Talk:Japanese American internment/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This archive contains topics discussed during a protracted edit war on the page. A digest of this page has been created.

Contents 1 Multiple Confusions 2 Revisionist Garbage Being Added 3 Noncompliant template: POV and disputes 4 Terminology debate 5 Terms continued... 6 Mitsuye Endo 7 Oh yea! I'm here to set the record straight! 8 Recent Editing 9 This is progress: Supreme court decision(s) to uphold exclusion 10 more pov 11 Take down the article 12 "support" section 13 Lot's of talk here at the discussion....

[edit] Multiple Confusions

This article suffers from multiple confusions and inaccuracies, both semantic and organizational, which raise questions about its objectivity:

• ’’Internment’’

The word “internment”, as used in the article, refers to multiple activities, including Department of Justice internment of aliens under the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, and also to the “relocation” of both aliens and American citizens by the War Relocation Authority under Presidential Order 9066. Worse yet, the article rambles on at length in a discussion of “concentration camps”, a term which carries a connotation today which did not exist when the camps were established, and a debate best unmentioned.

these were concentration camps, designed to concentrated undesirables into one location, with barbed wire and military guards with guns. They often had to create their own shacks and were fed typically prison-type food. Not to mention they were often forced to abandon all personal property, homes, and business. i fail to see how Internment or Concentration don't apply. Apfox 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Intelligence Intercepts

Under the MAGIC program, the Signals Intelligence Service (now the NSA) had intercepted and decrypted thousands of secret messages from Japan to its overseas stations, many of which indicate an active espionage program, and active efforts to recruit Nisei as agents. These intercepts certainly influenced the decision of government leaders, including FDR, to relocate Americans of Japanese descent, yet are unmentioned in the article. (Body of Secrets by James Bamford)

feel free to cite that, but the article addresses and dismisses the effort as ineffective, and your argument about FDR is conjecture. Apfox 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• No Evidence of Espionage

How about treason? The crash-landing on Niihau, of a Japanese pilot after Pearl Harbor, resulted in treasonous actions by local Nisei, including shooting a native Hawaiian.

Gee, why then weren't all of the Nikkei in Hawaii rounded up and imprisoned? This wasn't espionage, as you noted. 208.110.158.124 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• ’’Hawaii’’

The article uses the absence of relocation in Hawaii as evidence of lack of “military necessity” for stateside relocation, without simultaneously mentioning that martial law was declared in the Hawaiian Islands, affecting all residents with suspension of their civil rights for the duration of WWII.

Because you're comparing night and a banana. If territorial martial law was the same as being interned, Hawaii wouldn't have also had two internment camps, into which they put Nikkei who had proven reasons for being there. 208.110.158.124 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Shelling of USA mainland

The article describes shelling of a California oil refinery, which is a fact. In the next sentence, that factual event is stated to have been disproven. These statements appear to refer to two different events: the shelling of the Ellwood oil facility west of Santa Barbara by a Japanese submarine, and the “Battle of Los Angeles” two days later, when anti-aircraft gunners fired on imaginary aircraft, near Los Angeles.

Americans of Japanese ethnicity certainly suffered serious disruption of their lives during World War II. And so did most Americans, including over 10 million men who were drafted for military service. Almost 300,000 suffered the most serious disruption – loss of their lives. It was a time such as we no longer remember, today. Topnife 03:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But most Americans weren't told that the Constitution allowed the government, because of where their parents were born that they themselves could be forced to abandon all of their belongings and put on a train to live behind barbed wire. Apfox 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Connotation or not, concentration camps are exactly what they were, by definition. Even many Holocaust survivors agree. As stated, even FDR referred to them as such.

The MAGIC Cables have been so badly discredited, not only by numerous historians, but also those who were directly involved with them, that it's laughable that they continue to be used by those who support or defend the internment. Even Edward Ennis, who was the Director of the Alien Enemy Control Unit of the Justice Department during WWII and was the attorney responsible for supervising the drafting of the Justice Deparment brief in Korematsu v. US (1944) and had access to the MAGIC Cables, "...challenged the claims that MAGIC Cables were an important factor in deciding to exclude Japanese Americans."

Lt. Colonel John A. Herzig (who passed away recently), a former US Army counter-intelligence officer, also researched the MAGIC Cables extensively. His findings also discredited them as evidence that Japanese Americans were a threat to national security.

Use of the incident on Niihau is a joke. Niihau is so remote (and remains so today) that even if Harada (or someone else) had radioed a warning to Honolulu, it would have been considered a hoax. Even the first warnings of sightings of Japanese warplanes over Oahu was ignored or considered to be phony by military officials on the island.

Regarding shelling in California, one sub lobbed a few shells into in oil field, but barely did any damage at all. And as you say, the "Battle of Los Angeles" was nothing more than hysteria-caused anti-aircraft fire at nothing.

As for martial law being declared in Hawaii, that's merely a convenient way to hide the truth that the military and the government knew that they would destroy the territory's economy if they interned all those of Japanese ancestry in the Islands. As such, it remains damning evidence that there was no military necessity for imprisoning Japanese Americans.

To say that Americans of Japanese ancestry and their immigrant parents who were denied citizenship by racist laws suffered no more than other Americans is little more than a myth perpetuated by those who seek to distort history. And to compare it to those Americans who gave their lives in battle is a totally invalid comparison. After all, those in the military lost their lives or were injured as a result of acts of war by the enemy. Those imprisoned in concentration camps were imprisoned by their own government (or the government that denied them citizenship due to racist laws). Moreover, those brave men who fought for the United States did not have their civil rights taken away from them. unlike those who were interned.

*Mitchell T. Maki, Harry H.L. Kitano and S. Megan Berthold. (1999). Achieving The Impossible Dream: How Japanese Americans Obtains Redress. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-06764-9.

*Weglyn, Michi. (1976, 1996). Years Of Infamy: The Untold Story Of America's Concentration Camps. University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295974842.

*Indefensible Internment: There was no good reason for the mass internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.. Retrieved on June 20, 2006.

*Washington Journal: Making History.. Retrieved on June 20, 2006. Gmatsuda 07:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Eric Muller is financed by the California Civil Liberties Public Education Fund. Any work provided by him should include his source of financing as pro-reparations pov.

http://www.library.ca.gov/cclpep/recipients2004.cfm

California Civil Liberties Public Education Program Announces Grant Recipients for Fiscal Year 1999-2000

Dr. Eric L. Muller Chapel Hill, North Carolina

"LOYAL PROTEST: JAPANESE AMERICAN DRAFT RESISTERS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS"

This project has two related components: (1) the completion of a book chronicling the experience of the Nisei draft resisters of World War II and their encounters with the federal criminal justice system, and (2) a public lecture tour in California to share the results of the research on the Nisei draft resisters with interested organizations and groups in California.

Fiscal Year 2003-2004 CCLPEP GRANT RECIPIENTS

Eric Muller University of North Carolina School of Law Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Project Name: Judgments Judged and Wrongs Remembered: Examining the Japanese American Civil Liberties Cases of World War II on Their 60th Anniversary

This project is a conference to be held at the Japanese American National Museum commemorating the 60 th anniversary of the various legal cases on Japanese American civil liberties from World War II.

--History Student 03:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My original criticisms were addressed to the issue of confusing semantics and logic in the article, which raise questions of objectivity. The above response does not serve to alter my observation. It appears to re-interpret the facts, to reach a pre-conceived conclusion. I do not defend the internment/relocation; I’m just trying to understand it, and I’m trying to keep my discussion here objective and factual, as well.

Concentration camp The dictionary definition of a “camp where persons are imprisoned under harsh conditions” is factually consistent with the actuality of the relocation camps, although many were able to move out of the camps during the war, and were not "imprisoned". Roosevelt used the term in the dictionary sense, long before it had acquired new meaning by association with Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and their attendant horrors. It is difficult to believe that Holocaust survivors would equate the relocation camps with the Nazi “concentration camps”, where the prisoners were subject to torture, starvation, and wholesale murder. I continue to assert that the article suffers from serious semantic confusion.

I agree that "internment camp" is a better term. It separates these camps from the death camps. 68.178.65.194 01:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Only a few Nazi camps were death camps. Apfox 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

MAGIC cables “discredited” The MAGIC cables were an extremely valuable intelligence resource throughout the war, as cited by numerous authorities, including Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy. One has only to read the MAGIC cables, to verify for oneself, the fact that Japan diligently sought to recruit sympathetic Americans for the purpose of espionage (as would only reasonably be expected). Lt Col Hertzig was probably not consulted by any of the decision-makers such as Secretary of War Stimson, or President Roosevelt, regarding the veracity or value of the MAGIC cables (a Lt Colonel is ranked just slightly above a janitor in the Pentagon). On the other hand, he and his Nisei spouse, Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga, were obsessively involved in the pursuit of reparations, 40 years later – hardly a validation of objectivity.

McCloy can hardly be considered "objective" either, being a supporter of the internment and opponent of reparations. If Hertzig is to be disregarded because of the reparations issue, then McCloy is likewise not credible. 68.178.65.194 01:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Niihau incident a “joke” This incident, in which a Japanese fighter pilot from the Pearl Harbor attack crash-landed on Niihau, was certainly no joke to those terrorized by the pilot and and assisted by locally resident Nisei accomplices, Yoshio and Irene Hirada. Ultimately, a Native Hawaiian citizen was shot 3 times by the pilot, and then counterattacked and killed him. Harada, who knew of the Pearl Harbor attack, nevertheless treasonously assisted the pilot, and subsequently committed suicide. This was the first test of loyalty for Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, and unfortunately for many others, the Hiradas did not pass the test.

Shelling of the Coast The shelling, while it produced little damage, produced the hysteria which led to the “Battle of Los Angeles”, two days later. The article states that the shelling incident was disproven, which is factually incorrect.

Martial Law in Hawaii was a fact, and it means suspension of civil rights for all citizens, unlike on the mainland. Americans of Japanese descent who lived outside the west coast exclusion zone were not affected by the relocation orders, and completely retained their civil rights. One has to wonder, if racism was the motive, why all Americans of Japanese descent were not affected.

Come on, give your brain a chance! The Territory of Hawaii A), was not under the command of General DeWitt, and B), had not been subjected to the decades-long anti-Asian movement which had been so influential on the west coast. Compare it to the Ku Klux Klan, which was very influential in the Deep South but mostly a curiousity in other parts of the country. 68.178.65.194 01:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Denial of citizenship to long-term resident aliens of Japanese origin was a racially motivated injustice, without any doubt. At the time of WWII, racial bigotry was also inexcusably common and socially accepted (e.g., reference to “Japs” by national politicians then), unlike today. Decision-makers of that era, including Roosevelt, were operating on their database of racial attitudes, which we do not share today. America has grown, and deserves its self-respect (my opinion).

Invalid Comparison with draft. My allusion was probably inappropriate to the issue. However, speaking as one who was drafted, I can factually state that one is not given any choice, that one is forcibly relocated, and one cannot voluntarily leave (except by being wounded or killed). However, the food is worse, and the bathing facilities often non-existent.

You're not the only one who remembers the era of the draft. I don't remember draftees' mothers being sent to basic training with their sons, there to be told that they would be shot for approaching the barbed wire. 68.178.65.194 01:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of Wikipedia to be presentation of factual and hopefully, unbiased information, to allow users to reach their own conclusions. Let's pursue that objective.

References:

The Puzzle Palace : Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization by James Bamford ISBN: 0140067485

Niihau Incident by Allan Beekman ISBN: 0960913203

Respectfully, Topnife 00:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you're telling us that if you had tried to go over the hill after being drafted, you would have been shot? You're telling us that when you got drafted, your entire family was rounded up and sent to the camp with you? Or are you just telling us that you will defend your POV even when your arguments make no sense? I don't remember ever seeing little kids being drafted. Nor women. Nor old folks. 208.110.158.124 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Prominent organizations in the Jewish community such as the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee often call the Nazi camps "death camps." Even those involved with the Museum of Tolerance use "death camps" instead of "concentration camps."

Which is a mistake. Few Nazi camps were death camps. Apfox 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing McCloy as being credible is a joke. The fact is, he was a racist, as the first version of his "Final Report" showed. It had to be "re-written" before it could be submitted to the US Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944) as evidence because the first version made it quite clear that racism, not military necessity was a primary motivation for the internment. The War Department submitted the cleansed version, along with a bunch of falsified documents (and they omitted others that they could not doctor) as their evidence in the 1944 case. Researchers found all the falsified and omitted evidence in the early 80's--it was clear that the War Department had perjured itself before the US Supreme Court, and in 1984, Federal courts vacated the 1944 ruling in the Korematsu case. There's a bit more on this in the article.

*Irons, Peter. (1976, 1996). Justice At War: The Story of the Japanese American Internment Cases. University of Washington Press. ISBN 0520083121.

Again, citing the Niihau incident really only weakens the arguments that the internment was justfied or that it wasn't a major violation of civil rights. After all, Harada was one person on an island so remote that what he did was irrelevent to what happened during the war overall.

No doubt that the phony Battle of Los Angeles heighted the hysteria. What you're failing to understand is that the hysteria was phony to begin with. The media whipped it up to sell newspapers, politicians whipped it up to get re-elected, etc. And this behavior goes all the to the Oval Office. After all, FDR kept Japanese Americans in camps for about a year after it was "determined" that there was no longer any "need" to intern them. helping the Democrats gain three seats in the House of Representatives (and I think it helped FDR get re-elected...I don't remember off the top of my head). You're also totally missing the fact that the State Department had done an exhaustive study of Japanese Americans and their immigrant parents long before Pearl Harbor was attacked and knew that they exhibited a high degree of loyalty to the United States.

*Weglyn, Michi. (1976, 1996). Years Of Infamy: The Untold Story Of America's Concentration Camps. University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295974842.

Your clinging to the MAGIC Cables is really amazing. Yes, they show that the Empire of Japan was actively seeking sympathizers in the United States. However, they do not give any indication of success. And for your information, Herzig researched the MAGIC Cables, which were not declassified until 1977, before he was heaviliy involved in the research he did to support the redress movement. Care to try again? And you conveniently ignored the fact that Ennis testifying that the MAGIC Cables played no role in the decision to intern--he had access to the MAGIC Cables during WWII, so I guess since that's pretty strong evidence that doesn't support your apparent beliefs, that isn't relevant.

"All" Japanese Americans living within the exclusion zones were forced out of their homes. In Hawaii, only about 2,500 were interned. It is very well-documented by a number of credible scholars that despite the existence of martial law in Hawaii, it was irrelevent to the decision not to intern Japanese American in Hawaii en masse.

*Weglyn, Michi. (1976, 1996). Years Of Infamy: The Untold Story Of America's Concentration Camps. University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295974842.

Doesn't it occur to you that questioning someone's credibility or impartially based on their race or who they are married to is racist? Ever hear of Roger Daniels? He's not Japanese, yet his pathbreaking research was among the first credible, scholarly research that showed the concentration camp experience for what it truly was...one of the darkest chapters in American History and one of our nation's most heinous civil rights violations. Same goes for Peter Irons, Morton Grodzins and many others. Just because these people aren't of Japanese ancestry gives them greater credibility and makes them impartial? That's a joke. The converse is also totally false as well. After all, this would mean that no former internee's story of their experience in camp could possibly be credible. How ridiculous is that?

As for your claim that your military service was an equal violation of your rights to what the internees had to face...you may have been "forced" to serve in our military. However, at the time, the draft was the law of the land and those who were drafted had a duty to serve our country. Your civil rights were not violated by you being "forced" to serve. On the other hand, those who were interned had no such rights. They had no freedom at all.

Speaking of objectivity and credibility, I get the feeling that while you may be trying to understand what happened, it is your objectivity and maybe some pre-conceived notions that are getting in the way of the facts that I (and others) have presented. Your comment about Herzig's credentials as a researcher expose your bias. Gmatsuda 03:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Time out, please!

Let's try to list facts and points of agreement or disagreement.

• MAGIC cables existed, and provided some intelligence value--to the war effort. QUESTIONS: How much detail did they contain about Nisei recruitment efforts? To what extent did key decision-makers have any information about such efforts? What other information did intelligence services and decision makers have about the effectiveness of such efforts?
• Evidence of espionage: Other than Niihau, what examples of espionage exist? Surely this one example of treason can't justify a massive civil rights violation--without a declaration of martial law.

Niihau wasn't an example of espionage. It was an example of accessory after the fact of the crime of homicide, in that there was no legal state of war between the United States and any foreign power. Espionage is the act of surreptitious gathering or disseminating of confidential information for the purposes of transmitting it to one who was not intended (by the original possessor) to have it. 208.110.158.124 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Use of term 'concentration camps': The long section on 'concentration camp' is the awkward product of many discussions like the one topnife and gmatsuda are having. It should be viewed in that context. Yes, it can be cleaned up, but it's an ongoing debate.
• Shelling of the coast: It happened. Questions under evidence of espionage apply here. No evidence has been presented here of Japanese American collusion of this event.

It would be particularly useful if posters could discuss the contents of the books cited, including relevant factual details so that other readers can evaluate the evidence. What we have now is a string of assertions with citations to books, without knowing just what information came from the books. For example, "Weglyn's book describes how the MAGIC cables contained only x references to Nisei... (p. __)" or "In chapter __, Bamford illustrates how the MAGIC cables referred to x specific individuals, y of whom were..." Then others of us can refer to the books and see for ourselves. The signal:noise ratio of this discussion is not favorable right now. --ishu 04:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort to be a calming influence. It's pretty clear that this topic is laden with considerable emotion, which sheds much heat, but little light. Ideology always trumps rational discussion and intellectual inquiry (e.g., McCloy did not write "Final Report" (DeWitt, or his staff, did) [1]. Asst SOW John J. McCloy was an adviser to six US Presidents).

