User talk:Ishu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

• Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers
• Wikipedia:How does one edit a page
• Wikipedia:Manual of style
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions

Have fun! --Jiang 21:32 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 Nisei vs. Nitai/Nidai 2 List of ____ Americans 2.1 Moving "West Asian" out of Asian American 3 Regards 4 certain user 5 Re: Japanese American Internment 6 RfC 7 Reorg 8 JAI Restructuring 9 Japanese American Internment 10 comment 11 Page move 12 Appreciation 13 Naming Conventions poll 14 Cities and styles 15 help me 16 Granada War Relocation Center

[edit] Nisei vs. Nitai/Nidai

Could you shed some insights @ Talk:Nisei Japanese? --Menchi 06:34, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] List of ____ Americans

Some of your links to List of _____ Americans mistakenly link to List of Indian Americans. DHN 22:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving "West Asian" out of Asian American

West Asians do not identify as Asian. They identify as Middle Eastern in the USA. They are not officially part of the Asian race with the US Census Bureau. They are only included as part of Asia in some maps because Asia has been defined as the non-European part of Eurasia. -- Dark Tichondrias

This is partially false. Americans of Middle Eastern extraction do not identify as "white", but rather are identified as such by the U.S government. There is a fundamental difference. Technajunky 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regards

Thanks for moderating the discussion.

Until about two weeks ago, all I knew about the issue was what I had casually heard, mostly in relation to the current issue of homeland security, profiling, etc. I got into a discussion with my wonderful, smart daughter, and did a quick google, finding contrarian arguments, some of which appear to have substantial validity, at least on first glance. Unfortunately, the WP page was confusing and self-contradictory, therefore uninformative and unreliable. I bought a copy of Malkin's book, but also used many other googled sources. It seems there are more every day, and one definitive conclusion is that this topic engenders strong feelings.

As I said to our other discussant, a difference of opinion, or a difference of perception does not inevitably equate to bigotry, racism, or prejudice. Each of us constructs a model of the world and the universe, to guide our operations. If our model is sound, our operations succeed. When our models differ, it does not imply anything about our intrinsic character — it is only about our perceptions, which can be distorted by our conceptions – our ideology. Ideology is the antithesis of objectivity, analysis and logic, and it can really screw up your model.

I’m just trying to work on my model. Regards - Topnife 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your invitation to me, and your confidence in me, to help with editing the internment topic. As I stated above, I have a relatively superficial understanding of the issue, based upon a brief research into the area in order to inform myself enough to have a friendly dispute with my daughter. My lifetime strategy has always been to immediately distrust "conventional wisdom", which was especially easy to do, when I saw the factual inaccuracies and internal contradictions of the topic on Wikipedia.

I've kept the topic on my watchlist, and have been interested to see the turmoil which has erupted lately. I have been ignorant of the internal politics which you describe, however. I'd like to believe that I have approached the question with intellectual objectivity. My libertarian concerns for the issue of constitutionality and individual liberty are counterbalanced by my abhorrence for historical revisionism and of racism (and reverse racism). Our liberties must be protected from external efforts to destroy them, while internally preserving them from corruption. (I am led to recall the quote from Vietnam: "We had to destroy the village, in order to save it.") Ad hominem attacks, and irrational name-calling demonstrate only that the originator lacks factual information to support his ideological position, and that he believes that thinking consists of rearranging his prejudices.

I must humbly decline (due to my perception of my own ignorance) the role of active editor, but I would participate in a dialogue on the comments section, aimed at orienting the topic around facts rather than emotions.

Humble regards, again.

Topnife 20:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found your new re-write of the internment topic. This is a MAJOR improvement on the prior version, and certainly argues the topic much more objectively than the previous writeup. I complement you on oganizing and developing an objective and balanced revision of a tendentious report. You've taken on an arduous task.

A couple issues come to my mind:

• I have seen it stated that aliens of German and Italian origin were interned by DOJ, regardless of their site of residence (i.e., not relocated, but essentially imprisoned). The article implies otherwise.

• The numbers of 112 - 120K persons relocated always state that 2/3 were American citizens. Granting that most adults were not allowed to become citizens, it appears that this fraction includes many minor children, who were relocated with their "alien" parents. It would obviously be impossible to relocate their parents and leave them behind. Therefore the statistic may have misleading implications.

• Were significant numbers of adult American citizens (of Japanese ethnic origin), either naturalized or native-born, subjected to the exclusion orders? (I understand this statistic may be difficult to discover).

• It's necesssary to somehow maintain a perspective on the state-of-mind which pervaded the decision process, and daily life, at the time. It's easy to look back now, and see that urgent decisions made at the time, sometimes with a background of racial bias (I think "racial hatred" may be too strong a term), were inappropriate by our current standards:

• Our cultural attitude toward racial bias has undergone a revolutionary change during the last 50 years. Flagrantly racist practices were ingrained, and were engaged in without even being conscious of them. As a teenager, I had furious arguments with my bigoted father, about his attitudes, and I hated his intransigence. I did not hate my father.
• Racially loaded news reports, cartoons, posters and daily conversations, with derogatory references to "japs" were the norm during the war. To judge 1940s expressions by 2006 standards is historical revisionism.
• The relocation decision was supported from the very top, by FDR, who has been documented to have had racial attitudes which we would today judge to be totally unacceptable.
• On the other hand, DeWitt is stated to have initially opposed relocation. The bigoted statements he later made may have been colored by several years of war with Japan, many thousands of American casualties, and also by a desire to agree with those who would be responsible for his career advancement. In other words, his statements have to be kept in context, just as should be the decision by many Japanese-Americans not to serve in the U.S. armed forces.

