Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese American Evacuation of 1942

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese American Evacuation of 1942

Deprod by anon. The article's talk page indicates that this is a POV fork (of Japanese American internment); I have no knowledge of the subject and no opinion on what the NPOV on the subject is, but WP:POVFORK explains why such forks are harmful. --ais523 16:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. This is exactly what WP:POVFORK is about. Scorpiondollprincess 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Plus looks to fail WP:OR since there are no references, and it's way too long - Yomangani 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Please note that the root article Japanese American internment is in need of intervention from non-regular editors to address the POV dispute that resulted in the fork. --ishu 16:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No references? What are you talking about? The POV reparations activists lock out opposing views from the original article and when our views are provided here you attempt to have them deleted. What are you so afraid of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by History Student (talk • contribs)

In cases like this you need to cite every 'fact' and note when they are disputed. Citation makes a strong argument against somebody with an opposing POV, having a POV fork doesn't. Basically this article needs deleting and you need to play nicely in the original. Yomangani 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, more citation is required for the article in its current (protected) revision. 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 18:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to provide us with some examples Yomangani? My additions included sources and I challenge you dispute any additions that is not historically correct. Of course you can't. That's why you and you ilk have locked the original article and want to delete this one. You don't care about historical accuracy you care about furthering an agenda - but that's what happens when political activists play historian.

I'm not going to note what you dispute because there is no basis for your dispute other then it's not what you want to believe or want others to believe. What a loade of crap. You delete this article i'll just put up another and another and another... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 (talk • contribs)

I meant 'you' (plural), as in you and everybody else who edits the original. As far as I can see the whole of this new article is your work, in which case most of it is uncited. If it isn't all your own work (and is in fact a copy of the original) then you (singular) have argued yourself back into only having one article. For the record, I don't agree with locking the article on one point of view (once it gets to that stage I'd prefer to have it taken down pending resolution of the dispute)...and by the way one of the rules of WP is 'assume good faith'. Yomangani 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me my additions that are uncited. You can't and that is a non issue. The original article is so full of uncited pro-reparations POV it's a joke. Your clear bias is showing but I have faith the original article will be unlocked and "tom" will have his administrative priviledges suspended.

With respect, this discussion isn't about content, it's about whether a POVfork should be deleted and if so, why, so this is exactly where it does belong (but I've said my piece).Yomangani 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's roundabout, but it certainly seems to me the discussion above is about content. It doesn't really address whether the article should be deleted, but rather attempts to hash out the debate as to which of the two articles should be at Japanese American Internment. That's content debate. WilyD 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep it. It's better written than the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.79.202 (talk • contribs)

This discussion is entirely about content and locking an article full of reparations pov to the detriment of contrary, citeable historically accurate additions made by me and others.

So what. This history deserves a closer look than the repartions pov activists who hijacked the article are providing.

  • Comment - too true. There are plenty of services available on Wikipedia for mediation in just such cases. WP:AFD is not one of them. WilyD 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the pro-reparations pov propaganda is now locked in the article, I'd say the services aren't working.

Can someone suggest a service that would resolve the protection status of Japanese American internment? That could focus this AfD discussion on the issue at hand. --ishu 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:RFM Yomangani 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you tried the less formal WP:RFC? ~ Maybe you're beyond that point, I have no idea - either way, these pages will also have links to other steps/resources. WilyD 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork. If activists really are enforcing a different POV in the original article, then they are disrupting Wikipedia, which is just as bad as forking articles, so mediation should be sought ASAP to resolve this issue, and if that fails, arbitration. — Haeleth Talk 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK as nominated.--SarekOfVulcan 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This whole "fork" talk is a non-issue. My additions are citeable, relevent and historically accurate. The original artice was not - the only citations were Michi Weglyn, Peter Irons and Personal Justice Denied. Your telling me that's not POV? Even the little addition of "disputed history" has a weasel words disclaimer. What a joke.

You folks are censoring this history. The Japanese American Reparations Movement dug themselves in a whole at so many levels regarding this history. It's obvious their lackeys are infecting this article.

  • Comment No, the whole "fork" talk is the heart of the issue. If your additions are "citeable, relevent and historically accurate" then they should be added to the exisiting Japanese American internment article and if there truly is a group advancing an alternate POV at said article, there are a myriad of arbitration methods you could pursue (ask at my talk and I will tell you what they are). Creating an alternate POV article is not a valid option here.--Isotope23 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Not perfect? That's an understatement. It sure as heck isn't a neutral point of view is it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.79.202 (talk • contribs) 22:42, July 18, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK. If you feel an article doesn't accurately cover a certain viewpoint, add to it rather than create another one. NeoChaosX 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment - are we at the point where we can get a speedy delete per WP:SNOW? It's pretty clear that this particular article is a POV-fork, and that the real dispute lies with the content in Japanese American internment. Ending this AfD discussion would facilitate the improvement of that article, which is the outcome everyone's looking for. -- H·G (words/works) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well if we can't get the "internment" article resolved then this is the next best thing. Not of my added information is POV so cut the excuses. Facts are facts. Give the reader the facts and let the reader decide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by History Student (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - forgive the understatement here, but it is an extremely bad idea to have two articles on the same subject. The place that the facts of a topic should be debated is on the Talk page for the original article, not in a new one. A separate page on the same topic isn't "the next best thing"--it's not even a valid option. As for WP:POVFORK: "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first. This is generally considered unacceptable." That describes this situation exactly. -- H·G (words/works) 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


If one page has been hi-jacked by an activist pov group of editors then it is entirely appropraite. I challenge any editor to point out my additions as historically incorrect. First you critize the style, then say sources aren't cited then say it's pov - all of which is untrue. You are looking for any reason to delete an opposing point of view while providing one explanation after another as to why the pro-reparations pov article should remain. Not only that but you attempt to ban IPs. What a load of crap!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.168.93.35 (talk • contribs)

Almost every contributor has noted the colossal failure of WP:POVFORK as the cause for deletion, and repeated noted that the correct action to take is to work this out at Japanese American Internment, with many services such as WP:RFM available if needed (which it sounds like they are). WilyD 16:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great but the "Japanese American Internment" article has been locked by pov repatations activists. The current article is full of factual errors and the writing is just plain bad history. In the meantime this article needs to stay. While it could use a rewrite to be more concise and correct grammar the substantial history is a heck of a lot better.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.114.43 (talk • contribs)

Anyone following the discussion at the Japanese "Internment" article can see that the it has degenerated into making explanations supporting one's pov. The original article is still up and locked with incorrect history and bad history and history that needs clarification. That is reason enough why this article needs to remain to provide balance as the original has been totally hi-jacked by pro-reparations pov activists.

--History Student 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.