Strident obfuscation of facts discredits a position. Now that "racist" and ad hominem accusations have surfaced, I'll take my quest for real knowledge elsewhere -- maybe I'll even watch sitcoms on TV! So long! Topnife 19:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct...DeWitt did write the Final Report. However, McCloy reviewed it before submission, found that racism was the primary motivation for the internment as detailed by DeWitt, so he had the report changed. It was that cleansed version of the Final Report that was submitted to the US Supreme Court.This actually destroys McCloy's credibility even more, as he willfully falsified that document. In any case, Sorry for the mix-up. I should know better than to write this kind of stuff late at night. :) Gmatsuda 08:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if Topnife would at least try one last time to answer some of the questions that I posed, so that all may share in some of his "real knowledge" right here. --ishu 11:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your sense of humor ("Shane"), and your style! However, I said I was on a quest for real knowledge, not that I already had it. I started this Talk with the intent to offer suggestions on how the topic could be made less confusing. I don't feel qualified to edit it myself, or I would have. But since you asked:

• I have read many of the MAGIC cables (secretly decrypted and translated diplomatic communications of Imperial Japan with its embassies and consulates). It's pretty clear that there were instructions to recruit espionage agents, especially among Americans of Japanese ethnicity, who Japan considered to be "Japanese" - following the strong racial policies of Japan. Several cables also mention successful recruiting of agents, although they do not usually name names. The MAGIC cables were not even mentioned in the article.

Read the article. Apfox 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's true there were no convictions for espionage. There were cases which were not tried, or in which evidence was lacking, said to be due to security restrictions. One could also argue, circuitously, that espionage could not occur by Americans of Japanese ethnicity, since they were all locked up!

• Concentration camps: If the purpose of the article is informative, then the relatively non-pejorative term "relocation camps", as used by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, serves the purpose of NPOV much better. "Concentration camps" has become a loaded term, implying the atrocious conditions of the Holocaust, and only serves to slant the topic.

It's a camp to concentrate the undesirables, many who are American citizens, in one location. With armed guards and barbed wire. What else can it be called. Most Nazi camps were just concentration camps, not death camps. Apfox 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Espionage and shelling of the coast: The Final Report Chapter 1, alludes to coastal defenses having just been withdrawn from the Goleta area, before the shelling, and implies that the Japanese sub might have been advised of that specific vulnerability. Certainly not compelling, but military intelligence (which has been termed an "oxymoron") necessarily is formed out of such correlations.

• All these analyses benefit from the marvelous recent invention of the retrospectoscope -- the tool which allows us to look backward 40 - 50 years, from the comfort of our soft and easy lives, into the minds and hearts of those long since dead, to reach conclusions about their character and motivation, while they were acting in a time of terrible crisis, when our nation was under attack from two fronts. Whatever the many causes, distrusting our brethren was an atrocity - but war is an atrocity, too.

I spent a few months "imprisoned" needlessly on Guam, TAD orders by the US Navy, after the fall of Saigon. I experienced just a faint and brief version of what my fellow Americans of Japanese ethnicity endured during WWII - no barbed wire, no guards, and no way to get out of there to my home and family. I can only try to empathize in a small way with what happened, and how frustrating and infuriating it must have been. I also assert that, in time of war, the government's primary responsibility is to ensure our survival, individually and as a nation; that we all have to make sacrifices, sometimes including our temporary freedom, and sometimes our lives; and that our decisions made in terror and haste may later be regretted in leisure and comfort - but only if we survive.

I'm sorry, but I don't choose to debate further. The response to my last post just makes my case for NPOV:

• John McCloy's "credibility [was] destroyed" by allegedly requiring that the Final Report be edited to remove racial allusions which were found in the first draft! So if he left them in, he's a "racist", and if he takes them out, he's not "credible"?? OK, now I get it!
• McCloy was credible enough to serve or be advisor to six Presidents, including Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Reagan, in addition to being on the Warren Commission and President of the World Bank.
• General DeWitt almost certainly did not personally compose the Final Report, which was a 618 page document when published. Commanding generals have squads of staff officers to perform these tasks. The author of racist allusions found in the first draft is not clearly established to be DeWitt - although as CO he was ultimately responsible for the content.
• DeWitt has been reported to have been opposed to the relocation idea, as an infringement of civil rights.
• DeWitt's bigoted statements in Congressional testimony certainly reflect a racist perspective in 1944 - after 3 years, and the loss of many thousands of American lives, in the war with Imperial Japan. I bet there were a lot of bigots in those days (including Roosevelt), by these standards (not just, just fact).

Let's all get over it. I'm gone. Topnife 02:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. FAR gone. You have, however, proven your complete and utter lack of understanding of the real issue. But please, go seek truth somewhere, and stop promoting your POV in the article. You are giving us white people a bad image. 208.110.158.124 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Topnife has completely missed the points made here, but I won't continue the "debate" further. Gmatsuda 03:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisionist Garbage Being Added

Now I see where 207.207.79.202 is coming from. Using the MAGIC cables again makes it clear. Revisionist history is being added to this article once again. I'll leave it to others to remove it. So far, this particular Wikipedia article is a big waste of time because it's constantly going back and forth between the truth and what revisionists want everyone to believe. Gmatsuda 22:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Boy, the beef byproducts are sure piling up, provided by the pro-internment critters. However, I see a significant lack of PROOF, just a bunch of "what he said!" comments. It's nice to again see that fable about the Japanese submarine attack on the oil refinery -- unfortunately, the Japanese naval records prove that they didn't have a sub which could have actually been involved (they were all many many miles away), not to mention the record that showed the explosion to be the result of worker error. And was that invisible Imperial Navy sub to blame for the similar explosions in SoCal refineries which punctuated the 1970s and 1980s?

So, where are the CONVICTIONS of all of those supposed spies referred to in the MAGIC report? Again, words without proof. But we can be grateful that DeWitt protected us from all of those 5-year-old Nisei kids, while their older brothers were in Europe smashing the Axis.

The primary basis for the internment was bigotry against all Asians, not merely those of Japanese descent. There was a ban on Japanese women entering the United States. Persons born in Asia were prohibited from owning land, though there were no such restrictions on European immigrants. Many Filipino men were forced to claim Mexican heritage in order to marry women who were not from the Philippines.

The supposed MAGIC translations proving Nikkei espionage don't seem to show up on the lists of MAGIC translations.

If it was an "evacuation" rather than "internment," then why were the "evacuees" kept behind barbed wire and subject to being shot for approaching the fence? How can you "attempt escape" if you aren't a prisoner?

The only revisionism is by the people who are trying to cover up an atrocity against thousands of American citizens. Consider that a far greater percentage of Nisei fought in the war than any other group of Americans. Over 1,000 from one camp of 10,000 population -- where is there another American "town" where one in ten of the total population went to fight?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.178.65.194 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What a load of reparations activist crapola! So pathetic. Let's break it down piece by piece.

1. It's nice to again see that fable about the Japanese submarine attack on the oil refinery --

Answer: Dec 7, 1941. On its way to the US west coast, I-26 tracks a US freighter. Precisely at 8:00 a.m., Dec 7, Pearl Harbor time, she surfaces and sinks Cynthia Olson with gunfire. Dec 15, 1941. Japanese submarine shelled Kahului, Maui, Hawaii.

Dec 20. Unarmed US tanker sunk by Japanese submarine I-17 off Cape Mendocino, California. 31 survivors rescued by Coast Guard from Blunt's Reef Lightship.

Dec 20. Unarmed US tanker shelled by Japanese submarine I-23 of the coast of California

Dec 22. Unarmed U.S. tanker sunk by Japanese submarine I-21 about four miles south of Piedras Blancas light, California, I-21 machine-guns the lifeboats, but inflicts no casualties. I-21 later shells unarmed U.S. tanker Idaho near the same location.

Dec 23. Japanese submarine I-17 shells unarmed tanker southwest of Cape Mendocino, California.

Dec 27. Unarmed US tanker shelled by Japanese submarine I-23 10 miles from mouth of Columbia River.

Dec 30, 1941. Submarine I-1 shells, Hilo, Hawaii.

Dec 31, 1941. Submarines shell Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii.

Feb 23, 1942. I-17, shelled Ellwood oil refinery at Geleta on the Californian coast. The skipper had fueled there many times before the war.

June 20, 1942, the radio station on Estevan Point, Vancouver Island was fired on by a Japanese submarine I-26.

June 21. I-25 shells Fort Stevens, Oregon.

Sept 9 . Phosphorus bombs were dropped on Mt. Emily, ten miles northeast of Brookings, Oregon, to start forest fires. A Yokosuka E14Y1 "Glen" reconnaissance seaplane piloted by Lt. Nubuo Fujita was been seen catapulted from submarine I-25.

Sep 29. Phosphorus bombings were repeated on the southern coast of Oregon.

2. where are the CONVICTIONS of all of those supposed spies referred to in the MAGIC report?

Answer: There were no convictions but not because there was no espionage. Those suspected were simply sent to internment -- not relocation -- camps. For example, in Hawaii, three Japanese Americans on Niihau aided a downed Imperial Navy aviator to the point where they attempted to kill some of their Hawaiian neighbors. One of the Japanese was killed in a struggle and the other two surrendered to authorities. (This "Niihau Incident" is considered the trigger that largely justified the relocation order.)

In another case, AJA Richard Kotoshirodo actively aided Japanese spies keeping track of ship movements in Pearl Harbor. Until martial law, however, watching ships from public property was not a crime. Another AJA was shot in Kaneohe when he fled after being discovered signaling a Japanese submarine.

Removing those arrested for espionage solved the immeidiate problem and ensured sensitive intelligence would not be revealed in the courts.

3. The primary basis for the internment was bigotry against all Asians, not merely those of Japanese descent.

Answer: Totally untrue. The basis for the evacuation was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The San Jose police archives reveal the majority of attacks on ethnic Japanese in the area were committed by ethnic Filipinos and some cases involving Chinese.

4. The supposed MAGIC translations proving Nikkei espionage don't seem to show up on the lists of MAGIC translations.

Answer: What are you talking about? http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00416&search_id=&pagenum=7

5. If it was an "evacuation" rather than "internment," then why were the "evacuees" kept behind barbed wire and subject to being shot for approaching the fence? How can you "attempt escape" if you aren't a prisoner?

Answer: It was three strand cattle wire that was routinely crossed. If you want to read the details on how people got shot, read them here....

http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00073&search_id=16288

I looked this up, the relevant info is on page 14. A man was shot trying to leave the camp. He had been warned on two earlier occassions (not that that excuses it). [2] Justforasecond 22:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The basic facts, which even a bigot can't hide from are that A), there were armed guards, who B), shot people, for C), allegedly trying to leave. I've never seen a non-criminal evacuation in which the evacuees were subject to being shot for trying to leave the evacuation centers. Critic-at-Arms 18:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you aren't referring to me.

Not at all! I was referring to the guy who's trying to make it seem like the camps were surrounded by garden fences. Critic-at-Arms 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I read through those ancient documents in order to save everyone else the trouble. Whoever put the link up there didn't do us the courtesy of reporting the page number. BTW I think his point was to get suckers (i.e. me) to read reports about camp riots and disturbances. There were several riots, strikes, intimidation campaigns, people demanding to be repatriated, etc., but for most of them the camp administrators decided not to pursue any punishment. i guess being essentially imprisoned without trial in the middle of nowhere was already effective. some of the riots began at meetings and were stoked by agitators, but others began when camp residents wanted food or better pay for their work. one thing that comes through is that the anti-america sentiment was much stronger than pro-america sentiment (this shouldn't come as a big surprise). several of the camp disturbances were when guys that tried to sign up for military service were threatened or beaten. at one time the government considered threatening camp residents eligible for service with jailtime via the "selective" services act if they didn't sign up, but eventually decided against this. It's sad that the guy who was shot received only a fairly small mention, while activities perceived as anti-american receive detailed coverage. Even the guys coming home in the middle of the night and getting p/od about not being able to get a sandwich got more lines. Justforasecond 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember, the whole idea is the give the bigots a flag to wave, so they will ignore anything which shows their case to be without merit. The internees were guilty of being of Japanese ancestry. Critic-at-Arms 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

6. The only revisionism is by the people who are trying to cover up an atrocity against thousands of American citizens. Consider that a far greater percentage of Nisei fought in the war than any other group of Americans. Over 1,000 from one camp of 10,000 population -- where is there another American "town" where one in ten of the total population went to fight?

Answer: The vast majority of adult were not American citizens, they were Japanese citizens and after Pearl Harbor they were Enemy Aliens. Even their American born kids, the vast majority held dual citizenship.

I'm surprised that you would mention this, as it shows an even higher percentage of eligibles having served. But where is your "dual-citizenship" statistic from? Critic-at-Arms 19:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My best guess is the "dual citizenship" is because Japan considers everyone born to Japanese parents to be a Japanese citizen, regardless of birthplace, unless specific actions are taken to change this. (at age 22 the kid must decide) Justforasecond 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. What a myth of ridiculous proportions!

More nisei chose to sit out the war or openly support the enemy than fight for America.

More Americans of every race "chose to sit out the war . . .than fight." Critic-at-Arms 18:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Selective Service Special Monograph Number 10 which was published after the war (1953) is a source. This publication covered "Special Groups" who served during WWII and Chapter IX was titled "Japanese Americans." In that chapter on page 122 was the following statement:

"In the continental United States, fewer than 1500 Japanese Americans volunteered although there were 19,000 citizens of military age within the War Relocation Authority Centers and approximately 4,000 outside the centers."

That would be a total of 23,000 of whom only 7% (1500)volunteered.

Not bad, when you consider that "military age" to the Selective Service in the 1950s was 17 - 45, and that women are citizens too. Let's also remember that internees from Tule Lake were ineligible, many of whom were sent there because their parents were "no-nos." Plus those who refused to volunteer while their families were interned.

But to add a little perspective, in the first two months following the Oahu attack, there were only 91,000 volunteers (out of 16,303,000 American men between 17 - 35 military age in 1941). That's not even ONE-FIFTH OF ONE PERCENT signing up during the period of the greatest volunteer enlistment rate in the 20th Century. In addition, most volunteers went to non-infantry units, while the Nisei knew that they were going straight into line units with remarkably high casualty rates. Critic-at-Arms 18:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the WRA publication "The Evacuated People" (1946) mentions only 1208 volunteers from the ten relocation centers (of whom only 805 were actually selected to serve) plus "several hundred" voluteers from outside the centers. Estimating a total of about 1100 (805 plus an estimated 300 from outside the centers) out of a total 23,000 of military age, comes to 5%.

Please pick only ONE of your incomplete statistics and stay with that one. Critic-at-Arms 18:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The nisei war memorial in Los Angeles only has about 16,000 names on it and you know they sticking as many names as possible on it regardless of if they served or not.

After reading through some "internment archives" documents I don't think 16,000 could have served. A few very patriotic Japanese-Americans stood up to camp thugs and joined. I don't know anything about the memorial and whether it has 16,000 names on it. Justforasecond 22:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Nisei were also subject to the draft. Like the rest of American groups, there were more draftees than volunteers. Critic-at-Arms 18:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole "most decorated unit" myth came about after Bill Clinton, motivated by legislation from Sen Akaka of Hawaii started handing out medal upgrades like candy canes against the advice of the Pentagan many years and miles away from the battlefied in complete defiance of American Military Tradition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.168.93.35 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's proof that you are wrong.

"I saw a great deal of them [Japanese Americans] in Italy where they had been formed into a battalion that fought with the 34th Division, and two full regiments that sort of free-lanced around doing heavy fighting for everybody . . .A great deal has been written about their prowess, and I won't go into details, except to say that, to my knowledge and the knowledge of numerous others who had the opportunity of watching a lot of different outfits overseas, no combat unit in the army could exceed them in loyalty, hard work, courage and sacrifice. hardly a man of them hadn't been decorated at leas twice, and their casualty rates were appalling." Bill Mauldin, "Back Home" pg 165, 1947, Sloane.

Are you going to claim that my first-edition copy of this book was somehow affected by events in the 1990s? Or are you going to admit that the writer, who was an infantryman in Italy and saw the Nisei units IN COMBAT, might just might know a little more about it than you?

If you can read pages 165 - 170 of that book and still hold to your bigotry, then there just isn't any hope for you, and I pity you. Critic-at-Arms 20:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil, critic. I heard the "most decorated" claim long before Clinton was in office. That's not to say it is true, but the claim that Clinton did it won't hold up. Justforasecond 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that particular "most decorated claim" (unless you can name another unit in which "hardly a man of them hadn't been decorated at least twice") comes from 1947, from a ETO veteran who had personal contact with the 100th/442nd and saw them in combat. Note also the description that they "free-lanced around doing heavy fighting" -- this is pretty much an indictment of anyone who refuses to see that the only "myth" is that their reputation somehow had something to do with Bill Clinton. I think I'm remaining VERY civil, in the face of some chickenhawk denying history and heroism solely to preserve his own personal prejudices. Critic-at-Arms 17:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Critic: I am highly confident that justforasecond did not write the "handing out medals like candy canes" post.

Same here, he's not the one I'm arguing with. J4 seems to be trying to understand, rather than denying. Sorry for not making myself more clear. Critic-at-Arms 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

J4sec expressed skepticism at the 16,000 claim, but no one (save the "candy canes" poster) has verified that there are 16,000 names on the memorial, nor that Akaka and Clinton "artificially boosted" the ranks of medal recipients to 16k. (If anyone lives in SoCal, could you kindly stop by Little Tokyo and find this memorial?)

