Talk:List of concentration and internment camps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology / World War I / World War II CL‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
CLThis article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
World War I task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Immigration enforcement is not internment, and immigration facilities are not "internment/concentration" camps - POV issue

Opening the discussion here since this article contains factually incorrect information. According to the cited definition on the Internment article: 

"Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial. The term is especially used for the confinement "of enemy citizens in wartime or of terrorism suspects".

Immigration detention facilities are by definition NOT internment/concentration camps since the people being held in them are being charged with the crime of improper entry. Q.E.D. There has not been official designation by a governing body of merit such as the EU, UN, etc. nor are there peer-reviewed publications that explain why immigration detention facilities are designated as "concentration/internment" camps. There are content experts that have made the determination that these are not to be called internment/concentration camps, including the official stance of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/why-holocaust-analogies-are-dangerous).

If we want to include in these series of articles that there are politicians, members of the media, and academics that want to call them concentration camps, then we can do that, but we need to make sure that the readers are reminded they are objectively NOT concentration camps according to the facts. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing the following verbiage: 

In May 2018, President Trump's administration instituted a "zero tolerance" policy mandating the criminal prosecution of all adults who were referred by immigration authorities for violating immigration laws. This policy directly led to the large-scale, forcible separation of children and parents illegally crossing the United States-Mexico border, including those claiming asylum after being detained. Parents were arrested and put into criminal detention, while their children were taken away, classified as unaccompanied alien minors, to be put into child immigrant detention centers. Though in June 2018 Trump signed an executive order ostensibly ending the family separation component of his administration's migrant detentions, it continued in limited fashion under alternative justifications into 2019. By the end of 2018 the number of children being held had swelled to a high of nearly 15,000, which by August 2019 had been reduced to less than 9,000. Though by definition immigration detention facilities are not considered internment/concentration camps, in 2019, a naming controversy arose. Various politicians, academics, and journalists made claims that these immigration detention facilities should be labeled as "concentration camps". Notable groups, such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, panned and rejected these analogies. Though the conditions of the facilities have been almost universally panned, including by a human rights chief in the UN, the UN has not designated these facilities as internment/concentration camps, and have reiterated that states do have the sovereign prerogative to decide on the conditions of entry and stay of foreign nationals.

Please make comments and supply edits. The sources are more or less the same, probably taking a few out (many just cite the same source anyway). We can add the sources before we post. --166.216.158.172 (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is what we at Wikipedia call
original research. You take one definition and make your own interpretation of it. Sorry, but Wikipedia works by using reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That is what we at Wikipedia call
original research
. You take one definition and make your own interpretation of it. Sorry, but Wikipedia works by using reliable sources.
This is not original research, as everything posted is factual, and sourced (sources are already cited on the page). There's only one way to interpret the definition that is listed on the Internment page, and it is clear that these immigration facilities are not "concentration camps". You have not proposed any changes or edits, so, please at least try to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.195.119 (talk • contribs)
You are "interpret[ing]" content from another Wikipedia page in order to explain away the statements by content experts, which is substituting your own position for theirs. This is absolutely
original research: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
You are "interpret[ing]" content from another Wikipedia page in order to explain away the statements by content experts, which is substituting your own position for theirs.
Wrong. I am reciting ("interpreting") facts in order to explain how immigration detention facilities are not "internment/concentration camps". We've already been over that the "content experts" you're attempting to use are not experts in the field. You're trying to use "original research" as a defense but it falls through here; it's like if I said "carbon is a non-metallic element", and I link the definition and Wiki page, and you claim this is "original research". The above block I suggested is based in fact and reality, and correctly describes the situation we're facing. Unless you have edits to propose, I will link the sources and replace.
--107.77.214.158 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are concentration camps; this has already been decided by experts and affirmed by the Wikipedia editing community. Arguing otherwise without sources showing a change in the relevant experts is useless.

Assuming, for the sake of this conversation, that you intend to use the same sources for the sentences of the paragraph you've proposed that are identical to the collaboratively written entry already the article, you still have yet to provide sources for the remaining content you're trying to suggest changing to. Without sources, there is nothing here to respond to, other than to assume this is

original research. Until you provide sources and allow for a discussion of them, any attempt to include unsourced content will likely be reverted. Please also remember, if your edits are reverted, they have been challenged and per existing sanctions you must find consensus here on the talk page before reinstating them. As of yet I see no editors here supporting your proposed changes. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