• I think it's unwise to explicitly support the analogy that has been made between the internment/relocation issue, and the present-day question of ethnic profiling with respect to terrorism. The analogy is imperfect, the present-day safeguards are far more stringent, and the consequences are very different. Making or re-iterating this connection is not a good argument.
• "Snow Falling on Cedars", while an emotionally moving book, was a work of fiction. I think it is not an appropriate historical reference.

Respectfully, Topnife 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] certain user

Dark Tichondrias? --Lukobe 00:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's hope for the best and prepare for the worst :) --Lukobe 05:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Japanese American Internment

Fair enough. At least there is more attention being paid to the situation now. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if anyone starts up an edit war, I'm sure the page will be speedily reprotected then. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

would you consider endorsing the HS dispute in the endorsement section? they have a 48-hour window to be endorsed. thanks Justforasecond 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorg

The TOC on the reorg looks good. Justforasecond 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JAI Restructuring

I see you noticed my absence from the page. It's not that I've lost interest in the topic; honestly my attention has been elsewhere the last week or two. I really only got involved in the page in the first place in response to HS' actions, which worried me enough to respond. Since then I've gotten interested in the editing side of the process.

Overall your proposed reorganization looks good to me. As for whether restructuring is necessary to begin with, I think the idea does have some merit. The JAI article, as is, is clearly very crufty, with various users having added their input over the course of years. I don't think anyone has ever gone through and pulled out the incorrect, uncited, POV, poorly written, or self-contradictory stuff that has accumulated, and an article restructuring is the perfect way to do that. You seem up to the task (especially considering your long-standing interest in the article), and I therefore support your efforts in this regard.

This topic is clearly controversial, and any article on the topic will be controversial by extension. Putting the maximum possible citation into the article helps, but there will always be users who will argue POV based on omission or comission - HS seemed to be of the former type, as one of his earlier "retorts" implied that he recognized POV slant within the article, and decided the correct response was to add POV slant in the other direction. Although his strategy was clearly not appropriate, his actions seem to have been a catalyst for a process of deep revision which this article desperately needs.Ogthor 11:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese American Internment

I read your restructuring of this article and I think it's excellent. Great job! Whiskey Rebellion 21:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment

hey ishu

come take a look at my policy proposal changes at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Proposed_policy_changes

i think they could prevent a good portion of the conflict that comes with 3RR. comments are welcome.

Justforasecond 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Since you participated in the last survey, just a couple months ago, you may be interested to know there is yet another proposal to move Los Angeles, California. Jonathunder 05:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you kindly explain the reason you oppose Los Angeles from being named consistently with other world famous cities like Paris, London, New York City, Chicago and Philadelphia, and support it being disambiguated with a state like lesser-known cities that need disambiguation (like Hollywood, Florida)? Thanks. --Serge 17:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

		Barnstar
		For your extensive and ongoing good work on the Asian American and Japanese American Internment articles here at wikipedia. Myasuda 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Conventions poll

I'm confused. I've seen references to "Tariq's proposal" but when I scanned, I found JohnK's proposal that you supported (move 27 AP cities). Can you point me to the most recent statement of your proposal? If your proposal is inactive, I intend to oppose the current proposal in favor of reopening the discussion around a proposal I can support.

In the name of antidisruption, I am willing to support some such proposal, even though I otherwise support the comma convention. These debates are just a PITA, and the AP list provides a sufficient backstop and rationale as to which cities to include. Thanks for your contributions to this discussion. --ishu 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposal they are referring to is this one. Serge closed john k's proposal and my proposal because people were complaining there were too many proposals open concurrently, not because there was anything wrong with the other two. -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cities and styles

Newspapers and most print media have what are called style sheets, it's been a while so I may have the name wrong, that cover all issues that relate to presentation. This includes things like the number of columns used, fonts and sizes. It also defines how items will appear. One of the best examples of this in in USA Today where any reference to the United States is inclued as USA. My contention is that we are simply defining what style we will use to present the titles for any US city article. People throw around 'common name' which does not help to provide a consistant look and feel for US city articles. The MoS tries to do this at a very high level. My contention is that a well crafted style would meet the NC guideline of Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. For me, since many places require the use of a state, that all should have the state since it makes this second nature. It is better for all of these place names to follow a consistant format. We already do this with counties, so why not cities. We also have decided to aviod using the correct name for many places.
So if I have to define this as a style, ignoring exceptions for now, it be would something like. "US location articles are named as 'location, state'. Extra qualifiers like town, city or township are generally not used".
I know I did not do a good job explaining this, but I hope you better understand what I'm trying to get across. Vegaswikian 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your points are valid. My only concern is that if you take that another step forward, it begs the question. should that standard become the general convention. It will be interesting to see what happens. Vegaswikian 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help me

I have noticed a number of wikilinked dates in in-universe synopses such as Khan Noonien Singh. It seems to me that these links should be removed, as they refer to fictional events in the fictional universe, while the dates are linked to the real-life universe. I cannot find guidance readily available. --Ishu 21:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right, I would suggest you to be bold and remove the fictional dates links and see if someone disagrees. I leave the helpme notice so you can have broader input. Happy Editing! -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And so I have. I appreciate additional input. Thanks! --Ishu 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I do think that broader ideas such as "20th cenutry" should remain linked, but individual years probably shouldn't be linked. However, you might want to check with Wikiproject Star Trek to see if they have dating conventions, or leave a note on the relevant article talk pages asking about it. -- Merope 21:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Granada War Relocation Center

On my way back to OK 2 years ago we stopped at the Granada War Relocation Center and looked the place over, and I have contributed to the wikipedia article.If you know anything about the camp, will you contribute?Saltforkgunman 02:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)