So J4sec is responding to the earlier post, and agreeing with you that 442/100th was called "most highly decorated" well before Clinton.

But J4sec is also correct that you should be avoid charges of bigotry, prejudice, and chickenhawkery and lower the rhetorical bombs. We're just off of a rather unpleasant edit war on this page, so we'd like to stay pleasant and friendly. (Speaking for myself, I'm trying very hard to curb my own tendency toward sarcasm--in general and not at all in this particular instance. If you want to burn some time, browse the archives for some of my less civil moments.) --ishu 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if anyone is offended who doesn't deserve to be. However, my tone is just a reflection of the tone of some of the other people here, who are of the same ilk (though certainly not to the same extent) as the people who deny the Holocaust. I was raised in SoCal. I remember what my (Causasian) parents said about it, and what my (Nisei and Sansei) friends's parents said about it. Until I started doing my own research, I felt that the internment was, if not wholly justified, at least excusable. Over the years, it has proven to be completely indefensible from a military standpoint and reprehensible from a sociopolitical standpoint, and it's frustrating to run into these folks with their eyes closed, fingers in ears and humming real loud to keep from having to discover that they are wrong.

Were all Nikkei patriotic Americans? Not hardly! But then, not all white Americans were, either. But neither were all Nikkei "yellow devils" as they were painted to be, nor more than a handful. And I really doubt that there was much of a security threat from the young orphans who were taken from foster homes to be interned! THIS IS NOT WHAT AMERICA IS ABOUT, and to hear bigots trying to justify it on the basis of patriotism is just infuriating. Critic-at-Arms 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noncompliant template: POV and disputes

I have placed Template:noncompliant atop this article per Wikipedia policy, specifically:

• NPOV: citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.
• When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.
• Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Given the controversial nature of this topic, the entire article needs to use citations as often as possible, preferably after vetting on Talk:Japanese American internment . Notably, the unregistered users are significantly ahead in citing sources. While User:Gmatsuda and others dispute the authority of these sources, they are not as effective at referencing sources to back up their edits and disputes. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am uncomfortable with the edits by the unregistered users, and I am not thoroughly convinced as to their relevance. However, the unregistered users have eliminated some obviously POV ("pro-reparations" in their view) copy on the page--even as they have added POV elsewhere. Finally, as I have noted elsewhere on this talk page, these disputes are not new to this article. The disputes will not go away, and they will not be resolved unless we--collectively--are able to produce an article that adheres to Wikipedia standards. [One last comment: I considered reverting to a previous version before adding the template, since it is just as applicable to earlier revisions. I decided to use the most recent version, which just happens to be the version preferred by the unregistered users. I encourage everyone to retain the template in edits until these disputes are resolved. --ishu 05:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I for one find the newest version of this article regreshing because I learned some new history regarding this subject rather than just being force fed the same old line that we read in the newspapers, at school, etc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by History Student (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I added Prof John Stephan as a source in the Hawaii and included an AP article describing conditions at Japanese camps for repatriated Japanese Americans. I also add information on "Tom" Kawakita at the link near the end of the article.

Most of my sources are cited directly after my additions with an "according to" or such.

I have many of the books ishu has mentioned and can comment further on them. One not mentioned that is worth reading is David Kahn's "The Code Breakers".

Other books important to a full understanding of the history but not specifically related to MAGIC include "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herbert Bix, decribes the rise of Japanese Ultra Nationalism during the Showa Era which I believe needs to be discussed in the history of the Evacuation.

"Soldiers of the Sun" by Meirion and Susie Harris describes the history of Japan's use of total intelligence from the Meiji Era through WW2 and is also a good read to understand the intelligence threats posed by Japan and ethnic Japanese in her colonies and elsewhere.

"Japan's Longest Day" desribes the conditions for Japanese Americans working at translators at Imperial Army Headquarters in Ichigaya, Tokyo towards the end of the war.

"The Niihau Incident" by Beekman decribes Japanese American Harada assisting a down Japanese pilot after Pearl Harbor. Beekman was a writer to the JACL's "Pacific Citizen".

Just a few. I'll add more later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.202 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ishu - Thank you.

A suggestion: rather than simply throwing around accusations that the article as a whole is problematic, perhaps it would be helpful to specifically note sections of the article which we feel are in need of revision?

My initial (albeit numerous) suggestions in this vein:

• The large image at the top of the article. While I understand the point being made, placing this image at the top of the article gives a certain slant to the "first glance" of the article which I feel is disingenuous. I suggest keeping this image, but moving it to a different place within the article. Image:Tulelake.jpg

• The opening phrase of the article, "The Japanese American Internment is a misnomer..." is inappropriate in my opinion, given the section later on discussing the terminology debate. This phrase argues against a specific term before the merits of various terms are presented.

• As I suggested above in the "Clarifications and Additions" section, I'd like to see a mention of Presidential Proclamations Nos. 2525, 2526, and 2527 sooner in the article. Any comments as to the appropriateness of this suggestion? The proclamations are mentioned later in the History section, but their relevance is unexplained; is this where they belong?

• The introduction area also contains sections which I feel are more appropriate to the "Terminology debate" section, "Legal legacy" section, and "Compensation and reparations" section. The paragraphs to which I refer should be easily identifiable.

• In the "Terminology debate" section, there is a paragraph which attempts to describe the camps in an effort to clarify the usage of terms. Would it perhaps be appropriate to mention the average length of time individuals stayed in these camps, and also whether they remained voluntarily or involuntarily?

• In the History section, the "shelling of a California oil refinery" incident needs to have a citiation. In addition, there has been some dispute on these pages regarding whether this incident was in fact the result of a Japanese submarine; if it was perceived as an attack at the time, then perhaps that ought to be clarified within the article?

• The addition of MAGIC to this article has been contentious, and to my mind not satisfactorily resolved. Ishu has made a few attempts to delineate ways to flesh out MAGIC's contribution to this article, and I applaud his efforts in this regard. I suggest that until MAGIC's contributions are fully explained and cited, they be removed from the article. In addition to Ishu's 4-point list above, I would specifically like to know what MAGIC had to say about recruitment of potential saboteurs between 12/7/41 and 2/19/42.

• "Civilian and military officials had concerns about the *loyalty of the ethnic Japanese on the West Coast and considered them to be a security risk. Although some today say these concerns often grew more out of racial hatred than actual risk there is evidence that elements of the ethnic Japanese community on the West Coast at the time held loyalty to Japan and were caught up the Japanese Ultra Nationalism of the era." The use of weasel words and lack of adequate citation in this portion of the "History" section should be remedied.

• "However it should be noted that the vast majority of ethnic Japanese at the time were not American citizens..." My sources show this statement from the "History" section to be false. In "Concentration Camps USA: Japanese Americans and World War II", by Roger Daniels (published 1971), Daniels gives the number of West Coast internees of Japanese descent as 112,704, and further states that 64.9% of these were American-born. In addition, I believe I have read somewhere that while many Japanese Americans were perceived as having dual citizenship, Japan in fact withheld citizenship from Nisei (my apologies for lack of citation, I can try to dig it up if necessary). In any case, the paragraph I have cited ought to have citations of its own.

• More generally, the "History" section needs to be cleaned up. The information is presented in a disjointed manner and some statements seem possibly contradictory. This section reads as though more information was simply "dropped" in, with no attempt made to integrate it into the existing article.

• The AP release within the "Internment results" section should probably be moved to the "Conditions in the Camps" section.

• "If the the authorities could have evacuated all ethnic Japanese from Hawaii they would have. They could not so they did not." This statement from the "Hawaii" section is strangely phrased. In the "Clarifications and Additions" discussion above I advocated for an explanation of the logistical barriers to mass internment in Hawaii, the inclusion of which I still support.

• "However, the records of the time and the personal histories of those involved (on both sides of the issue) prove that many of these claims are either distorted or simply untrue. Of course I can't cite sources, but that's irrelevent. Bank accounts were frozen (though not by the WRA), and the few payments which were made for crops were pennies on the dollar and delayed for months according to reparations activists who have a habit of not citing sources." This paragraph is pulled from the "Compensation and reparations" section. The "claims" the paragraph references are presumably those made by Col. Karl Bendetson in 1972, found within the article directly above this paragraph. The problems with this excerpt are obvious. The short sentence found immediately after this paragraph is also in need of citation.

• "The internment is condemned today, often attacked as racist, by the far left while accepted as necessary given the circumstances of the time by conservatives. People frequently cite it as a precedent for large-scale violations of civil liberties, and a warning sign of what might happen again. However, others defend it as a harsh necessity in a bitter and desperate war." From the "Criticisms, then and now" section. Weasel words need to be fixed.

• "Warren's quote surfaced after his death however, is contrary to his opinions well known before his death and are not considered credible given the circumstances in which is what revealed." This paragraph from the "Support for the internment, then and now" section is awkwardly worded and needs citation.

• "The "newly discovered evidence" that commission "researcher" Aiko Herzig "found" that was used in the Coram Nobis cases of the 1980's is a Ringle memo the pro-reparations lawyers submit to the court as exhibit "D" MINUS THE FEBRUARY 14, 1942 ONI COVER MEMO FROM RINGLE'S BOSS, H.E. KEISKER STATING "IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL AND OFFICAL OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT."

The memo was also carbon copied for MID and two sections of the FBI.

Thus, the memo was an unofficial document haveing no status whatsoever was not concealed, but on the contrary given wide distribution, did not represent the stated position of the ONI nor anyone else of any status in the military, and WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH AN OFFICIAL ONI INTELLIGENCE REPORT AUTHORED BY LT. COMMANDER HIMSELF LESS THAN TWO WEEKS LATER. Thus the lawyers representing the Japanese American reparations movment submitted evidence in a federal court under false pre-tense."

This excerpt is from the "Legal legacy" section and desperately needs to be cleaned up.

In addition to attempting to resolve existing issues within the article, I'd like to suggest that we refrain from further editing in the existing article pending discussion and resolution on this Talk page.

My apologies for the length of this diatribe, but I have tried to be thorough.--Ogthor 11:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1.The opening phrase of the article, "The Japanese American Internment is a misnomer..." is inappropriate in my opinion,

Answer: Regardless of your feeling it is inapproproate, it is entirely true. We need to reverse some of the bad history regarding the evacuation and that included getting the definitions correct. The evacuation was not the internment.

Sure, it's the same difference as between kidnapping and being held hostage. One is the precursor to the other, but the victim doesn't usually appreciate the distinction. Critic-at-Arms 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll note I did not rely on my "feeling" for justification for revision here. While I appreciate that there is dispute over the correct terminology, there is a section within the article which specifically deals with this issue - the first non-introductory section, at that. While the use of "internment" may indeed be a misnomer, to label it as such at this point in the article makes an implicit argument whose supporting facts are located elsewhere. As an alternative, may I suggest a phrase such as "The process commonly known as the Japanese American Internment..."?--Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

2. The large image at the top of the article. While I understand the point being made, placing this image at the top of the article gives a certain slant to the "first glance" of the article which I feel is disingenuous. I suggest keeping this image, but moving it to a different place within the article.

Answer: The entire article gave a certain slant before it was re-edited. I suggest no image on the top then. And more images that reflect the reality of the centers within the article.

I accept your contention that slant is present throughout the article. To my understanding, that is the point of this discussion - to identify points of contention and resolve them, here, before making drastic changes to the article. I also would approve of more images as you suggest. I do not know of a good online source, but the two books on my shelf containing possibly appropriate images are "Executive Order 9066: The Internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans", by Maisie and Richard Conrat (California Historical Society, 1972), and "Manzanar", by John Armor and Peter Wright (New York: Times Books, 1988). This latter focuses on Ansel Adams' visit to the Manzanar camp in California in 1943.--Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

3.I'd like to see a mention of Presidential Proclamations Nos. 2525, 2526, and 2527 sooner in the article. Any comments as to the appropriateness of this suggestion?

Answer: Sounds good. We also need to add the congress immediately passed Public Law 503 by a wide majority to back up EO 9066.

I'd be ok with that addition, in the spirit of demonstrating congressional support for the internment process.--Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

4. The introduction area also contains sections which I feel are more appropriate to the "Terminology debate" section, "Legal legacy" section, and "Compensation and reparations" section. The paragraphs to which I refer should be easily identifiable.

Answer: No, I think a summary at the beginning is important for those who choose to stop reading before the end of the article.

I have no problems with a summary sentence outlining these points. I do have a problem with several sentences which explain these points in some detail.--Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

5. In the "Terminology debate" section, there is a paragraph which attempts to describe the camps in an effort to clarify the usage of terms. Would it perhaps be appropriate to mention the average length of time individuals stayed in these camps, and also whether they remained voluntarily or involuntarily?

Answer: That information is available in the WRA's "An Evacuated People" 1946. You will find people were coming and going into the camps in great numbers, harldy and "incarceration".

Excellent. I'd love to see a quote.--Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

6. In the History section, the "shelling of a California oil refinery" incident needs to have a citiation. In addition, there has been some dispute on these pages regarding whether this incident was in fact the result of a Japanese submarine; if it was perceived as an attack at the time, then perhaps that ought to be clarified within the article?

Answer: Of course it was. I will provide a breakout of every incident and cite a source.

I don't understand your rebuttal. What is the "it" you refer to? And what "was" it? And how is "Of course" an argument at all, or even a constructive discussion? Generally speaking, I approve of citation of sources... --Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

7. I suggest that until MAGIC's contributions are fully explained and cited, they be removed from the article.

Answer: No way! Any article on the evacuation must include the MAGIC intercepts.

While I believe I would approve of MAGIC's eventual addition to the article, as I stated above I feel that an adequate response to Ishu's four points would go a long way toward justifying their inclusion. Also, the one MAGIC intercept cited (the date is misreferenced in the article, by the way) interestingly implies the attempt to enlist "white persons and Negroes", in addition to the use of "second generations". Although this does suggest the presence of Japanese American spies within the United States, it also suggests the possibility of non-Japanese American spies, working for Japan. This, to me, suggests that the (at least this) MAGIC intercepts do not in fact support the idea of mass internment, but rather the careful identification of individual spies and saboteurs as per the FBI's CDI list. MAGIC would likely be very helpful in these efforts. However, my opinions about the relative usefulness of MAGIC notwithstanding, the importance of MAGIC to decision-makers at the time would be useful to note, if available. This is, of course, pursuant to point 4 of Ishu's four points.--Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

8. "...caught up the Japanese Ultra Nationalism of the era." The use of weasel words and lack of adequate citation in this portion of the "History" section should be remedied."

Answer: Calling anything you disagree with "weasel words" is a problem. You want me to cite sources for the Japanese Ultra Nationalism the existed I can do it. The comment is 100% historically correct. Perhaps that Tule Photo needs to stay at the top of the article after all....

I never claimed to disagree with the section I quoted. Here's the section again, with areas needing citation (as per WP:V) in italics and weasel words (as per WP:AWW) in bold: "Civilian and military officials had concerns about the *loyalty of the ethnic Japanese on the West Coast and considered them to be a security risk. Although some today say these concerns often grew more out of racial hatred than actual risk there is evidence that elements of the ethnic Japanese community on the West Coast at the time held loyalty to Japan and were caught up the Japanese Ultra Nationalism of the era." I hope that clarifies. --Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

9. "However it should be noted that the vast majority of ethnic Japanese at the time were not American citizens..."

Answer: I believe it says the vast majorty of ethnic Japanese ADULTS at the time... If it doesn't say this it is a typo and should be corrected.

As I said above, this statistic needs a citation.--Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

10. More generally, the "History" section needs to be cleaned up.

Answer: Agreed there are sections that need to be cleaned up and the history section is short. It needs to be lenghted to include Japan's history of total intelligence, the Japanese "Language Schools", the Patriotic Societies, etc...

Too short? The "History" section is the longest section in the article as is. I'm not opposed to adding more relevant information, but I think the relevance of proposed additions ought to be discussed on this Talk page first. --Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

11. The AP release within the "Internment results" section should probably be moved to the "Conditions in the Camps" section.

Answer: No, that needs to be included in the sections discussing repatriates who demanded to return to Japan.

My estimation of the value of the AP report to this article is as a counterpoint to the conditions repatriates left behind in the United States. This suggests to me that its appropriate placement within the article is within that section. Do you have a different understanding of the value of the AP report to the article? --Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

12. "If the the authorities could have evacuated all ethnic Japanese from Hawaii they would have. They could not so they did not." This statement from the "Hawaii" section is strangely phrased.

Answer: Regardless of the style it is also 100% accurate.

I have no contention with the accuracy of the statement (except perhaps to point out, once again, the use of weasel words - who were the authorities that wished to evacuate Hawaii? There was not consensus...). My contention is that stylistically it does not fit within the article. In addition I argue that the section is unimportant to either the article or its relevant section and should be removed. --Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

13. "However, the records of the time and the personal histories of those involved (on both sides of the issue) prove that many of these claims are either distorted or simply untrue. The problems with this excerpt are obvious. The short sentence found immediately after this paragraph is also in need of citation.

Answer: Yea, there's a problem. The writer adds at the end, "that's untrue". I cited the location of the Bendetsen interview at the Truman Presidential Library. Visit the website and do a search. As for "presumabley"...well visit the site and you will know.

