling out of nonnotable individuals, and the detailing of this and that offensive act, is completely inappropriate, and part and parcel with the article's preachiness and recurring tone of advocacy. It reads like a Sunday supplement piece. EEng 14:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It does, emphasised by the completely inappropriate use of the word "unjustly" in the lead, which I've removed. It is not for us to sit in judgement of what is or is not "just". Dr Horncastle (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

These comments are very good if the article were solely about Manzanar as a historic site where Japanese Americans were confined during the war; the point is, however, that this article is one of many about the totality of California history. Of course any article about early California settlements contains details that are of interest only to the folks who, well, are seeking details about early California history. That's why this article should be split into two different pieces, one for readers interested in old Manzanar (very important to California agriculture) and the other for those interested in everything since 1941. Each could then be edited and improved for its own audience. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

For those who don't know, the agriculture strength of Manzanar and the Owens Valley was ruined when the City of Los Angeles bought up all the water rights so it could drain water hundreds of miles through the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Manzanar was known for its apple crops, and then, voilá! it became as dead as any desert town; all the residents took their cash and moved away. This history is as interesting as the post-1941 history (albeit in a different way), so it should be retold separately on a local level (and there are sources to tell it). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That would mean that all of the other articles dealing with these camps would have to be split, as well. I still believe that splitting the article does a disservice to the reader, giving them an incomplete story about Manzanar, even with edits that would try really hard to get people to read the other article. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And we're discussing this article, not any others. Dr Horncastle (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Different articles have different needs because of different fact situations. EEng 21:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This article doesn't need to be split. The Owens Valley article already exists as a place that discusses the region's early history. The Manzanar pre-war section could, however, benefit from the insertion of a hatnote referencing the California water wars article. —Myasuda (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I am glad people are thinking of the best way to resolve this dispute. Can we see some links to the "other articles dealing with these camps"? Perhaps those who know could put them into the See also section. I would like to take a look. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• I discovered today that there is already a Manzanar, California, article, so we don't need a WP:split. What we need is to rename this article and insert a tag at the top to direct people to the article about the California community if that is what they are looking for. Also, we need a WP:DAB page for "Manzanar." Sorry it took me so long to figure this out. I've copied all the relevant information from this page to the other one, and I leave it to other editors to fix up this page about the relocation center as best as they can agree to do so. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Good work. EEng 22:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 12:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Manzanar → Manzanar National Historic Site – The vast majority of the information on the page now titled simply "Manzanar" concerns the forced relocation of Japanese Americans to the Manzanar area during World War 2, and its aftereffects, including the establishment and subsequent history of the Manzanar National Historic Site. When readers search for the history of the former agricultural settlement, they often type in "Manzanar" and are taken to this page on the wartime camp. What they really want is another page entirely, the one titled Manzanar, California. The page titled simply "Manzanar" should be a Disambiguation page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Manzanar, California barely reached a measly average of about 7 page views per day for the past year,[9] while the Manzanar article averaged around 380,[10], more than 50 times as much. And a Google search of "manzanar" results in significantly more pages specifically on the historical site than actual content solely on the former agricultural settlement. This includes reliable sources like the New York Times and NBC News, which simply use "Manzanar" in their headlines. Therefore the historical site should remain the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, no disambiguation page should be created. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Apparently a Manzanar (disambiguation) page has been done since I made my original comment.[11] However, I still stand by my position: the historical site should remain the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Manzanar" based on page views and the google search I previously linked. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support but with a different title. The single word is highly ambiguous. However, the title should Manzanar War Relocation Center, not Manzanar National Historic Site (just as the Gettysburg battlefield is Gettysburg Battlefield, not Gettysburg National Military Park -- though there is, in fact, an article by the latter name as well). EEng 10:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. for reasons stated previously on this talk page, most notably, that each of the "eras" of Manzanar's history are inextricably intertwined by forced relocation. To split the article would water down that common thread of the area's history. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  You don't seem to understand the question. The articles have been split for years. The question now is whether this article should be renamed. EEng 10:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons above. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Gmatsuda, could you expand a bit more? History is full of places that have been inextricably marked (for better or for worse) by an event that happened there. Nagasaki, Auschwitz, Sand Creek, Wounded Knee and any major city of the modern world. This place, Manzanar, California, is obviously the site of an importance and has its own article. Where is the "watering down" - the harm - in focusing on the "War Relocation Center" in this article? If anything, it seems the other article is lacking a section on the camp. Just curious here. CáliKewlKid (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure. For most places, its history is primarily defined by the people who inhabited the area. In this case, each group was forcibly relocated from or to Manzanar, which makes for a compelling story. To separate that out into separate articles does a disservice to readers, since many will not bother to read both (or multiple) articles. We are trying to educate people in the best possible way, right? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support with title as suggested by EEng. Dr Horncastle (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear primarytopic of the two "Manzanar"s by usage and significance. Further, "Manzanares" may just be the plural form in Spanish, but is a separate term in English. Possibly okay to combine the two in one dab page, but separate dab pages with "see also"s would likely be more helpful for our readers. Dohn joe (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Manzanar refers to more than the more recently established Historic Site park. If that portion is separated into its own article I would support that. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

as an outsider ..

I don't see there has been consensus on the length of quotes to include, so I shortened it to a sufficient quote to make the point. I would suggest moving it to a footnote. It doesn't actually deal with the specific topic of this article, and we have a general treatment elsewhere. Trying to do more than that here does not make the article stronger- or more convincing--it just makes it sound like POV. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)