These are concentration camps; this has already been decided by experts and affirmed by the Wikipedia editing community. Arguing otherwise without sources showing a change in the relevant experts is useless.
These are not concentration camps, by definition. This has not been decided on by experts, and the Wikipedia editing community is delusional if they believe so. Numerous other sources have made counter-claims, and the definition stands. Unless you can find a governmental body of merit that has classified these as concentration camps, or a peer reviewed article in a well renown journal of history or related subject, then this is simply a matter of opinion. And because this is a matter of opinion, there is a POV issue with that section.
Why don't we reframe this section as a naming controversy instead? This article badly needs a balanced approach; it's a disservice to Wikipedia and its readers to leave it the way it is.
--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is to me a complete impasse. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia community's decision to follow content experts, take that up in another way, such as by challenging the RfC close or starting a new RfC altogether. But the community has already decided, this entry is to be included here and so it will remain here, with neutral language describing the example.
If you cannot provide sources for your proposed language, then it is entirely inappropriate for inclusion. Without anyone other than you arguing for a POV issue, that tag now has no support for inclusion and the editors who have engaged you here apparently show consensus that it is inappropriate. I will be removing it per conditions #1 and #2.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with the Wikipedia community's decision to follow content experts
The issue is they're not content experts, and you're claiming they are. That is a factually incorrect claim. A "senior lecturer of music" is not a content expert on concentration/internment camps.
But the community has already decided, this entry is to be included here and so it will remain here, with neutral language describing the example.
If the entry stays, I'm fine with it, as long as it has neutral language and actually describes the facts of the matter. It currently contains non-neutral language, and falsities. Once the lock is lifted, I will make edits to ensure the language is more neutral, and is centered around the facts.
--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:80 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any inappropriate content changed/added without proper sourcing will be challenged. Expect to be required to find consensus for such content, should you be bold in making the edits and they are reverted for lack of source support. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia does not exist to carry water for a particular politician or party and their singular p.o.v. of what is and is not considered an internment camp. There is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that they are indeeed considered as such, so the Wiki should follow that. Zaathras (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia does not exist to carry water for a particular politician or party and their singular p.o.v. of what is and is not considered an internment camp.
I'd hope that is the case, but sometimes it definitely doesn't seem like this is a true statement.
There is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that they are indeed considered as such, so the Wiki should follow that.
Except there's not. There are highly politicized pieces from those who are not experts in field. Similarly, there is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that says these are not "interment/concentration" camps. We need to make sure we have a NPOV here.
--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:80 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is, you can't just be dishonest about sources that are clearly in the article now to support that view. Zaathras (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would point out to the OP (as has been noted in previous discussions), this is not a
    List of concentration camps, but a List of concentration and internment camps; whether the phrase "concentration camp" is applicable is not dispositive of the issue. The inclusion of criminal charges is also of no particular relevance, since any government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" a class of people with a crime, ostensibly requiring their confinement (by comparison, the Nazi regime enacted numerous laws effectively making Jews "illegals" and thus legally subject to the treatment that was accorded to them). BD2412 T 17:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would point out to the OP (as has been noted in previous discussions), this is not a
List of concentration camps, but a List of concentration and internment camps
; whether the phrase "concentration camp" is applicable is not dispositive of the issue.
These do not fit the definition of internment nor concentration camps, so, your point is moot.
The inclusion of criminal charges is also of no particular relevance,
It is absolutely relevant since the definition in the sister page is "the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial."
since any government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" a class of people with a crime, ostensibly requiring their confinement
This is illogical reasoning. Using this "logic", we should include primary schools in this list since the government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" children with a crime, and ostensibly require their confinement. On top of all that, the US government is not charging a protected class of people, it's enforcing its immigration laws for those who voluntarily decide to commit a crime. For all these reasons and more, these are factually not interment/concentration camps.
--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:80 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of discussion here about precise definitions and whether you personally believe those definitions fit, but ultimately the only thing we should be discussing is whether
reliable sources describe these locations as concentration or internment camps. The last Request for Comment on the matter concluded that reliable sources did generally refer to these locations as such, so that's what Wikipedia uses. Our personal opinions on whether definitions fit or the logic is sound is irrelevant. Sam Walton (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I think it's ...dangerous to use whether the people in a facility have been charged with a crime as the whole determination of whether something is a concentration camp or not. For reasons cited above, although in reverse, too. I don't think we should allow governments to decide whether their detention facilities are concentration camps or not based on whether they've charged the prisoners. It means that, if we say its only a concentration camp if the imprisoned have not been charged and there is no intent to try them, then the death camps of the Nazis would not be concentration camps, because they created laws that made being Jewish (or gay, or slavic, or so on and so on) illegal. If we say that it's only concentration camp if the imprisoned have been charged and there's an intent to try, then gross violations of human rights are somehow not concentration camps on that basis. I don't think that the... "legal status" of the imprisoned is a good basis for whether something is a concentration camp or not. I think the treatment of those people, and overall intent of the facility--namely the concentration of an "undesirable" category of people into one location where they can exterminated, either through formal execution or working them to death, or both, or simply allowing them to die due to gross indifference and negligence--should be the determining factor. Now, we can argue whether that is the intent of "immigrant detention facilities," and I would say it is, but I imagine OP would disagree, but my point here is that "whether the targeted people are formally charged with a crime or not" is not a rational criteria for whether something is a concentration camp or not (although it does provide the answer to the question that prompted me to come to the Talk page- why Tevego is a concentration camp, but earlier labor camps with lethal consequences practiced by America, England and Spain are not) --ValravenApocalypse (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Significant problems with "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border"

According to Internment, this article should list places that describe the "imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges." This is a necessary condition for listing a camp here (but not sufficient, as POW camps that would otherwise meet this criteria are listed elsewhere). However, the "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border" section does not cite any sources that meet this criteria. While there's a number of experts who use the word "concentration camps", this seems like a clear case where they are using a different definition from what this page is using.