Perhaps I spoke too soon when I believed the problems were obvious. To specify, "these claims" should be changed to "Bendetsen's claims", if these are the claims being referred to. The phrase "Of course I can't cite sources, but that's irrelevent" is factually incorrect - the lack of citation is quite relevant. --Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

14. Warren's quote surfaced after his death however, is contrary to his opinions well known before his death and are not considered credible given the circumstances in which is what revealed." This paragraph from the "Support for the internment, then and now" section is awkwardly worded and needs citation.

Answer: Easy to cite. I will fix it.

Pending the release of protection from the article, I suggest a draft revsion and citation on this Talk page. --Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

15. "The "newly discovered evidence" that commission "researcher" Aiko Herzig "found" that was used in the Coram Nobis cases of the 1980's is a Ringle memo the pro-reparations lawyers submit to the court as exhibit "D" MINUS THE FEBRUARY 14, 1942 ONI COVER MEMO FROM RINGLE'S BOSS, H.E. KEISKER STATING "IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL AND OFFICAL OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE ON THE SUBJECT." The memo was also carbon copied for MID and two sections of the FBI. Thus, the memo was an unofficial document haveing no status whatsoever was not concealed, but on the contrary given wide distribution, did not represent the stated position of the ONI nor anyone else of any status in the military, and WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH AN OFFICIAL ONI INTELLIGENCE REPORT AUTHORED BY LT. COMMANDER HIMSELF LESS THAN TWO WEEKS LATER. Thus the lawyers representing the Japanese American reparations movment submitted evidence in a federal court under false pre-tense." This excerpt is from the "Legal legacy" section and desperately needs to be cleaned up.

Answer: 100% true. I will replace the capitols with italics. Source is the Lowman book, which also has photos of the original documents including the Keisker cover letter the reparations lawyers did not include with the Ringle report. I will provide more detail for those who find it difficult to understand.

Thank you for the attempt at clean up. Are you the original contributor for this excerpt? Is the emphasis your own, or added by the author of your source? Either way, this should be noted. The excerpt also needs grammatical fixing. --Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

16. In addition to attempting to resolve existing issues within the article, I'd like to suggest that we refrain from further editing in the existing article pending discussion and resolution on this Talk page.

Answer: I plan on going back and citing sources, making some of my edits easier to read.

I still challenge any reader to show me any content I have added that is historically inaccurate.

Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but I don't remember seeing anyone here challenge your additions as factually inaccurate. Indeed, this is the reason for Wikipedia's insistence on citation. Once again I urge all users to please attempt to resolve editing disputes here rather than in the article until some form of consensus is reached. --Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

-Regards

I have reverted the recent changes since they are seriously mis-formatted. The introduction is too long, images were not properly sourced or thumbed, there was significant POV, and other concerns. Before making any more additions, please read the manual of style and see some of our featured articles for how an encyclopedia article should look. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great, Tom. I changed it back to the non POV format. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.202 (talk • contribs) .

I've again reverted and have protected the page until these additions have been discussed, planned, and properly cited with in-line citations. Please see requests for page unprotection once consensus has been reached. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, more citation is required for the article in its current (protected) revision, given the controversy. That is, many of the "pro-fork" editors have raised reasonable questions about the legitimacy of claims in the current revision. Whatever anyone thinks about the content of the fork, more citation is required in the entire article, not just with the revisions proposed by the fork advocates. --ishu 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --Ogthor 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, that's real cute tom.

I'll be back tomorrow.

This is such a load of crap. If "Tom" is in charge of editing suffice to say Wikipedia is not going to be taken seriously...

Your choice Wikipedia. I challenge "Tom" to dispute any content I have added,

"Tom" -- you are abusing your administrative privilege. You made changes then immediately protected the article. I'd ask that you please unprotect and depart from this article for the time being. If you are in the right, I am sure someone else will pick up the torch. BTW as far as the gigantic image goes I agree it doesn't work here -- *BUT* last time I read this article it was anti-USA POV and didn't even include the Ni'ihau incient. Justforasecond 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The recent additions are totally unreferenced and are a formatting mess. Because of this, it is unverifiable and, as far as I can see, original research, which is unacceptable and will be removed. I tried to bring this conversation to the discussion page, but the anon seems hostile to these facts and immediately reverted to his version with the civil comment "that's great, Tom". I also did a brief review of the page history and have noticed that these additions have been reverted by others. Therefore, to facilitate discussion, to prevent further edit warring, and to give time for these additions to be properly referenced and formatted, I protected the page. You can always request unprotection on the page above. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 10:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Show us what's "unreferenced" Tom. I cited sources for my material and was in the process of doing so regarding the bogus Warren quote. You have totally abused your admin privilidge. My material was cited much more thoroughly than the pr-reparations POV material that you have locked on this site. You can't debate the history so you resort to this which is total reparations activist crap.

Tom, there's no question you are abusing your privileges. Whether you are in the right with regards to content is immaterial. I will sign onto an RfC or RfAr regarding your conduct should one begin. Anon, please remain civil. Justforasecond 15:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unbiased article is now here:

"Internment" is a misnomer anyway.

[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_Evacuation_of_1942

Now the POV reparations activists are attempting to delete the article under Japanese Evacuation. Pathetic.

• In my opinion, Tom's edit is a significant improvement over the previous version of the article. I am hardly a "POV reparations activist," yet it's obvious that the version prior to Tom's edits had significant problems with WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:V. The article Japanese American Evacuation of 1942 has been nominated for deletion because it is clearly a WP:POVFORK, and IMO should certainly be deleted on those grounds. THAT SAID, I am concerned that the protection of this page may have been implemented improperly. I'm fairly sure that had such a nomination been placed on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, it wouldn't have earned protection at such an early stage of dispute in the article's content. This is not an excuse for a POV-fork, violating WP:CIVIL, or edit wars by the anon user, but it shouldn't have happened this way. -- H·G (^words/_works) 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what? You guys all say the same thing then you provide no examples. You like Tom's piece because it's what you want to believe... Any information no matter how citable that is contrary to your own opinion is dimissed as POV. What a joke.

[edit] Terminology debate

What consensus can we derive from the following:

• Internment "is generally used to refer to the imprisonment or confinement of people, commonly in large groups, without due process of law and a trial."
• EO9066 authorizes exclusion and removal, but not internment per se.
• In Ex parte Endo, the Supreme Court found that EO9066 and its offshoots, specifically the "leave regulations," had the net effect of giving the WRA a "power of detention".(para. 16, sent. 1) Specifically, the court stated:

The fact that the Act and the orders are silent on detention does not of course mean that any power to detain is lacking. Some such power might indeed be necessary to the successful operation of the evacuation program. At least we may so assume. Moreover, we may assume for the purposes of this case that initial detention in Relocation Centers was authorized. But we stress the silence of the legislative history and of the Act and the Executive Orders on the power to detain to emphasize that any such authority which exists must be implied. If there is to be [323 U.S. 283, 302] the greatest possible accommodation of the liberties of the citizen with this war measure, any such implied power must be narrowly confined to the precise purpose of the evacuation program. (para. 16)

If nothing else, this undercuts the claim that the Japanese Americans in the camps were "free to leave." Comments, anyone? --ishu 18:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First off the DOJ internment program was not the WRA Relocation program or the Evacuation program. If you're pulling your definitions from the dictionary that's great but they don't apply to this history.

The Supreme Court cases usually refer to Korematsu, Hirabayashi and Yasui although Endo is also a case. At any rate the intial comment "...but the court upheld the government's right to intern" is still wrong even if the writer was talking about Endo.

Now that we're getting into the semantics of "free to leave" or "incarcerated in concentration camps" this is a good opportunity to clarify.

The government made a rule that any person wishing to enter or leave a Relocation Center had to petition to do so. The reason for the petition was two-fold. One reason was to ensure the individual was not a security risk and was loyal to the United States. The second reason was to ensure the individual had to the means to support himeself outside the military zones. The WRA set up offices in the large cities outside the military zones to aid evacuees in finding employment and housing.

So if arrangements had not been made by March 25, 1942 to settle outside the military zones you were going to a Relocation Center. People started leaving the centers on June of 1942 (WRA An Evacuated People 1946).

You will also find in the Endo ruling (which provides a nice concise history of the evacuation if you read the entire thing)the reason why Mitsue Endo was not released sooner. It had nothing to do with the government questioning her loyalty. Endo had failed to provide the WRA with the proper paperwork when petitioning for her leave clearance.

The Endo case states: (Original copy is all capitals.)

THE PROGRAM OF THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY IS SAID TO HAVE THREE MAIN FEATURES: (1) THE MAINTENANCE OF RELOCATION CENTERS AS INTERIM PLACES OF RESIDENCE FOR EVACUEES; (2) THE SEGREGATION OF LOYAL FROM DISLOYAL EVACUEES; (3) THE CONTINUED DETENTION OF THE DISLOYAL AND SO FAR AS POSSIBLE THE RELOCATION OF THE LOYAL IN SELECTED COMMUNITIES. FN7 IN CONNECTION WITH THE LATTER PHASE OF ITS WORK THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED A PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING LEAVE FROM RELOCATION CENTERS. THAT PROCEDURE, SO FAR AS INDEFINITE LEAVE FN8 IS CONCERNED, PRESENTLY PROVIDES FN9 AS FOLLOWS:

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE CLEARANCE IS REQUIRED. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE APPLICANT IS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING "THE PROBABLE EFFECT UPON THE WAR PROGRAM AND UPON THE PUBLIC PEACE AND SECURITY OF ISSUING INDEFINITE LEAVE" TO THE APPLICANT. FN10 THE GRANT OF LEAVE CLEARANCE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE DEPARTURE FROM THE RELOCATION CENTER. APPLICATION FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE MUST ALSO BE MADE. INDEFINITE LEAVE MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 14 SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. FN11 FOR EXAMPLE, IT MAY BE GRANTED (1) WHERE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ACCEPT AN EMPLOYMENT OFFER OR AN OFFER OF SUPPORT THAT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED AND APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITY; OR (2) WHERE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT INTEND TO WORK BUT HAS "ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF" AND A RELOCATION OFFICER HAS INVESTIGATED AND APPROVED "PUBLIC SENTIMENT AT HIS PROPOSED DESTINATION," OR (3) WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO LIVE AT A HOTEL OR IN A PRIVATE HOME APPROVED BY A RELOCATION OFFICER WHILE ARRANGING FOR EMPLOYMENT; OR (4) WHERE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT BY A FEDERAL OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY; OR (5) WHERE THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO LIVE WITH DESIGNATED CLASSES OF RELATIVES.

Endo case also states:

MITSUYE ENDO MADE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE CLEARANCE ON FEBRUARY 19, 1943, AFTER THE PETITION WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT. LEAVE CLEARANCE FN15 WAS GRANTED HER ON AUGUST 16, 1943. BUT SHE MADE NO APPLICATION FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE. FN16

So that's why Endo wasn't released. She didn't petition for indefinate leave. It should also be noted that petitions for entry into a Relcoation Center were also required. Once an individual was granted leave the WRA wouldn't just let them return. They had to have a good reason for doing so.

Certainly the folks at Wikipedia can understand the importance of keeping a program orderly and adhering to the rules.

-Regards, History Student--History Student 20:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the great info Student. (I think you were only blocked for 24 hours btw) But don't you think that taking six months to process an application is a little slow and stretchs the limits of "free to leave at any time"? 155.91.28.231 20:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Who said "any time"? Since when has the government done anything quickly? Ethnic Japanese had between February 19th and March 25, 1942 to evacuate on their own and thousands did so. If they had not by that time made arrangements to take care of themselves outside the military zones thay came under jurisdiction of the WRA. Welcome to government beauracracy.

You can see by this graph the consistency in which those who wanted to leave and petitioned to do so left. You can see that from late 1942 the graphs trend downward in all the camps except Tule Lake because Tule Lake became a segregation center for those known as disloyals because of the screening process.

http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00002&search_id=16354&pagenum=35

Considering there was a war going on and the WRA was also given the responsibility of seperating the loyal from the disloyal I'm surprised it only took six months for Endo. What was the average time from petitioning to leave and actually leaving a Relocation Center? That's a good question. Maybe it was more or less than Endo's experience. The point is the Relocation Centers were hardly what the reparations activists are portraying them to be and the reason Endo wasn't granted clearence is because she failed to petition. I don't think the average person knows that.

Check this out from the same report:

http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00002&search_id=16354&pagenum=38

...continued here...

http://www.internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00002&search_id=16354&pagenum=39

Look I'm not saying a lot of people weren't burdened. Everyone makes sacrifices in war. It sure doesn't gel with reparations talk of "racism, wartime hysteria and lack of political will", though. Where's the malice?

The government made the best of a bad situation to ensure the security of the nation as a whole in a time of war. I don't think the government was under any obligation to provide for the evacuees one they were moved outside the military zones. If ethnic Japanese had been dumped at the borders to fend for themselves, how would that have been discussed 64 years later?

--History Student 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize they had to separate the "disloyal" from the "loyal", but it seems like six months is a long time to keep someone in custody without reasonable suspicion. It's not just the six months though -- all in all it took something like 18 months total (mar '42 to aug '43) to determine her loyalty. Yeah it was wartime and I'm sure the government had other things to do, but it just doesn't pass the "free to leave" smell test. To use an overused analogy: to capture guys on a battlefield in Afghanistan is one thing, but gathering all US citizens of Afghani origin and putting them in camps for 18 months while investigating loyalty would be another. BTW The graph you cite shows camp population, not the number of requests to leave. Justforasecond 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Before returning to the issue of the Terminology debate, I have to agree with User:History Student (hereafter: HS) that the initial comment ("...but the court upheld the government's right to intern") is wrong. This is why I proposed the alternative language. Please see above discussion.

On the terminology, HS presents an either/or: Either Japanese Americans (JAs) were "free to leave" or they were "incarcerated in concentration camps." I don't agree with either of these options. Let's see how we can get some agreement on how to discuss the terminology debate.

If we can agree on a definition of internment camp then we (i.e., the article) can present the arguments for and against the application of this term.

• I think we all agree that EO9066 and associated executive orders, legislation, etc. use terms such as evacuation and relocation, and do not use concentration camp or internment.
• The definition for internment is from Wikipedia. Whatever source we use, we need to use an objective reference to decide what it should be called. That is, the objective reference allows us to say "Some argue that internment is applicable because the WRA program did [things that fit into the objective definintion]," as well as "Others argue that internment is inappropriate because the WRA program was [things that do not fit into the objective definition]." I welcome other definitions for comparison on this talk page.
• Endo is relevant here, since the court was referring to the WRA program, as is clear throughout the decision. It found that detention was within the mandate of the WRA program, and also concluded that the WRA program, as implemented, amounted to detention. So if the court found that the WRA program amounted to detention, there is a case to be made for using the term internment.
• A critical view on use of internment is presented in the current article:

Those who believe relocation is a more appropriate term argue that (1) the official designation at the time was relocation center; (2) the camps were not, strictly speaking, prisons; and (3) an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 camp residents did eventually settle outside the exclusion area.

HS is welcome to expand upon this argument, but an opposing argument is presented, and has been for some time.

A few further comments on Endo: Endo's failure to submit the petition for indefinite leave was beside the point, as the decision makes clear just six paragraphs below HS's excerpt above:

We are of the view that Mitsuye Endo should be given her liberty. In reaching that conclusion we do not come to the underlying constitutional issues which have been argued. For we conclude that, whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure. [para. 13]

And later:

Mitsuye Endo is entitled to an unconditional release by the War Relocation Authority. [para 23]

In other words, the Court clearly states that the administrative rules (i.e., Endo's failure to submit the petition for indefinite leave) is not sufficient reason to "detain" (court's word) her and deprive her of civil liberties.

So, again: What consensus can we reach regarding the terminology debate?

--ishu 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terms continued...

Something screwy happened so I am responding here in a new thread....

I realize they had to separate the "disloyal" from the "loyal", but it seems like six months is a long time to keep someone in custody without reasonable suspicion. It's not just the six months though -- all in all it took something like 18 months total (mar '42 to aug '43) to determine her loyalty. Yeah it was wartime and I'm sure the government had other things to do, but it just doesn't pass the "free to leave" smell test. To use an overused analogy: to capture guys on a battlefield in Afghanistan is one thing, but gathering all US citizens of Afghani origin and putting them in camps for 18 months while investigating loyalty would be another. BTW The graph you cite shows camp population, not the number of requests to leave. Justforasecond 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Justasecond, the United States Government drafted millions in the largest peactime draft in American history in 1940. Many didn't come home after being drafted and many more didn't come home until 1945 or without a limb. Were they "kept in custody" too? Were their "civil rights" violated? C'mon....

The American Government can take extraordinary steps in wartime which means the steps taken in 1942 may seem unorthadox to some people in 2006 even though we're supposed to be fighting an undeclared war on terror.

As mentioned before, the vast majority of adults were not U.S. citizens they were Enemy Aliens. The vast majority of kids were dual American and Japanese citizenship. You may think six months is a long time but given the amount of people, the fact the war was going on and the fact it was the first time the American government had to engage in an evacuation program of such magnitude I'd say it went pretty darn well. I don't know where you're getting the "free to leave smell test" thought. As I have said before those who left the military zones voluntarily before March 25 never even went to Relocation Centers. Others could petition to leave and thousands did leave the Relocation Centers. As I said above it wasn't about determining Endo's loyalty that kept her from getting released - it was about Endo not filing the proper paperwork. Of course the graph shows camp population. You will notice the camp population was decreasing after late 1942 until the end of the war and that's not because of gas chambers and ovens.

