![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
User:Justforasecond has been making a number of edits recently after a "pause" for various reasons. I think a list of to-dos is a good idea, since it provides a prospective rationale for edits. Up-front clarity is helpful considering the debates that have occurred on this page and the substantial work needed on the article. That way, if when someone new comes along to the page, we can refer to the to-do list. This should encourage discussion the talk page, since the intentions will be laid out on the to-do list. Comments? --
ishu
16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The article also should have a timeline of exclusion orders, no-move orders, and evacuation orders. If this is too list-y, we can describe a sample sequence for a major city. A timeline will give a clear sense of how easy it was to move voluntarily. -- ishu 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC) The really glaring POV stuff should be addressed without a to-do list. HS was...a little hard to deal with...and made me lose sight of the forest. There is a LOT of POV in this article. First priority should be ripping out the really bad uncited stuff. I found a few different places that said things (without citataions) like "such and such action called into question whether the internment was necessary", which seemed like pov-guided original research. It also misses the import point of the perception of military necessity.
Other to-dos
Justforasecond 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have created a subpage with a proposed version of the article, substantially restructured. This edit has removed very little text and added even less. The intent is to obtain consensus over the new structure before editing the actual content of the article. . In the spirit of full disclosure, the removed content has been logged on a separate subpage along with my reasons for the removals.
If you believe any of the removed text should remain in the article, please suggest a section where this text would be most appropriate. If you disagree with another editor's appeal for restoring text, please hold that discussion until (and if) the restructured article is promoted to the main article. Assuming we obtain consensus on the restructuring, we can revisit the issue of removed text.
I recognize that there are significant content issues regarding the article. I hope that we can achieve a quick consensus on a new structure (not necessarily everything I have proposed), then move forward onto the content. It is my hope that a restructured article will make it easier to address the content issues. -- ishu 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to leave the restructured article for comment for a week or two and then promote it to the article with any suggested changes. I will try to parallel edits made to the main article as well. -- ishu 17:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added "place holder" copy to the draft in the sections under Facilities. Most of this copy was taken from the National Park Service web site, or from Wikipedia. The sources have been noted in HTML comments. I am not committed to the text placed there, but it is there to give a general sense of how the article would flow. I chose mainly descriptive copy, but I did not review it very carefully, and it needs much work.
Per Ogthor's suggestion, I have promoted the proposed restructuring to the main article. We can adjust the minor changes to the new article. Have fun, everyone! -- ishu 15:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the wretched state of citations on this page, we have the opportunity to select a style of citations for the article. We have a number of embedded citations, but these are not catalogued well in the references section. Given the controversies over sourcing, I think citations should be footnoted to encourage open citations. It is much harder for a reader or editor to review the individual references with embedded citations. Comments, anyone? -- ishu 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
User:Justforasecond has been making a number of edits recently after a "pause" for various reasons. I think a list of to-dos is a good idea, since it provides a prospective rationale for edits. Up-front clarity is helpful considering the debates that have occurred on this page and the substantial work needed on the article. That way, if when someone new comes along to the page, we can refer to the to-do list. This should encourage discussion the talk page, since the intentions will be laid out on the to-do list. Comments? --
ishu
16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The article also should have a timeline of exclusion orders, no-move orders, and evacuation orders. If this is too list-y, we can describe a sample sequence for a major city. A timeline will give a clear sense of how easy it was to move voluntarily. -- ishu 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC) The really glaring POV stuff should be addressed without a to-do list. HS was...a little hard to deal with...and made me lose sight of the forest. There is a LOT of POV in this article. First priority should be ripping out the really bad uncited stuff. I found a few different places that said things (without citataions) like "such and such action called into question whether the internment was necessary", which seemed like pov-guided original research. It also misses the import point of the perception of military necessity.
Other to-dos
Justforasecond 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have created a subpage with a proposed version of the article, substantially restructured. This edit has removed very little text and added even less. The intent is to obtain consensus over the new structure before editing the actual content of the article. . In the spirit of full disclosure, the removed content has been logged on a separate subpage along with my reasons for the removals.
If you believe any of the removed text should remain in the article, please suggest a section where this text would be most appropriate. If you disagree with another editor's appeal for restoring text, please hold that discussion until (and if) the restructured article is promoted to the main article. Assuming we obtain consensus on the restructuring, we can revisit the issue of removed text.
I recognize that there are significant content issues regarding the article. I hope that we can achieve a quick consensus on a new structure (not necessarily everything I have proposed), then move forward onto the content. It is my hope that a restructured article will make it easier to address the content issues. -- ishu 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to leave the restructured article for comment for a week or two and then promote it to the article with any suggested changes. I will try to parallel edits made to the main article as well. -- ishu 17:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added "place holder" copy to the draft in the sections under Facilities. Most of this copy was taken from the National Park Service web site, or from Wikipedia. The sources have been noted in HTML comments. I am not committed to the text placed there, but it is there to give a general sense of how the article would flow. I chose mainly descriptive copy, but I did not review it very carefully, and it needs much work.
Per Ogthor's suggestion, I have promoted the proposed restructuring to the main article. We can adjust the minor changes to the new article. Have fun, everyone! -- ishu 15:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the wretched state of citations on this page, we have the opportunity to select a style of citations for the article. We have a number of embedded citations, but these are not catalogued well in the references section. Given the controversies over sourcing, I think citations should be footnoted to encourage open citations. It is much harder for a reader or editor to review the individual references with embedded citations. Comments, anyone? -- ishu 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)