Reading this section, I'm led to believe that the immigrants are being held without charges. This is not true (they were charged with the crime of Unlawful Entry).

In order for this section to remain, we need to find a reliable source that says the immigrants are being held "without charges or intent to file charges" in accordance with the definition being used by this page. Alternatively, the definition of Internment needs to be adjusted.

Or, if it turns out that we can find a reliable source that says all of the immigrants have been charged with a crime and are being processed lawfully, that would contradict the requirement for listing an example on this page, and it would need to be removed in its entirety, maybe moved to a list in a different article, that doesn't imply being held without charges. --Awwright (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, and there are other issues as well, which have been raised by others in the edit log. I have added an NPOV tag while this gets sorted out here. 109.229.202.124 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Powers That Be may have a desire to keep an eye out for the deletion of these two properly cited statements also.

Trump used facilities that were built during the Obama-Biden administration to house children at the border. Michelle Obama spoke at the 2020 Democratic National Convention and noted the "cages".  What she did not say is that the very same "cages" were built during and used in her husband’s administration, for the same purpose; that of holding migrant kids temporarily. [1] Gek75231 (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this individual seems to take umbarrage with these properly quoted referenced statements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pinchme123

Appropriate attention & actions toward said user would be appreciated.

Sincerely, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gek75231 Gek75231 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "AP FACT CHECK: Michelle Obama and the kids in 'cages'". Associated Press. 17 August 2020.

Expanding the description of scholars' letter to USHMM in "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border"

You deemed "The letter is a defense of analogies to allow for 'learning from the past' but does not discuss Ocasio-Cortez's comments or the U.S. detention camps." as unnecessary clarification. I agree that the individual need not be cited, despite being a core part of the sources you provided, but I believe there is still a need for the clarification that the rejection of resistance was not the whether the label is correct or incorrect, but rather the right to use it as an argument of analogy and for learning purposes. That was my core point and thus I think this clarification is needed for reading this page. 69.122.71.186 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article already gives an appropriate description for the context of the original reaction from USHMM and the letter sent by 400+ scholars to them decrying that original reaction. This description is included to briefly reference the short-term controversy over calling these concentration camps "concentration camps." But this entry isn't about the letter or naming controversy, nor is it about analogies, so in my opinion any further expansion of describing the letter would probably run afoul of
WP:UNDUE. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional entries, expanding on an entry, citations


  • What I think should be changed:

Under section "World War I (Austria-Hungary)", Subsection "Austria", add in:

- Mauthausen [link to town, not the WWII concentration camp], formed 22. September 1914. Housed Serbian and Italian POWs and Serbian civilian internees. - Aschach an der Donau [link to town], Housed Serbian and Montenegrin POW officers and soldiers and civilian internees.

Edits:

- Braunau in Bohemia (today: Broumov in the Czech Republic), it was formed on 11. June 1915. Housed Serbian and Russian POWs and civilian internees, including underage Serbian children. - Heinrichsgrien to Heinrichsgrün - Heinrichsgrün (today: Jindřichovice Czech Republic), formed beginning of June 1915, received first internees 17. June 1915. Housed Russian, Italian, Montenegrin and Serbian POWs and Montenegrin and Serbian civilian internees.


Under section "World War I (Austria-Hungary)", Subsection "Hungary", add in:

- Sopronnyék (today: Samersdorf, Austria), formed on 5. April 1915. Housed Serbian and Montenegrin POWs and civilian internees, including underage children. - Boldogasszony (today: Frauerkirchen, Austria), formed in February 1915. Housed Russian, Italian, Romanian, Serbian and Montenegrin POWs and Serbian and Montenegrin civilian internees.


  • Why it should be changed: The list is incomplete, research indicates that Austria-Hungary had 10 major camps and circa 300 camps in total. There are also no specific pages for the entries, so the list page should be more detailed for the time being. More references and specific for each change available on request.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

[1]


Everythingaboo (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everythingaboo do you really have a COI with a list of concentration/internment camps? I don't think the request edit template is correct for this change... GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
There is a COI, as this account is connected to someone working at a publisher, so it would be to avoid referencing the publisher's own materials.
Also, not sure why in the references section for what we are referring to, one can see the "AP FACT CHECK: Michelle Obama and the 'kids in cages'" reference. 213.67.202.78 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just by way of explanation, the AP source you're talking about is being picked up by the reftalk template because someone made a reference with it in a previous section. I've added a reftalk template to that section to clarify the situation. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the explanation! 213.67.202.78 (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed change has been reviewed and you are approved to go ahead and implement it in the article. Best, SpencerT•C 03:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Vemić, Mirčeta. "Mass mortality of Serbian prisoners of war and interned civilians in Austro-Hungarian camps during the First World War 1914-1918". ResearchGate. ResearchGate Gmbh. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps&oldid=1217847922"