--History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:

Before returning to the issue of the Terminology debate, I have to agree with User:History Student (hereafter: HS) that the initial comment ("...but the court upheld the government's right to intern") is wrong. This is why I proposed the alternative language. Please see above discussion.

On the terminology, HS presents an either/or: Either Japanese Americans (JAs) were "free to leave" or they were "incarcerated in concentration camps." I don't agree with either of these options. Let's see how we can get some agreement on how to discuss the terminology debate.

Please show me where I said "free to leave" and in what context I said. I don't recall saying it. People had to petition to leave and that took time. Thousands did so. --History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Click here. Strictly speaking, I didn't say that you said it (I introduced it), but that you presented the either/or. Let's see how we can get some agreement on how to discuss the terminology debate. --ishu 03:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:

If we can agree on a definition of internment camp then we (i.e., the article) can present the arguments for and against the application of this term.

Internment Camp should refer only to the DOJ camps that held Enemy Aliens and their families who were determined to be security risks. I believe the map in the article now shows these as "Justice Dept. U.S. Army or other facility". The Justice Dept. facilities are the internment camps.

--History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Internment wasn't coined during WWII by the DOJ, and it wasn't coined by "reparations activists." It might be helpful to review the internment article. Since internment is a word, with a history and standard definitions, we can use definitions of this word as a reference when discussing what to call this event. So I disagree that internment camp "should refer only to the DOJ camps..." The question is whether the WRA camps fit some objective definition of internment camp, not whether they were identical or comparable to the DOJ camps.

Another definition reads as follows:

in international law, detention of the nationals or property of an enemy or a belligerent. A belligerent will intern enemy merchant ships or take them as prize, and a neutral should intern both belligerent ships that fail to leave its ports within a specified time and belligerent troops that enter its territory. The practice of detaining persons considered dangerous during a war is often called internment, even though they may not be enemy nationals. In World War II the United States detained persons of Japanese ancestry and German or Italian citizenship in relocation centers.

--ishu 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Then that's wrong they didn't intern them in Relocation Centers they interned them in DOJ internment camps. Germans and Italian didn't enter Relocation Centers. They were built specifically for ethnic Japanese evacuated from the military zones.

You are right in stating "internment" was not coined in WW2. "Internment" requires "Enemy Aliens".

The term “enemy alien” has a specific legal meaning derived from the Alien Law enacted in 1798: “Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government….all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of age fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed as alien enemies.” The Supreme Court in Johnson vs. Eisentrager said, “Executive power over enemy aliens, undelayed and unhampered by litigation, has been deemed, throughout our history, essential to war-time security…The resident enemy alien is constitutionally subject to summary arrest, internment and deportation whenever a declared war exists.”

That's internment.

--History Student 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would provide links to the quotations.

I think it is significant that all Japanese Americans--including American-born--were classified as "enemy aliens" (OK, just draft-age men). It seems that by the above definition, the event discussed in this article is not internment because there was no arrest involved. Assuming that's true (and maybe it's not), internment=arrest+internment+deportation? Just comparing definitions. Please clarify. --ishu 04:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll find that in the Lowman book or perhaps do a google of "Alien Law of 1798". American born weren't classified as enemy aliens unless they were one of the over 16,000 thousand who petitioned to renounce their citizenship. Are you drinking? This last post makes little sense.

--History Student 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:

• I think we all agree that EO9066 and associated executive orders, legislation, etc. use terms such as evacuation and relocation, and do not use concentration camp or internment.

Roosevelt and others loosely used the terms "concentration camp" early on before the camps were even built. That is the justification for the pov reparations activists to use the term today. Then Justice Black said in Korematsu that the term is not justified. I believe most people associate "concentration camps" to the barbarity of the Nazis. That's why the activists are attempting to associate it to the Relocation Centers.

--History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:

• The definition for internment is from Wikipedia. Whatever source we use, we need to use an objective reference to decide what it should be called. I welcome other definitions for comparison on this talk page.

Well then it's wrong. Here is an honest definition from Lowman's MAGIC

"Internment camps were run by the Department of Justice and held only enemy aliens who had been deemed security risks and their U.S. citizen family members who were allowed at their choice to stay with them. Internees included 10,995 Germans, 16, 849 Japanese (5,589 who voluntarily renounced U.S. citizenship and became enemy aliens), 3,278 Italians, 52 Hungarians, 25 Romanians, 5 Bulgarians, and 161 classified as “other”. Only a small fraction of enemy aliens were interned. Japanese citizens with families were sent to Crystal City, Texas and lived side-by-side with German and Italian families. Single men were sent to internment camps in other states. Not all enemy aliens were placed in internment camps, and no American citizen was forcefully placed in an internment camp. If you were interned it was determined that you, a spouse or parent was an enemy alien and a security risk."

--History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lowman is describing the DOJ camps as distinct from the WRA camps. This is not a definition of internment. We can compare any definition of the word internment that anyone would submit. --ishu 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is crazy. He is describing the differences in the WW2 camps. Your definitions are outside the context of this history.

--History Student 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:

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

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

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

--History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am asking that we compare objective definitions of the word internment. Then we (or readers) can decide whether the WRA camps, the DOJ camps, or the "green uniform" camps fit the definition(s) that are presented. --ishu 04:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:

• A critical view on use of internment is presented in the current article:

Those who believe relocation is a more appropriate term argue that (1) the official designation at the time was relocation center; (2) the camps were not, strictly speaking, prisons; and (3) an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 camp residents did eventually settle outside the exclusion area.

HS is welcome to expand upon this argument, but an opposing argument is presented, and has been for some time.

--ishu 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's do so. Well the opposing argument is historically wrong, it's bad history and is intentionally meant to confuse the issue. --History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:

A few further comments on Endo: Endo's failure to submit the petition for indefinite leave was beside the point, as the decision makes clear just six paragraphs below HS's excerpt above:

We are of the view that Mitsuye Endo should be given her liberty. In reaching that conclusion we do not come to the underlying constitutional issues which have been argued. For we conclude that, whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure. [para. 13]

How can you say it's beside the point? If Endo had submitted the proper paperwork she would have been cleared. Agreed the court said she should be released anyway, but the court is also saying the WRA agreed she was loyal. To me the court is chastising the WRA for being too beurocratic and that's about it.

--History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Supreme Court said that it's beside the point. Endo was granted release unconditionally, i.e., without completing the paperwork. The court found that Endo's civil liberties had been unnecessarily restricted by the WRA enactment. It didn't say "the WRA has too much bureaucracy." It said that the WRA had no authority to detain Endo, as in the last sentence of the excerpt above. --ishu 04:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It says the WRA had no authority to detain Endo once she was known to be loyal. The government didn't have a policy of detaining loyal citizens against their will. The difference is Endo didn't petition.

As I say below which you failed to acknowledge:

The pro-reparations activists when citing Endo say to this extent, "The Supreme Court ruled on Ex-Parte Endo that the government had no power to detain a concedingly loyal citizen of the United States". This is true.

What they don't say is there was no disagreement over the fact Endo was loyal. Her failure to follow protocol in petitioning for clearence is the reason she wasn't released, not that the government had a policy of detaining concedingly loyal American citizens. That's a big clarification.

--History Student 05:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC), ishu wrote:

And later:

Mitsuye Endo is entitled to an unconditional release by the War Relocation Authority. [para 23]

In other words, the Court clearly states that the administrative rules (i.e., Endo's failure to submit the petition for indefinite leave) is not sufficient reason to "detain" (court's word) her and deprive her of civil liberties.

So, again: What consensus can we reach regarding the terminology debate?

Right! No one is denying that the court said she should be released. This is a summary of Endo. Endo failed to follow proper WRA procedure for release, Endo sued, the court said Endo doesn't have to follow proper WRA procedure.

If people learn that, it's a step in the right direction. Most people who even know Endo's name don't know the reason she wasn't released to begin with was because she didn't petition to leave.

After reading the decision I don't think this is true. Petitioning to leave was pretty difficult and if she had filed the "right" forms there's no evidence she would have been released anyway. Justforasecond 06:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's total pov opinion. Thousands petitioned and left the relocation centers. The repartions activists like to tout Endo as this great victory for civil rights. In fact it's a hollow victory because all Endo had to do was file the right form and she would have been released sooner than by sueing the government.

--History Student 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. The pro-reparations activists when citing Endo say to this extent, "The Supreme Court ruled on Ex-Parte Endo that the government had no power to detain a concedingly loyal citizen of the United States". This is true.

What they don't say is there was no disagreement over the fact Endo was loyal. Her failure to follow protocol in petitioning for clearence is the reason she wasn't released, not that the government had a policy of detaining concedingly loyal American citizens. That's a big clarification.

After all, thousands of other concedingly loyal ethnic Japanese followed the proper procedure and were released without incident.

For terms regarding Endo and those similar how about "temporarily detained". Heck, you could even say "temporary suspension of civil liberties" and it would be correct.

--History Student 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Internment is fine with me. Really I'd never heard the word outside of the WWII Japanese context, and, by wiki policies we should use the commonly used name. No one calls this the "Japanese American Relocation" or "Japanese American Evacuation". Justforasecond 06:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course "internment" is fine with you. WHo are you trying to kid? The "commonly used name" has only become popular since the 1980s. It's also wrong. If it's used let readers know it's a misnomer. Ishu's opinion regarding the definition are groundless.

--History Student 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The commonly-used name has been the commonly-used name at least since the 1960s, when I first heard about the camps. 64.122.31.130 03:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am attempting to obtain some consensus regarding the Terminology debate section, since it's long been clear in this discussion that there isn't a universal terminology for this event. It's not a matter of "my opinion regarding the definition." HS clearly favors evacuation and relocation while others favor internment. The Terminology debate section already goes into detail about the pros and cons of these terms, since that section intentionally presents various arguments. While it may not have enough detail for HS, I thought it would be a good starting point to achieve some consensus in this discussion.

For the third time, let me ask: What consensus can we reach regarding the terminology debate?

Mind you, I'm not asking for any consensus on the name of the actual event, just the terms of the debate about the name. For example, I've tried to provide objective definitions of the contested terms. I've asked for alternative definitions. I've suggested that, should we agree on some objective definitions, we can then discuss the arguments for why this event does or does not meet each of the terms. While I never spelled it out, I hoped we could then translate some consensus of this terminology discussion into the relevant section in the article. The name of the section (terminology debate) basically says: "here, we agree to disagree." Can we at least try to get one section?

--ishu 01:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The term that best defines the overall experience is "Ethnic Japanese Evacuation of 1942". --History Student 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Evacuation is what you do when an area becomes uninhabitable. Now, someone like you might claim that the West Coast was only uninhabitable as far as the Nikkei were concerned, but that's really twisting the word. The Red Cross and Salvation Army run evacuation centers. I've seen a bunch of them. I've never seen one with guard towers and barbed wire. I've never seen one in which the evacuees had to petition for permission to go outside. The remnants of the barbed wire and guard towers are still there at Topaz and Minidoka, the only two camps that I've visited. They look a lot more like Stalag Luft III than they look like evacuation centers. 64.122.31.130 03:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be renamed -- wiki articles should go by their common names. However, "internment" also appears throughout the article, where the common name standard is not required. Is this appropriate? Online I see definitions of "internment" that include specifically the J-Am event. I have never heard the word used outside the J-Am context. So to some people at least, it carries no baggage beyond whatever miconceptions there may be about the J-Am event. But, I am sympathetic that there may be some people out there that have other experiences with the word. If there's a succinct, neutral replacement for it that would be fine with me. "Evacuation" is not reasonable for various reasons, one being that an evacuation usually implies moving people to safety (not the purpose of the event) and another being that it doesn't capture the nature of the camps (separation of loyal from disloyal, restrictions on leaving, etc). Justforasecond 16:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're making a decision based on the common name rather than the correct name? Are you familiar with the internment of German Americans? [4] How about Italian Americans? [5]

You haven't heard of it used outside the ethnic Japanese realm for a reason.

Evacuation is entirely reasonable. Thousands of ethnic Japanese evacuated from the military zones and never even went to the Relocation Centers. Thousands left the centers. There are hundreds of pictures available that show the nature of the camps. Too bad they keep getting deleted. The nature of the camps is decribed in the Endo decision, the three functions. Remember?

We're not writing based on your implications. We're writing what happened.

History Student - --70.129.12.61 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The wiki standard is to use the common name. As you don't disagree that this is the common name it seems the title should stay. The statements in the rest of the article could change, if there were a good argument for it. Evacuation doesn't fit, for the reasons I already stated. The article is not solely about the initial movement of people out of cities, it is about the migration and the time spent in the camps. Also, the movement wasn't for their own safety, as evacuation implies.

Thanks for the links to the Italian and German internments, I think Michelle Malkin discussed them. Like I said, for some people the word may carry baggage -- if you've got some other term I'm open to it, but evacuation won't work. Maybe we can come up with multiple terms: relocation could be used when referring to the movement of the people, and ??? for the time spent in the camps. Justforasecond 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, regardless of the standard, the common name "internment" is historically incorrect. If Wikipedia intends on building any credibility perhaps they need to perform a standard review. You may think evacuation implies safety. That's an opinion. It should be noted though that the purpose of the evacuation was espionage/potential sabatage which is a safety issue. These are historical facts. Your reasons are not reasons they are opinions. Let me summarize again so you understand:

1. Those who left the West Coast Military Zones between February 19th and March 25th 1942 did so with no restrictions. In fact the government assisted them in evacauting.

2. Those who had not made arrangments to evacuate after March 25, 1942 were sent to Relocation Centers. The first evacuated people started leaving the Relocation Centers in June, 1942. A petition to leave was necessary along with an oath of loyalty to the United States and the means to support one's self.

3. Internment refers to the Dept. of Justice housing enemy aliens under the Enemy Alien Act of 1798.

What, is Wikipedia a form for people to make up words? No. The history shows the event was an evacuation from the West Coast Military Zones. From there we can discuss the WRA camps, the internment camps, court cases, etc.

History Student--200.88.223.98 22:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've said my piece about this. Wiki policy is pretty clear on article names and also clear about consensus. BTW Your RFC is ongoing. I and a few others would appreciate it if you'd make a statement there. No one wants an editor with your credentials to leave wikipedia, but we need to have a chat to keep things going smoothly here. Justforasecond 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just done a review on every article related to this history and each one has a pro-reparations pov slant. I even searched "David Lowman" and there has been a slime on his repuation up on Wikipedia since last year. I'm not too impressed with Wiki policy either. Admittedly I came on to Wikipedia not expecting to be impressed. No wonder they got busted for sliming that other guy last year. It's a neat idea but doesn't measure up on accuracy or scrutiny. I'll not recommend it and I do a lot of recommending.

History Student --69.57.136.39 05:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitsuye Endo

Sorry guys I am not going to be able to keep up with this discussion but I'll give things a shot now and then. Putting people in camps in the middle of nowhere with fencing and guards and not letting them leave for the purpose of preventing them from interacting with the rest of society is "keeping them in custody". For the present discussion its not a question of right/wrong, but its whether they were "free to leave", which I *think* I've read either on this article or the talk page. As for the graph, it seemed to me you were talking about the petitions to leave the camp that were decreasing, not the population. Yes, the population in most camps decreased over time, so I guess people could leave somehow, but there were still tens of thousands in the camps by 1945. And, yes, if the folks managed to pack up and sell their homes within a month they weren't sent to camps, but cmon, have a little sympathy. Find a poster on a telephone pole that tells you to pack up in a month and you might be a little frazzled too.

Anyway, I've just read the Endo case.

First off the case wasn't decided until December of 44. As far as I can tell she had, by then, been in a camp for well over two years.

Next: you are right again that Mitsuye filed the wrong paperwork. She applied for a "grant of leave" not for "indefinite leave". A grant of leave doesn't actually let you leave the camp. What a raw deal.

And: the requirements for indefinite leave seem more than a little difficult to accomplish from inside a camp. If you weren't wealthy and didn't have family members outside the camp (parents?), you had to find a job that the camp approved of. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing not many businesses would be interested in hiring someone who was going to be in a camp for some indeterminiate amount of time while the gov't processes paperwork at a glacial pace.

Finally: the importance of the case is not in the minutae of the particular bureacratic nightmare, but that the Court declared that requiring her to file ANY PAPERWORK WHATSOEVER was illegitimate. If there was no reason to hold the woman, she must be released -- rules and procedures and forms made no difference in the matter. Holding her was apparently neither constitutional, nor demanded by 9066 (though the Court seemed to dodge the constitutional issue)

So, HS, I do like that you are bringing new information here, but in this case I think Endo was getting screwed and the Supreme Court thought so too. She was not free to leave, in fact the WRA made if quite difficult to leave, when they had no reason to hold her. The government does have more leeway with moving people around and telling them what to do during a war, but in this case depriving Mitsuye of her liberty, both without any legal basis and unconstitutionally went too far. The issue brought before the court was in no way whether she filed the correct paperwork.

Quotes from the decision follow.[6] Justforasecond 06:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting old. You guys are total pov posers attempting to masquerade as unbiased. I pointed out the historical facts and in response I am getting pov opinion and straw men. No, temporary leave isn't permanent leave. That should be pretty self-explanatory. The WRA had offices in major cities to aid in resettling and finding employment. Thousands did so. No, the government didn't want people unable to care for themselves begging in the street. Certain criteria needed to be met, ie the ability to support one's self. It didn't require millions and thousands of business hired them. The graph speaks for itself. I understand how hard it is for you to dispute and how convenient it is for you to say you read it wrong.

