Talk:Ukrainian Canadian internment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

I've partially reverted this edit. Women and children were not interned, but chose to stay near their family members (in fact, I believe they stayed in facilities near the two camps mentioned, and not in them). It bears mentioning that immigrants, especially those labelled "enemy aliens" had a harder time keeping jobs during a recession, but saying that most of them "had been fired from their jobs for 'patriotic reasons'" is not neutral. And why remove the factual comparison to Canada's other well-known internment? —Michael Z. 2006-10-27 00:02 Z

Again, I'm partially reverting this pair of edits by an anonymous editor. The edit removes information supported by citations, as well as one citation and an ISBN-link for another. It replaces this with uncited information. Since this is a controversial and often-misunderstood subject, please cite a verifiable source to support your edits.

I find disturbing the removal of an academic reference, which apparently doesn't reflect this editor's point of view, and the apparently misleading invocation of the Geneva Conventions (see below). If you want this article to support a point of view, you can only succeed by having it fairly represent all points of view and letting readers draw their own conclusions. Trying to misinform or obscure information can only harm your objectives.

You would think someone using an IP address from the educational institution where Doctor Luciuk teaches would know better!

Questions raised:

• "The internment did include some Canadian-born British subjects and naturalized citizens, including the last known survivor, Mary Manko"

Were these only minor children? I don't think it's fair to equate them with the intended subjects of the internment, who were required to carry identification, register at police stations, or report to internment camps, but it was significant that some were in their families, and accompanied them to the camps. We need more information about Mary Manko's activities in helping Canadians learn about the internment.

• "Many of these internees were used for labour in internment camps, contrary to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the use of POWs for forced labour to the profit of the interning power."

We need a reliable reference saying that these were considered PWs under the Geneva Conventions of 1864 ("for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field") and 1906 ("for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea"). I suspect that this is not the case, since civilians were the subject of the 1949 treaty ("relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War"). —Michael Z. 2006-11-03 16:08 Z

[edit] Contradiction

[moving discussion from the article  —Michael Z. 2006-11-10 20:10 Z]

This article contradicts itself: First it states that "the interned did not include Candian-born (nor) Canadian citizens." In the next sentence it states that the last known Canadian-born survivor of the internment camps is Mary Manko.

The Ukrainian Canadian internment included both Canadian born and Canadian citizens, who, exactly like the Japanese Canadians interned in World War II, had their belongings and property confiscated, were separated from their families, and were interned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.97.244 (talk • contribs) .

If you read more carefully, you'll see that Mary Manko was not an internee, but one of the family members who accompanied them at the internment camps. Perhaps the wording needs clarification.

The Ukrainian Canadian internment was not like the Japanese Canadian internment: it didn't strip Canadians of their citizenship, label them as enemies, deport them, nor split up Canadian families. As far as we know, no homesteaders or other established settlers were interned. —Michael Z. 2006-11-10 20:19 Z

[edit] BS?

Many of these internees were used for labour in internment camps. This was in violation of the Geneva Conventions, as the studies of Professors Kordan and Mahovsky have demonstrated.

The First Geneva Convention only applied to the treatment of battlefield casualties. The other conventions were not yet written.

I had a quick look through Kordan and Mahovsky's book, and by my reading, they explicitly state that the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) did not apply to civilians, but because of the assumptions they made about how civilians would be treated, the Canadian treatment of Austro-Hungarian internees went against the spirit of the conventions (this seemed to be a bit of a reach to me, but I'm no expert). They also stated that civilians were treated worse by most other belligerents in the war.

To me, this article seems to be misrepresenting the source cited. —Michael Z. 2007-06-04 05:38 Z

I've removed the second sentence from the article. Please don't restore without quoting the source. —Michael Z. 2007-06-04 06:11 Z

[edit] Include controversy in the article

I notice that Luciuk's pamphlet (and Martynowych's response) were removed from the article with the comment "removed revisionist source". Perhaps Luciuk's pamphlet should be mentioned, since it is so often referred to, and has formed so much of the commonly-held opinion on this issue. Martynowych's letter may still be a good link to include anyway, since it provides a lot of perspective on the situation, from a historian familiar with the primary sources.

I'm saying that this topic is controversial, and maybe this article's coverage should include the controversy. This might help stabilize it in the face of the ongoing tug-of-war about specific facts, or at least help give the reader perspective. —Michael Z. 2007-06-04 06:06 Z