HS, the pov posers part aside I can't agree with this either. There are plenty of homeless people and people on welfare these days and no one suggests that taking them to the middle of nowhere while the government looks for a job for them is a reasonable idea. And it doesn't look like the government was doing a great job looking for jobs for these people. During the middle of a war you'd think there'd be a labor shortage Justforasecond 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And from what source do you conclude the government wasn't trying hard enough to re-settle these people? Or is that once again just your opinion? You might also try to remember that we are currently not fighting WW2. They were removed from the coast because the military ordered it for reasons of security. I understand it's convenient for you to forget that.

--History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire discussion is degenerating into far-left reparations activist stupidy. I've seen it before and I'm losing patience.

Calling everyone here a "reparations activist" is testing everyones patience. Whatever content you want to add is OK to discuss. I want this articled shifted away from america-bad, japanese-americans-good; but please do not use this again. The picture of the hair salon alone is a very valuable addition. Justforasecond 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you better start providing historical facts to support your opinions. Quite frankly you're blathering.

--History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Supreme Court said the WRA determined she was loyal so filing the paperwork isn't necessary. After the decision anyone who was determined by the WRA to be loyal could leave without petitioning. That's it! (This was a non-issue by 1944 because the vast majority who wanted to leave had already done so.)

No, that's not it. The Supreme court ruling means the camp process, beyond a short initial period, had been illegal. Justforasecond 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh it did not! It ruled that Endo should be let go and that's it. --History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

She was free to leave under conditions like submitting the properwork. You guys brought up, the "free to leave" quote as a straw man. I have always maintained petition was necessary. At any rate if you want to discuss Endo you need to discuss why she wasn't released sooner. You also need to disucss Korematsu and Hirabayashi which deemed the evacuation constitutional.

Apparently she couldn't leave unless she obtained a job (through the mail?) in an acceptable community and went through a long waiting period while someone processed the paperwork. Justforasecond 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not through the mail. Through the various administrative offices at each relocation center that provided information, job contacts and housing so they could leave and get on with their lives. You really don't know anything about the program if you're asking these kinds of questions. In which case what is your purpose? Why not have me edit the article then you can learn something.

--History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys are trying your hardest to explain away what happened and why because you have a pov that is pro-reparations. I'm getting tired of talking past you and your weak explanations. Not to mention the crappy article is still up and locked and hasn't been edited. I'm going to start editing the article so it's historically correct.

--History Student 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Conditions for leaving the camp:

(1) where the applicant proposes to accept an employment offer or an offer of support that has been investigated and approved by the Authority; or (2) where the applicant does not intend to work but has 'adequate financial resources to take care of himself' and a Relocation Officer has investigated and approved 'public sentiment at his proposed destination', or (3) where the applicant has made arrangements to live at a hotel or in a private home approved by a Relocation [323 U.S. 283, 293] Officer while arranging for employment; or (4) where the applicant proposes to accept employment by a federal or local governmental agency; or (5) where the applicant is going to live with designated classes of relatives. But even if an applicant meets those requirements, no leave will issue when the proposed place of residence or employment is within a locality where it has been ascertained that 'community sentiment is unfavorable' or when the applicant plans to go to an area which has been closed by the Authority to the issuance of indefinite leave. 12 Nor will such leave issue if the area where the applicant plans to reside or work is one which has not been cleared for relocation. 13 Moreover, the applicant agrees to give the Authority prompt notice of any change of employment or residence

A citizen who is concededly loyal presents no problem of espionage or sabotage. Loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind not of race, creed, or color. He who is loyal is by definition not a spy or a saboteur. When the power to detain is derived from the power to protect the war effort against espionage and sabotage, detention which has no relationship to that objective is unauthorized.

Justforasecond 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your point is here. It's pretty self explanatory.

--History Student 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

HS you can't call everyone here POV posers. It's rude and breaks multiple policies. Justforasecond 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great! Just call me the Mitsue Endo of Wikipedia! What a joke!

--History Student 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that the WRA required a petition for leave, and that Endo did not file such a petition. It is also a historical fact that the Supreme Court determined that the petition requirement posed an undue hardship on the civil liberties of the WRA detainees. HS seems to believe that the failure to file the petition is the more relvant historical fact. Is this correct? Or would it be satisfactory to note first that Endo did not file the petition, and then note that the Supreme Court declared it to infringe upon the rights of the detainees? --ishu 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, like Korematsu and Hirabayashi, I suspect Endo was advised to not petition for permanent leave in order to challenge the policy in court.

The repartions image that Korematsu valiantly challenged the evacuation order in defense of civil liberties is a total myth. In reality, Korematsu wanted to remain in the militarized zone with his girlfriend who was not bound by the evacuation order, had plastic surgery to pass himself as a person of Pacific Islander/Mexican ancestory and was picked up and caught lying to the F.B.I. - after which he got the attention of the A.C.L.U. who decided he was about the best choice they had for an individual needed to challenge the evacuation order in court.

Regarding Endo, which historical fact is more important of the two is irrelevent. What is important is clarifying that Endo was not granted released because she failed to petition - not because the government had a policy of detaining concedingly loyal American citizens.

I believe you two are deliberately convoluting the discussion. The line regarding "internment" is historically incorrect and needs to be changed.

--History Student 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as Endo, I wouldn't be surprised if she had been advised to stay in the camp while the case was proceeding. In that light the two years cited in the opinions following the decision could be a bit disingenuous. But the importance of the case is not that she wasn't released because she didn't ask with the right forms, the point was that no one had any business requiring her to do anything. I also haven't seen anything saying that she would have been released in a timely fashion had she filed the "correct" paperwork. I think it is reasonable to put the details in the Endo article (its pretty slim now) but I'd wait till that article is more fleshed out before including them in here. Justforasecond 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

History Student writes:

The line regarding "internment" is historically incorrect and needs to be changed.

In all seriousness, can you clarify which line you are referring to? --ishu 23:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

During the war, an appeal contesting the government's authority to intern people based on their ancestry reached the Supreme Court, but the court upheld the government's right to intern.

--History Student 04:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. To circle back, please review This is progress: Supreme court decision(s) to uphold exclusion. Since I (and several others) agree with you on this point, I presented an alternative to this language. You have not offered final comments on the proposed revision. If we can agree on a revision (not necessarily what I have proposed), it can be promoted to the article. --ishu 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a long thread. What alternative did you present? Once I read it I will tell if it is 100% correct. I wish to avoid half truths and vagueness and the entire article needs to be more precise.

Here are two reasons why the sentence is wrong.

1. Korematsu, Hirabayashi and Yasui are generally what is considered the "Wartime Supreme Court Cases". These cases dealt with the evacuation and had nothing to do with the misnomer "internment".

2. Endo dealt with the WRA holding a concedingly loyal American citizen and the Supreme Court sided with Endo therefore you can't say "...but the court upheld the government's right to intern..." regardless if you beleive Endo was technically interned or not (which she wasn't).

--History Student 16:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd like to request two things:

1. Please refer to the discussion This is progress: Supreme court decision(s) to uphold exclusion, particularly toward the top where I wrote "Can we reword..." This is where I proposed the alternative definition.
2. Add relevant comments in that section (This is progress: Supreme court decision(s) to uphold exclusion).

I am intentionally avoiding discussion or quoting of the statement here so that the relevant discussion will be contained in the appropriate section.

--ishu 16:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean this?

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity." A still-controversial issue is whether the threat of espionage by Japanese Americans was a legitimate concern of President Roosevelt and his administration.

Quite a bit of spin, don't you think? Lots of pro-reparations buzzwords, too.

First off, "landmark decision" is vague. Secondly Japanese is a national origin not a racial group and no other members of the Asian race were evacuated and for that matter the Japanese affected were those in the military zones.

As for "curtailing civil rights" that comment is related to the WRA relocation centers, not the evacuation itself. The Supreme Court said in Korematsu that EO 9066 was nothing more than an evacuation order.

Here is my example:

In Korematsu vs United States 1944, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 for the constitutionality of the evacuation saying in part, "There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot --by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight -- now say that at the time these actions were unjustified." The decison was vacated by a lower federal court in a coram nobis case in San Francisco in 1983, but Korematsu vs United States has never been overturned by the Supreme Court and is still good law.

I'd save the espionage concerns for another section. The story behind the coram nobis decisions a'la Aiko Herzig and also be explained in more detail in another section.

I am back to spoofing my IP as once again "History Student" has been blocked. History Student - --69.57.136.39 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I will respond at This is progress: Supreme court decision(s) to uphold exclusion so that other editors may follow this complete discussion. I will not post further follow-ups to this topic under this heading. --ishu 18:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh yea! I'm here to set the record straight!

Well, I can tell by the zone of the "revisionist garbage" comment that you're real open minded about this history!

Just fyi, my additions have been around a lot longer than the 1980s when you version of the history was written (re-written).

Anyway, I challenge any of you to a debate of this history.

I couldn't believe the blatantly pro-repatations tone of what is supposed to be an unbiased source for students. But that's pretty much the entire history of the Japanese American Reparations Movment.

I look forward to filling in the conveniently missing chapters of the history.

By all means...please point out what you believe to be factually incorrect. However, I strongly recommend that you provide citations from credible sources so your claims can be verified. Gmatsuda 23:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, your definition of credbile is anything you agree with. That's real honest.

However wrote this piece in the evacuation was obviously a member of the reparations movement. Was it you?

However it was has a bad habit of manipulating and cherry picking history to the detriment of students interested in the 100% truth regarding this history.

You will find my sources are not only credible but have nothing to do with the opinions of reparations activists which make up the majority of sources on this page.

P.S. I hope TopKnife comes back to the discussion!

The man knows his history!

What sources are you referring to? Please list them by all means.

Actually, my definition of "credible" is whatever is considered to be anything based on legitimate research by estabished scholars in the field who have demonstrated their expertise in this area. After all, what else should we be basing this article on? Conjecture and opinion based on little more than gut feelings? Gmatsuda 23:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, when these "established scholars" are being funded by the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund, that causes a bit of a conflict of interest doesn't it? Not to mention they are almost all from the far left.

But if you want sources they are all raw:

"The Evacuated People" (1946) published by the WRA is a good source.

"Selective Service Special Monograph Number 10" was footnoted.

Material came from "Hawaii Under the Rising Sun" by Prof. John J. Stephan, an excellent read.

Of course MAGIC by David Lowman, 2/3rd of which is nothing but raw documents and was labled as "controversial" by who wrote the piece here.

You quote Peter Irons, but you left out this quote...

"...There was no question that Tachibana headed an espionage ring on the West Coast that enlisted a number of Japanese Americans, both aliens and citizens (sic), nor that the government knew the identities of its members..."

You seem to disregard the Tachibana Spy Ring and everything that is contrary to what you want people to think.

I could and most likely will go on. I however found to sources for your comments. Many of the comments were not just opinion or interpretation they were just plain wrong...

Again, the MAGIC Cables have been so discredited, even by US Government officials at the time--one even said that they played no role in the decision to intern--that it's a total joke that they are being cited here as evidence that the internment was justified.

As for the Tachibana Ring, yes, it existed and yes, they were known to the FBI. But every member of that ring was deported long before Pearl Harbor was attacked and they were totally ineffective.

"Just plain wrong?" Could you elaborate with evidence, please?

Whether or not a source cited was funded by the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund, why does that automatically discredit them if the research they did was scholarly and verifiable? You paint a broad brush with your statement and doesn't help your own credibility (no offense intended). Gmatsuda 00:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

They haven't been discredited at all, only by the reparations activists who had no knowledge of them in the first place until David Lowman wrote about it in the New York Times. Have you read his book or do you just read what you want to believe?

Which government official at the time? Start citing your sources.

Irons himself says Japanese Americans were involved and I'm no fan of Irons. He's on your side.

Because the CLPEF was set up by the money bill to "re-educate the American people" regarding this history. Too bad for you it's backfiring.

You folks have to done more to damage the reputation of Japanese Americans than Pearl Harbor ever did.

They have been discredited by a number of legitimate scholars. What are Lowman's scholarly credentials (I don't know...I'm asking)?

The government official (Edward Ennis) was cited earlier in this discussion.

Irons said Japanese American were involved in what exactly?

As for your statement about the CLPEF, I'm laughing.

I'm done with this discussion. There's no point debating those who have no desire to learn the truth about the internment of Japanese Americans. I'll help you. Yes, they were all spies and saboteurs. The US was right to lock them all up. What they did wrong was let them go. I'm sure that would've made you happy. Gmatsuda

Edward Ennis? Ha! Lowman blows his comments away as you would know if you had read Lowman's book. Considering Lowman was the National Security Agency Executive assigned the task of declassifying the MAGIC intercepts and a decades long intelligence professional as well as a graduate of Stanford School of Law, I'll say his credentials over some CLPEF paid PH.D. lackey any day.

As for Curtis Munson another guy the reparations folks have put on a pedistal, he was an L.A. businessman who enjoyed playing intelligence agent before the war. He has absolutely no qualifications or credibility in intelligence.

That the "Personal Justice Denied" Commission used that guy as the only source of intelligence over the Office of Naval Intelligence or MAGIC transcripts, doesn't say a lot for their credibility either.

By the way, here's another famous quote from Munson that the Commission didn't print:

"In the first place there are not so many people of Japanese descent in the U.S. that in an emergency they could not all be thrown into a concentration camp in 48 hours. Of course you might get a few Chinamen too because they all look alike. But the looks are a great aid to rounding them up and in keeping them away from sabotage and truoblesome pastimes."

-Extract from a Munson report to Carter October 22, 1941

That real professionalism. After Pearl Harbor, Munson faded away never to be heard from again.

Yea, right. Let's see if the CLPEF made up entirely of folks with Japanese surnames are going to give scholars with views contrary to their agenda money for research or publication. I'm sure you folks are laughing all the way to the bank with taxpayer dollars. Too bad the price is the reputation of all Japanese Americans.

Fine. Run away. I'm not here to convince the unconvincable, just set the record straight regarding this history and I'll have like minded people join me.

You want to try a debate without running away, let me know.

With Gmatsuda's kind permission, I'd like to continue this discussion for a bit.

I don't feel qualified to discuss the relationship between the MAGIC cables and internment in depth as I've not read them myself. However, I don't remember them being mentioned in any sort of official documents within the War Department before internment. (My source is American Concentration Camps, vols.1 and 2, Roger Daniels, ed. {New York: Garland, 1989). I anticipate your challenge to Daniels in this regard, and respond that the work referenced is composed entirely of primary source material.) I therefore have some questions in good faith: Are the MAGIC cables still classified (or were they in 1989)? Would important decision-makers in the War Department such as DeWitt and McCloy have had access to MAGIC, or received summaries from some other agency? Who in fact did have access to MAGIC, and how integral were those people to the decision to intern? I've seen MAGIC dropped a few times on this page, with some contention as to its relevance, but the evidence stated here for or against its inclusion seems incomplete.

De Witt and McCloy would NOT have had access to MAGIC intercepts or even the analysis. Neither had Need-to-Know. 64.122.31.130 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As for Munson, the Munson Report itself intrigues me. Have you read it? I get the impression that Munson himself was a "soft racist", and the report contains phrases which seem to support internment - when taken out of context. The report as a whole clearly conveys Munson's opinion that internment is unnecessary. I won't argue Munson's credentials with you; I get the impression that he's a friend of a friend sort of guy. However, what interests me is that his report was physically in FDR's hands before internment - which means that FDR had evidence which contradicted the arguments put forth by the War Department. Although that evidence might have been flimsy due to the source, this report was comissioned by FDR himself; one would think that if FDR were given the suggestion that perhaps there was more to the Japanese American situation on the West Coast than what he was being told by the War Department, he would support further investigation.

I am also curious to hear what your thoughts are regarding the FBI's list of Japanese American "threats" which they rounded up in the days following December 7. This seems to me to indicate that there was a pre-existing effort to identify possible saboteurs before December 7, and that any realistic potential saboteurs would probably have been caught in this mass arrest.--Ogthor 09:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The FBI roundup was a "decapitation" operation, in which any adult Nikkei male in a community-leadership position was removed and isolated until the Feds verified the lack of threat. This is the ONE action in the whole internment mess which actually makes sense, when combined with rapid investigation and return of the arrestees once cleared. 64.122.31.130 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The MAGIC intercepts were not mentioned because the entire program was highly classified.

Here is a brief summary. I have included portions in the Wikipedia article. If you have not read David Lowman's book MAGIC, I highly recommend doing so.

"In March 1939, a new code emerged providing Japanese diplomatic communications between its embassies and consulates throughout the world. Led by William Friedman and Frank Rowlett, it was the responsibility of the SIS (Signal Intelligence Service) to break the code and develop an analog machine that could decipher the diplomatic messages. It took eighteen months to crack the code, and they named it PURPLE. At the cost of $684.65 in taxpayer money, they built the first machine to decipher Japanese diplomatic messages. It was named PURPLE analog. PURPLE analog performed the exact function of the Japanese code machine – in reverse. Certainly the most bang for the buck in the history of the United States taxpayer.

All high level Japanese diplomatic traffic intercepted and decrypted by the Americans came to be known as MAGIC. It was said only magicians could produce such an accomplishment! Navy cryptanalytic unit OP-20-G (which focused on Japanese naval code starting June, 1942), and SIS produced all MAGIC intelligence that in its raw form was available to just ten men. Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Director of Naval Intelligence Admiral Theodore Wilkinson, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Harold Stark, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall, Army Director of Military Intelligence General Sherman Miles, Chief of Army War Plans General Leonard T. Gerow, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt – they were the only men in a position to make a knowledgeable decision.

MAGIC was “sanitized” to ensure the secrecy of the source and disseminated to the FBI, lower levels at the Office of Naval Intelligence and Army Military Intelligence, to use in conjunction with their own information. The order was use phrases such as “highly reliable sources,” “various sources,” and “highly confidential sources” when preparing their confidential reports.

The MAGIC program was second in secrecy only to the Manhattan Project. Great pains were taken to ensure the Japanese never discovered their diplomatic code (or any code) had been cracked. After the war the Japanese developers of PURPLE refused to accept the Americans had cracked their code. They went to their deaths believing they had been betrayed."

To answer you questions:

1. The MAGIC cables were declassified in 1977 and David Lowman was the NSA executive given the task of doing so.

2. Dewitt and McCloy would have had access to sanitized intelligence derived from MAGIC but would not have had access to the raw intelligence or knowledge of the program. Of course the SIS had knowledge of the program but the raw intelligence was limited to the ten men listed above.

Uh . . .no. Neither was in a position with Need-to-Know. 64.122.31.130 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Regarding the reference to the MAGIC cables in Personal Justice Denied (pp.471-475), the Commision had never even heard of MAGIC intelligence until their report was completed. Shortly after the report was released, David Lowman http://www.athenapressinc.com/ wrote an article in the New York Times that questioned the absence of MAGIC in the report. The commissioners had never heard of it!

Without any expertise whatsoever on the subject of military intelligence in general and MAGIC in particular, the commission's staff quickly "analyzed" MAGIC communications intelligence and reached conclusions in a hastily prepared addendum about it which were contrary to the opinions of every recognized authority on MAGIC for the last 47 years.

Not long after it was released the mistake-laden addendum so quickly written to cover the commissions ignorance was quietly withdrawn.

And hears the kicker. The mistake-laden addendum written up after the report (produced by people who had never even heard of MAGIC and had absolutely no authority to comment officially on it) is the same stuff being provided as "extraordinary detail" from Personal Justice Denied (P.471-475) - WORD FOR WORD!

To summarize, p.471-475 was never a part of the original report and you'll not find it in original versions of the CWRIC report. The it exists in later volumes today after the commission originally withdrew it after admitting how ridiculous it is only serves to continue to undermine the credibilty of the Commission on Wartime Internment and Relocation of Civilians.

4. Yes, I've read the Munson report. My point is Munson was not an intelligence professional and his report was more opinion than evidence and he certainly had no knowledge of MAGIC or for that matter MIS or ONI intelligence. Yet, today the reparations activists have put him on this pedistal as some sort of expert because they believe he supports their cause.

5. Not only was there a pre-exisitng effort by the F.B.I. there was success. As Ringle states in his report the concern wasn't just for those who were already involved in espianage, it was those who would be predisposed to do so if the opportunity arose -as exemplified in the Nihau Incident immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the behavior of ethnic Japanese in colonies invaded by Japan, especially in the Philippines.

Reparations activists like to point out that J. Edgar Hoover didn't support evacuation. Actually, Hoover waffled on the issue, but his San Diego and Seattle offices were fully in support of the evacuation. The Portland and Los Angeles FBI field offices leaned heavily in support. Hoover wanted to ensure the Dept. of Justice played a role in security and he knew that the evacuation would diminish that role. Intelligence officials also knew that civil cases would leak intelligence related to the war effort.

Lastly, MAGIC intelligence failed to provide names and addresses of ethnic Japanese in the United States who were assisting Japan. The government knew all Japanese were not involved but that didn't reduce the threat of espionage.

Lastly I would question the oopen mindedness of an author who titles his book "America's Concentration Camps". Do you think the author is capable of providing the 100% truth regarding this history or do you think there is a bias?

I would urge you to read the Lowman book and check out "Internment Archives" to balance your sources.

I was aghast at the content in this article before I contributed and the sources as well. They are all pro reparataions the members of which have dug themselves in a hole so deep that it will be difficult to climb out with their reputations intact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.202 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Editing

This article seems to be in the middle of some pretty serious editing by a few different users. I am a relatively new user and don't feel qualified to intervene for fear of doing more harm than good, but after perusing some of the pertinent wikipages on the subject, I believe several edits could be tagged as vandalism, blatant non-NPOV, and disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I'd appreciate someone more knowledgable about these situations taking a look. --Ogthor 08:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The editing is reflective of the controversy surrounding this history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.202 (talk • contribs).

I just reverted some edits by User:207.207.79.202 which were pretty clearly POV/nonsense. Everyone needs to keep a cool head if this article is going to survive. Phidauex 14:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of cool heads, I really wish we could make the article reflective of the controversy, not the editing. We need some kind of synthesis of these controversies, backed up by references. User:Gmatsuda and others seek to excise references to Magic, for example, because it wasn't relevant or effective. Magic cropped up two years ago, and it won't go away. Why not have Japanese American internment and/or Magic document:

• The contents of the intercepts, as they are known today (generally)
• The contents of the intercepts, as they are known today (specific to the recruitment efforts)
• Who had access to how much of their contents at what time (generally)
• Who had access to how much of their contents at what time (specific to the recruitment efforts)

Then, hopefully, we can confine the controversy to how influential the Magic intercepts were to EO9066.

--ishu 15:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? What's your definition of vandalism? From my perspective this entire was "vandalism" before the recent changes. I challenge you to find any historical inaccuracy in the added material. This article has been stalked by the reparations activists for too long and if Wikipedia intends on being taken seriously it needs to be a lot more honest and objective and that includes the new content so —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.202 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Although it seems the issue of the recent edits has been resolved (at least for the time being), I feel compelled to justify my above assertions, especially given your above challenge regarding the definition of vandalism. Specifically, I thought the large image presently at the top of the article could fall under the subsection "Image vandalism" on the Wikipedia:Vandalism page. As I qualified in my initial statement, I am relatively new to the editing side of Wikipedia, and merely wished to point out what could be vandalism so that an editor more well trained to handle these situations could make an assessment.--Ogthor 10:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense? According to who, Phideaux? You? I challenge you to point out one historical inaccuracy in my added content. Go visit the JACL website if you want some twisted history. Wikipedia is supposed to be about 100% accuracy and suffice to say this article in its past form was far from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.202 (talk • contribs) 12:26 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is progress: Supreme court decision(s) to uphold exclusion

So let's get serious about editing.

Here's an example of some blatantly wrong history in this article. Where is the outcry for citations? Is not surprising the criticism is totally one-sided? Well not for me because I know how the reparations activists tick. "During the war, an appeal contesting the government's authority to intern people based on their ancestry reached the Supreme Court, but the court upheld the government's right to intern." Wrong. Blatantly flat out wrong. The Supreme Court Decisions upheld the government's right to evacuate from the military zones. They had nothing to do with the Relocation Centers and even less to do with the DOJ internment program. Obviously providing people with blatantly incorrect information isn't an issue here, though. You people are too concerned with signing posts, pov forks and my Tom Kawakita edit that was removed!!! What a joke. Regards - History Student--History Student 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's clarify which specific court decisions are at issue. I'm quoting from the relevant Wiki articles.

• Hirabayashi v. United States: The Court held that the application of curfews against members of a minority group were constitutional when the nation was at war with the country from which that group originated.
• Korematsu v. United States: In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government, ruling that the exclusion order leading to Japanese American Internment was not unconstitutional. The opinion, written by Supreme Court justice Hugo Black, held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent.
• Ex parte Endo: [T]he Supreme Court ruled that, regardless of whether the United States Government had the right to exclude people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast during World War II, they could not continue to detain a citizen whom the government itself conceded was loyal to the United States.

The article is poorly worded at best on this point.

In paragraph 2 of Korematsu[7], Justice Black writes:

It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.

Can we reword something like this:

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity." A still-controversial issue is whether the threat of espionage by Japanese Americans was a legitimate concern of President Roosevelt and his administration.

I see this as a two-fer. First, it corrects the original sentence. Second, it inserts the military-necessity controversy in the introduction in a concise manner. (Please note that I would prefer to keep the intro at 2 paragraphs; 3 maximum.) Suggestions are welcome. --ishu 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds alright to me. "Student", please be civil and assume good faith. Ishu is behaving more than reasonably. Justforasecond 05:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what, Justasecond? My IP is no longer banned so perhaps my civlility level has increased just a notch. You may also notice I have yet to commit a blanket edit of the article no matter how poorly written it is.

Discussion of the cases should include quotes from the opinions. I provided concurring quotes from the opinions for Hirabayashi and Korematsu. Let the reparations folks provide dissenting opinion quotes from Justice Murphy. As long as the reader knows which are dissenting and wich are concurring. All to often I read Murphey's opinion on pro-repartions sites with no explanation that his opinion went down 6-3.

See, I even learned to sign my posts.

Regards, History Student--History Student 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to change "was a legitimate concern of" to "presented a pressing public necessity to". I believe this change is cleaner stylistically and makes the nature of the controversy more clear. Comments? --Ogthor 06:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is picking nits, but repeating the language of Korematsu is implied, so I don't think it clarifies the controversy at all simply to repeat "pressing public necessity." The controversy revolves around several issues :

• Whether there was any evidence to suggest a threat. User:History Student and others have made a valuable contribution to the article, showing that there was at least some evidence, namely the Magic intercepts as evidence of Japanese (military/gov't) infiltration of Japanese American organizations and communities.
• What was the contribution of threat evidence to EO9066. Citation-wise, this point is murkier, since there's no definitive evidence regarding which factors weighed how much in the decision.
• What other factors contributed to the decision. Internment critics ("pro-reparations") point to statements like DeWitt's quotable "A Jap's a Jap" as evidence of racial guilt-by-association.

This is a side issue, but internment critics and supporters appear to be talking past one another:

• Critics: The relative infrequency (or absence, to some) of criminal activity means that racism was the reason for internment.
• Supporters: There is evidence of disloyalty and Japanese government efforts to recruit Japanese Americans, which is sufficient to justify exclusion and internment.

Obviously, examples of disloyalty and subversive activities existed, and they are not mutually exclusive with racist motivations. Let's try to avoid either/or explanations, except when there is clear evidence to support a or b. To bring this back around to Korematsu, the way I see it, one side is saying there was no "pressing public necessity," while the other says there was a "public necessity" (i.e., reduce the risk of espionage/sabotage by a "fifth column") which was "pressing" due to the war combined with evidence of disloyalty and a handful of legitimately treasonous acts. --ishu 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken and agreed to. I think I've identified my intial misgivings with the original phrase; could we change "legitimate concern of" to "legitimate concern for"?--Ogthor 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No objection. --ishu 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I just realized "espionage" should probably be changed to "espionage or sabotage". --Ogthor 06:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:History Student (hereafter: HS) writes:

Discussion of the cases should include quotes from the opinions.

I agree. However, extensive discussion should go in the body of the article, not in the lead section. While this is a Wikipedia guideline, it also makes sense: A reader should get a general sense of the topic from the lead section, and the lead section should be a fair summary of the article's contents. If the Legal legacy section doesn't work for you, we can consider adding a separate section. With that in mind, let's try to work on my suggestion above as a replacement for the sentence that HS rightly highlighted. --ishu 01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree but a non pov summary should be abvailable in the lead section for those who only read the lead section. --History Student 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm a little lost in this discussion, but Ishu seems to be moving things in the right direction. I do wonder why this article was so POV before, though. Does it take really loud edits (caps, huge pictures) to get the ball rolling here? Justforasecond 01:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. I don't know why you think things are so great. The crappy pov version of this article is still locked on the site. I believe Ishu is being civil but he also has a pov that he wishes to promote. --History Student 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm following the references that I find, and I'm trying to work with you to stack up everything so we can have a verifiable, referenced, NPOV article. Maybe we can start with this one issue regarding the court decisions. Substantive input from HS and other internment critics might help us to get at least one verifiable, referenced, NPOV sentence in the lead section. Then we can move on to the next item. --ishu 02:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

First off, I'd like to thank History Student for presenting an alternative to the text I proposed. While this process is slow, it is collaborative. I hope that we can continue this way, more or less. I'd like to emphasize here that we're discussing a few sentences for placement in the lead section.

At 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC), History Student wrote:

You mean this?

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, arguing that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity." A still-controversial issue is whether the threat of espionage by Japanese Americans was a legitimate concern of President Roosevelt and his administration.

Quite a bit of spin, don't you think? Lots of pro-reparations buzzwords, too.

Please remember that we're dealing with the lead section, which should deal briefly with the main issues. So it has to touch on a lot of stuff in a little space. Let's start with the first sentence above, since HS wants to leave out the espionage discussion in the second sentence. If you read Korematsu, you will find that the key language used in the proposed text mirrors the actual language of the majority decision. I'd rather not post pages of dueling quotations, but paragraph 2 of Korematsu lays out the issues quite clearly:

It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can. [emphasis added]

The first sentence of the proposed edit mirrors the court's actual language. If we want to be more expansive, we can change exclusion to exclusion, removal, and detention. Detention is threaded throughout Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and Endo. Not only did the court use the word detention extensively, but it also supported detention as an outgrowth of EO9066 and its offshoots. HS objects to the use of racial group but the Court saw this in those terms. In fact, Japanese was considered to be a distinct "racial group" back then by some. Either way, the treatment of Japanese Americans was the issue in these cases, and the court explicitly referred to the cases as treatment of a racial group. Nobody ever suggested including Chinese or other groups we now call "Asian" in EO9066 etc. When referring to the cases, I'm trying to adhere to the language of the decisions as much as possible.

HS proposes the following alternative:

In Korematsu vs United States 1944, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 for the constitutionality of the evacuation saying in part, "There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot --by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight -- now say that at the time these actions were unjustified." The decision was vacated by a lower federal court in a coram nobis case in San Francisco in 1983, but Korematsu vs United States has never been overturned by the Supreme Court and is still good law.

First off, I see nothing factually wrong with this copy. I oppose quoting the decision because I think it's not necessary to go into that much detail--in the lead section. I think it's enough--for the lead section--to say that the Supreme Court declared it's legal and constitutional. That's why I'm proposing the language "curtail civil rights" and "pressing public necessity," since it is general enough for the lead section, but provides the basic logic that supported exclusion, removal, and detention. Since the decision itself was never overturned, there's no reason to state that it's still valid--in the lead section. I also think that the Court upheld the legality/constitutionality of the event in the several decisions we have discussed, so it's better not to specify any particular decision--in the lead section. I think we do not need to decide now how to interpret the coram nobis decisions, and I would prefer not to mention it directly in the lead section because they do not affect the legal legitimacy of the event as there has been no change to the legal status of the decisions.

Let me propose the following revision of the second sentence:

While it is clear that there were intelligence reports describing espionage by Japanese Americans, a still-controversial issue is the extent to which these reports influenced decisions by the Roosevelt Administration.

I favor inclusion of the second sentence because:

• It addresses the "pressing public necessity" aspect of the court cases, and alludes to the coram nobis litigation without actually discussing it or passing any judgment on it
• It summarizes the main controversy over this event: the necessity of the mass exclusion, removal, and detention.
• I think it is a fair statement of the controversy--that is, the apparent disconnect between "conventional assumptions" and the "military necessity" arguments.

HS may not like it, but this issue is controversial: one group of people believes strongly that this event was driven by a legitimate threat of espionage/sabotage, and another group of people believes just as strongly that it was not motivated by a legitimate threat. I suspect that a large majority of people doesn't know what to believe, or doesn't care, if that matters at all. I have not opposed discussion of the controversy in the body of the article--including HS's take on it.

A while back, I indicated that, although we do know there were reports of espionage--i.e., there was a threat, we do not know the extent to which these reports contributed to decisions regarding EO9066 and its offshoots. To restate, I am not saying there was "no legitimate threat," only that I can't conclude that the threats did or did not justify the magnitude of the response. I have not reviewed the documents, books, and articles that contest this issue one way or the other. From browsing this talk page, there are some timeline issues that have been raised. I have some responses to other comments, but I wanted to focus on the bigger issues with respect to the proposed text.

Finally, I think that the lead section should mention the security concerns, including the existence of reports of espionage--again, without going into too much detail. I'd like to agree on this one passage about the court decisions before we go on to another issue. (Please recall that I selected the court decisions issue because HS correctly pointed out this particular factual error.) --ishu 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ishu, thanks for the in-depth analysis. I'm not totally comfortable with the "still controversial" characterization. As far as I can tell, to the people that care, the controversial element of the episode is not whether the threat of espionage affected Roosevelt's decision-making. Even if we had *more* evidence to that effect (do we have any counter evidence?), the internment would still be controversial. We should not label one aspect controversial, as it implies the others aren't. Justforasecond 05:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, could you clarify some of the other issues that would be uncontroversial "by disassociation?" To me, the military necessity issue is the crux of the matter. Key issues, such as the size of the exclusion zone and the timing stem directly from the military necessity. And most other issues, such as the locations of the WRA camps and the forced removal are outgrowths of these key issues. Without the military necessity, the whole affair is not legitimate, and that is precisely the point of Korematsu. This also seems to be the point of User:History Student: Indeed there was military necessity. In all honesty, though, maybe I'm missing something. Please let me know whether I am. --ishu 10:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let me start to answer my own question. I suppose that one example would be whether mass exclusion, removal, and detention is ever justified. I'm not prepared to say it's never justified, but I know some people are. Does it make a difference if we say "one still-controversial issue?" P.S. to HS and others: If you don't mind, can we try to respond to the whole thread, including the initial post, and not just to justforasecond's and my follow-ups? --ishu 10:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There would be *no* amount of evidence of military necessisity which would make, as HS calls them, pro-reparations activists, accept that the relocation episode was necessary. Even with 100 exposed beyond-a-doubt Japanese saboteurs we'd have the same questions. To give one example of a "controversial" aspect -- is it OK to punish a whole ethnic group for the crimes of a few? Justforasecond 16:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ishu, I'd first also like to express my appreciation for your steadfast efforts in helping this article.

That said, I'm also uncomfortable with the proposed second sentence. The way it's phrased (to me) implies that there were no intelligence reports which discounted the threat of espionage/sabotage. I agree that the sentence should mention such reports, but perhaps "While it is clear that some intelligence reports described..." would be better?

Now that I think on it, I can't recall which intelligence reports these are that describe espionage by Japanese Americans. I can't help but think the best example are the MAGIC reports, to which I do not have access right now; I can't find the one or two that were linked to, but I seem to remember them indicating attempts at recruiting Japanese Americans for espionage purposes... am I remembering wrong? Although I feel there probably was some evidence suggesting Japanese American espionage, maybe someone could link to that evidence in this discussion?--Ogthor 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There were a few pieces of evidence. The "tachibana ring", the Niihau incident, MAGIC transcripts, a couple others. There's also the "descended god" notion, which isn't evidence but might give people a strong inkling that there might be a tendency towards espionage. Justforasecond 18:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've created a subpage of references from the discussions (not counting archives). We can use this running list to assist our citation efforts.

As for the second sentence, I'm still mulling over your comments. I was trying to avoid the weaselly-sounding "some", but perhaps it's unavoidable. I'm just trying to counter the conventional wisdom that if there was "no military necessity" that means there was no evidence of any espionage. (See the exchange between Gmatsuda and--I presume--History Student, above.) While we have the luxury of quiet time, I just want to make sure that some mention is made that at least some reports did exist. --ishu 14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the "some". Maybe that's not a problem if we insert a parenthetical reference to the discussion later in the article about evidence? Or, maybe if we formulated the second sentence like this:

A still-controversial issue is the extent to which the intelligence reports which described espionage or sabotage by Japanese Americans influenced decisions by the Roosevelt Administration.

Comments?--Ogthor 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more pov

"Some Japanese Americans did become less loyal to the United States after the government removed them and their families from their homes and held them in internment camps, although such cases were isolated incidents and did not reflect the larger sentiment of the Japanese-American people who remained loyal to the United States."

Where is the evidence for this? Justforasecond 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question! That's another example of the pro-reparations pov infecting this article that has no sources. Even though it's wrong I left it in the re-edit in the interests of fairness. So much for that idea....

Now if you want a citeable comment you can say, "More Japanese Americans petitioned for repatriation to Japan than served in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, according to the WRA report "An Evacuated People", published in 1946." It's a historical fact and the numbers prove it.

My added material was cited and these activist types who hijacked the article are blowing smoke...

well lets not be too hard on *all* of these poor folks. i'm all for removing pov but its not really a fair comparison. i mean, how many total people were in the 442? the tule lake people were extremists so we shouldn't make it out like everyone was wearing kamikaze bandanas, however, their sentiments were undoubtedly shared by other japanese-americans (could the government *really* know who the bad apples were a priori) so we shouldn't try to treat them as anomolies. lets also keep the images to a reasonable size, like 200px or so. btw i am not in favor of reparations, but one thing to consider when it comes to the big loyalty question is that many people that were sent to camps had their property seized chose to remain in the US after the war. also remember that japanese immigration to the US has been very low since the war, so odds are when you talk to a japanese american fellow or felles that his or her family experienced the camps. Justforasecond 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

George Takei's family was in Tule Lake because his Japanese-born father, denied citizenship, answered no-no on the loyalty questionnaire rather than risk being deported as a stateless person. His mother answered no-no because she was being forced to choose her native land or her husband. According to the WRA, this equals 5 "disloyals." When his mother renounced her citizenship, afraid of "being thrown to the wolves" by the WRA, the entire family was counted as having renounced (his father not a citizen and the children under age). As they say, figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Critic-at-Arms 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The 442nd War Memorial in Little Tokyo had just over 16,000 names and they're sticking as many on it as possbible. No the govt didn't know, time was short and they had to take action. That was the opinion of the prevailing decision of the Supreme Court in Korematsu that I added and was subequently deleted. Should the govt have let these "anomolies" run willy nilly all over the country? Should the govt just crossed their fingers and hoped all the "anomolies" on the west coast were taken care of?

If you had read my contributions, including the interview with Karl Bendetsen that I cited and is available at the Truman Library, you would know the govt seized no property and that is myth. Of course the pro-reparations pov guy added, "that's a lie", naturally without providing a source. What intellect!

And many more chose to leave for Japan as I pointed out and I lived in Tokyo when the the U.S. govt was running around looking for these people to give them $20,000 and an apology. The Japanese press had a field day!

The ethnic Japanese movement is made up preodominately of 60s era baby boomers who if they did experience the camps were very young. That they did experience the camps isn't an open invitation for them to promote a dishonest, agenda driven history to force down the throats of others. They're cherry picking the history to manipulate a certain response from a largely apathetic public.

If we are going to document this history it needs to be warts and all on all sides. That means Japanese Americans need to start confronting some of the darker chapters of their own history.

If WIkipedia is an example, they're obviously not there yet.

P.S. I civilly responded to comments regarding a re-editing of the piece and it's above. After which the pro-reparations pov was returned and locked, which is a load of crap.

I concur that the government seized no property. If the relocated could sell their property in the allotted time, they were allowed to do so. That time was not adequate in any sense, and they were allowed to keep much less property than soldiers; and slightly less than prisoners. So, effectively, they lost their property, even though "the government" didn't seize it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Roosevelt signed EO 9066 on February 19th and the first mandatory evacuation wasn't until March 26th. There was no order that those relocated had to sell their property and many didn't. "Allowed to keep much less property than soldiers or prisoners"??? What are you talking about? This is a perfect example of pro-repartions pov with no citations and entirely historically inaccurate.

Sorry Anon, I haven't been able to read the article because its been somewhat disorganized and with a lot of caps. I do appreciate your contributions though. Sorry about saying their property was seized -- I don't have a good understanding of the property issue. It seemed like they could sell it or have someone else watch over it, but if no one else would watch I guess it just sat there, abandoned? My family got a hold of one piece of property that belonged to Japanese folks before WWII but I couldn't quite determine its history.

Anyway I don't know how many returned to Japan. There were certainly some that were happy to return. Some may have been hoping to return anyway, while others may have been disillusioned with the American dream, and, having lost all their property wanted to give it a go somewhere else. But, I know several families in the U.S. that would never consider moving to Japan. They barely speak the language and don't really know anyone there, while the US is really their home. Some don't even consider themselves "asian". Well this is all technically beside the point, we should be able to build the article without brining in our personal experiences. Justforasecond 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it is somewhat disorganized in terms of style but at least the content I added is accurate and cited. I will get around to replacing the capitols with italics. I had intended to clean up my contributions before the article was locked out with the pro-reparations pov article.

We are now back to tit for tat between the pro-reparations pov article and the article with my additions. I am willing to offer a truce as long as balance is brought to this article, all side are represented.

I'm game. Anon could you make a login? Anything will do. I think a lot of the contentiousness has been because the photos were large and because of the caps and very long passages. If we keep things concise I think it'll be easier to hash this out. I don't think the other editors are really "pro reparations" (beyond whats already been paid anyway) Justforasecond 02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes they are, The "Civil Liberties Public Education Fund" still receives millions in taxpayer dollars annually.

Check out the surnames of the the board and tell me they're not biased. You think they're going to provide money to scholars with opinions equal to mine? Ha!

http://www.momomedia.com/CLPEF/backgrnd.html#board

The Japanese American Reparations Movement is big business.

I have a login. It's "History Student". I only login when I have to. I'm new to Wikipedia but learning fast.

You know more about this than I do, but I do not think the other *editor* on this article are "pro reparations". (even if they are its a little inflammatory to describe them that way). I still believe racism played a large part in the exclusion, but I have to concede most of this comes from what I've seen on TV and in textbooks. As far as I know, FDR would not have fit in well with the liberal political-correctness of the 21st century. Anyhow, you've got facts and citations, let's try to get them in the right way. Justforasecond 07:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

FDR was the biggest lib of his time which is pretty funny considering today's far left who have vilified him are also big time libs. If "racism" played a large part why didn't the government in definately detain all ethnic Japanese and not just remove them from the West Coast Military Zones? Why not detain all Asian people? You may recall the Chinese and Filipinos were our allies at the time. Most of what you see or read today is a product of the "Civil Liberties Public Education Fund" that finances biased one-sided bad history with American taxpayer dollars. That's what happens when ethnic activist groups start lobbying politicians to re-write history. Who needs scholars?

My guess is it would have been impractical to remove the 40% of the population of Hawaii that was Japanese. As for Japanese elsewhere, I'm not sure there were many. Certainly if the concern was sabotage, it wouldn't make sense to only exclude people from the West coast. Japanese in Latin America and Canada were also interned/excluded. If our tax dollars are going to "educating" us about this chapter that should be included in this article. In the 80s I saw little mini-documentaries about in on TV over and over again, I would like to know if this was taxpayer funded. But, lets try to be fair and when we write this and genuinely consider how the many Japanese-American families who are not campaigning for reparations and who did not protest at Tule lake, but were nevertheless ripped off. And for the anti-"history student" folks, lets try to remember the 30s and 40s were a very different time. Racism and nationalism where the norm, for Europe, the US, and Asia. The Niihau incident showed that at least some Japanese nationals would side with Japan if given the choice. That present-day Japanese American citizens, many of then 4th generation, think this abhorrent, does not mean it is untrue. Justforasecond 16:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ANSWERS TO JUSTFORASECOND:

It was decided it was logistically impossible. That doesn't mean it wasn't considered. Besides Hawaii was under military marital law at the time. Read John Stephan's "Hawaii Under the Rising Sun".

The West Coast because was the first line of defense and an area with ample miltitary and industrial infrastructre, not to mention where the vast majority of ethnic Japanese were located. It was only the West Coast that was desiganted a military zone however and the only area in which the military had the authority to do so. Perhaps the entire country should have been a miltiary zone or been under marital law. It would have been an unneccesary burden and the Supreme Court dealt with it.

As Justice Stone said in Hirabayashi:

“THE ALTERNATIVE WHICH APPELLANT INSISTS MUST BE ACCEPTED IS FOR THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES TO IMPOSE THE CURFEW ON ALL CITIZENS WITHIN THE MILITARY AREA, OR ON NONE. IN A CASE OF THREATENED DANGER REQUIRING PROMPT ACTION, IT IS A CHOICE BETWEEN INFLICTING OBVIOUSLY NEEDLESS HARDSHIP ON THE MANY, OR SITTING PASSIVE AND UNRESISTING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE THREAT. WE THINK THAT CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, IN TIME OF WAR, IS NOT SO POWERLESS AND DOES NOT COMPEL SO HARD A CHOICE IF THOSE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE HAVE REASONABLE GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT THE THREAT IS REAL.”

Chief Justice Stone Hirabayashi vs. United States

Still good law to this day.

Taxpayer funding didn't start until 1988 when the money bill was signed by Pres. Reagan (against the advice of his own Dept. of Justice).

Ripped off by who? 1940 saw the largest peacetime draft in American history. Were they "ripped off", too? The government didn't rip off anybody. The vast majority of families were not Japanese-American, they were Japanese and after Pearl Harbor they were enemy aliens - treated a heck of a lot better than American enemy aliens in Japan or countries invaded by Japan.

The Nihhau involved Japanese Americans and a Japanese national. Every country invaded by Japan found ethnic Japanese who had colonized as long as those on the West Coast welcoming the invaders with open arms.

Reagarding your last comment, Japan was fighting the racial holy war, not America. That includes many ethnic Japanese living outside Japan.

This article also needs a background on the Japanese "Language Schools" and their use at indoctrinating young Japanese Americans. A couple quotes from reputable sources:

"By the eve of all-out war with China, Japanese Public schools, under orders from the Ministry of Education, were inculcating Shinto mythology as if it were historical fact: emporer ideology had become fused with anti-western sentiment: and a coceptual ground had been prepared for the transformation of Hirohito into a benevolent pan-Asian monarch defending not only Japan, but all of Asia from Western encroachment."

-Bix, Hirohito, Making of Modern Japan p. 283

"The Japanese Ministry of Education was controlled by the militarists who, "To deliver the lectures and teach new courses, they enlisted specialists in Japanese racial thought, academic opponents of liberalism and advocates of Nazi theories of law".

-Masuda Tomoko, "Tenno kikansetsu haigeki jiken to kokutai meicho undo" p. 173

Justasecond, have you ever studied the kokutai? Hakko Ichiu? Any reading of Kokutai no Hongi? Shimin to Michi? The role of Nichiren Buddhism and Japanese "Language Schools" in teaching these doctines of Japanese racial superiorty to ethnic Japanese colonies throughout the word prior to Pearl Harbor?

This is history is a heck of a lot more complex than this biased crappy little article up on Wikipedia.

[edit] Take down the article

Given the past edits and actions of everyone involved, it is a near certainty that any substantial editing of the article will only lead to a revert war. I think it would be better to take down the article completely, and, if we agree, we can create protected subpages, one with the current version, and one with User:History Student's most recent edit as of this timestamp. --ishu 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking down the article is not an option, but protecting it is. However, since no one seems to be re-adding and removing content at the moment, protection is not necessary. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, you're real big on "protecting" your agenda as history you want to promote, Tom.

I agree with Ishu. Take it down until the matter is resolved otherwise you're just feeding impressionable minds bad and factually incorrect history.

Any re-edits are going to be changed and blocked by "Tom" and I'll return to being a Wikipedia rebel.

--History Student 17:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please quit trolling this issue. Your additions violated Wikipedia policy and were reverted, not only by me, but by multiple other users as well, as you can see in the edit history. --tomf688 (talk - email) 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a load of crap, Tom. Don't accuse me of trolling, either. Your complaints of policy violation are a smoke screen. You abused your admin privilige by locking the crappy article and attempting to ban me. Your admin privilige should be revoked.

--History Student 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did abuse his privilege, but you need to tone it down. Justforasecond 18:21, 21 July 2006

(UTC)

I'll tone it down when you guys get serious. Stop convoluting. Stop the strawmen. Stop reaching conclusions based on opinion. I'm surprised at your recent posts, justasecond.

--History Student 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to be willing to get serious as well. If you are going to offer a significant re-write of the article as you have, you will need to provide extensive in-line citations to support your changes AND format them to comply with the manual of style. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tom , show me the contributions I provided to the article you removed that are not cited. I asked you before and you failed to respond. Secondly, where is your concern regarding the uncitable and factually incorrect content in the article you returend and locked? What a hypocrite!

As for format, the style of my rewrite could be changed to make it easier to read. I acknowledged that and intend to do so. The content is spot on.

--History Student 18:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To cite, you will need to add <ref>http://www.website.com/page.html Website which claims that A is B.</ref> after each claim. At the end of the article, you will then need to add <references /> which will place all of the information within every <ref> tag at the bottom of the page. See today's featured article, National Anthem of Russia, for an example of how this system works, or you can read over the citation style guide for more information. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. For links to websites e.g. http://www.cnn.com, just insert the link in brackets, a la [http://www.cnn.com]. The "ref" style is overcomplicated and a hassle for readers. Justforasecond 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The locked article contains refs from 1. Michi Weglyn 2. Peter Irons and 3. Personal Justice Denied. Is that your definition of unbiased non pov history?

Where are the citations for comments such as, "During the war, an appeal contesting the government's authority to intern people based on their ancestry reached the Supreme Court, but the court upheld the government's right to intern."

Where's the citations for, "Historical references describe the camps as internment camps, although others favor the name relocation camps."

Not to mention that both comments are blatantly wrong. I at least add an "according to" and cite the source in my material.

You're a hypocrite.

--History Student 19:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Replacing one weak article with another isn't acceptable either. If you can't bother yourself with adding your sources, then don't bother making any additions at all, because they will simply be reverted again, and again, and again. --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Tom. I cited sources. Go read the "Evacuation" article. We're going around in circles which I suspect is your strategy with the hope I will eventually go away....

I've also pointed out two weak spots in your article, Tom. I can point out more specifics. Please point out the contributions provide by me that fit your definition of "weak". I'll not hold my breath, but it sure points to your not very clandestine biasness towards this subject. You can sound as "professional and civil" as you like. Your actions speak louder than your posts.

Reagarding Wikipedia policy I find the lot of you to be sanctimonious bores.

Regarding this history I see a lot of deliberate dishonesty here. Lip service, obfuscation, deliberate convolution and no substantial improvement to the locked article posing as history. That's about it.

Maybe it's time for a Wikipedia revolution. --History Student 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "support" section

The support section seems to have a lot of unsupportive statements. For instance, the Earl Warren quote is:

I have since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens. Whenever I thought of the innocent little children who were torn from home, school friends and congenial surroundings, I was conscience-stricken.

The statement in the "criticism" section is...also unsupportive.

The truth is—as this deplorable experience proves—that constitutions and laws are not sufficient of themselves...Despite the unequivocal language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066....

Seems unbalanced to me.

Justforasecond 05:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved this around to reconcile. Justforasecond 16:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lot's of talk here at the discussion....

...and few meaningful changes to the article. You've still got a biased, unprofessional piece of bad history here and I have been using it as an example of such.

--History Student 22:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

. . .and taking pride in your contribution to the example . . ? 68.178.65.194 02:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Bold text