Talk:Internment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I propose consensus required to override 'Concentration Camp' experts on subject of U.S. Immigration System's Concentration Camps

The current version of this article contains four sources for the fact that the camps operated by the U.S. government are concentration camps. All these articles sourced the label from experts on the subject. I argue we should require consensus before overruling subject experts and their published work and statements.

I argue that a well-publicized and prominent example of contemporary concentration camps makes for an excellent entry on an "Examples" list, as the whole point of the list is to point readers to notable examples that highlight the concept.

If there is consensus that WP editors should be overruling content experts about the labeling of U.S. Immigration concentration camps, then so-be-it, but I think this would go against the spirit of WP and WP editing. If someone would like to put forward arguments as to why such a well-known and well-publicized example shouldn't be on the list, feel free to do so and see if there is consensus for its removal, without ruling on the validity of the label.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I support this inclusion. Beyond labeling by experts, haven't international groups expressed this interpretation as well?

However, to be encyclopedic, and to be consistent with the present of the present article, internment centers or camps instead should be used.Dogru144 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say, this article makes clear in its introduction that it is intended to cover all internment camps, including the concentration camp subtype. Its definition section covers both more general internment camps and concentration camps, so I think examples of both (as well as the extermination camps that your own contribution highlights - some of the existing examples are of this subtype) are appropriate.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Does not meet the definition in the fist sentence. "Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges[1] or intent to file charges, and thus no trial." They are awaiting trial and are suspected of the crime of being in the country illegally, This is totally political, it doesn't need to be. I don't like the camps and I don't like our current government, but this is an encyclopedia. Oh and some sources saying they are not concentration camps. 2600:1700:1111:5940:8412:322D:289:42CB (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Many individuals - children - are placed in these concentration camps without authorities ever intending to file charges against them (see sources included for this item in the article). Others are placed in the camps prior to having charges filed against them and do not ever see the inside of a criminal courtroom, as immigration courts are of a different process (again, see included sources). Further, there is no "crime of being in the country illegally," as the act of being on U.S. soil without authorization is a civil, not criminal, matter. In all cases, these meet the definition from the article's introduction.

These concentration camps strictly meet the definition stated in the introduction. Further, experts on the subject also conclude that these camps are in fact concentration camps (see included sources). Would you like to present evidence of criminal (not immigration) trials for those held in these concentration camps?

To address your sources: the CNN citation is a biased opinion by a politician; Dr. Lipstadt's statements in the New York Post piece clearly refer to Nazi concentration camps, not concentration camps more generally, as a false interpretation of Representative Ocasio-Cortez's publicization of the "concentration camp" label; The Jewish Insider piece is a collection of three opinions, all of which are clearly aimed at falsely interpreting a Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's words, again, as being a direct reference to Nazi concentration camps; the Haaretz piece is behind a paywall, but its title and sub-title indicate that it is both opinion from a biased politician and, once again, statements by Dr. Lipstadt falsely interpreting Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's words as being a direct reference to Nazi concentration camps; and the final reference is, once again, statements from individuals falsely interpreting Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's words as being a direct reference to Nazi concentration camps.

There are no statements in the sources you've provided that show experts speaking about whether or not these are concentration camps. Instead every one of them is (properly) concluding that these are not death camps, a la Nazi concentration camps.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Obama Administration's 2014 Event Added

Looking at the two links included for justification of adding the Obama Administration to the line about the Trump Administration's family separation policy does not seem to back up the former's inclusion. Neither link states that children were separated from their families when taken to Fort Sill, so unless sources can be provided, then linking the two in this fashion would be inappropriate.

@Tobby72: I propose Obama Administration's 2014 event be separated from the Trump Administration's ongoing event, so that discussion of either/both can be carried out individually without complication by the other. The linked WP article for the Obama Administration's 2014 American immigration crisis likely has multiple sources contained within to inform a discussion about whether or not that event qualifies as an example, given the agreed-upon definition in this article. Given that Tobby72 is the one who most-recently included the 2014 event as an example, I am hoping they can help with this discussion.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

American Immigration Policy Should be Removed

This article is not objective with regards to American Immigration Policy being characterized as a concentration camp. The article provides a definition, "imprisonment . . . without charges, or intent to file charges, and thus no trial". This is false. There is a trial and due process to determine if there is a legal right of entry and whether there is a valid asylum claim. . Controlling the flow immigration is done by nearly every country around the world. Being held pending an immigration hearing is not a concentration camp. There has been no evidence of deplorable and inhumane conditions in these centers comparable to a concentration camp. Detention is based on citizenship status, not immutable traits.

One can believe that the actions are deeply immoral including the family seperation, but the concentration camp categorization and comparison is not appropriate.

Yad Vashem , the US Holocaust Museum , and Aushwitz Museum have cautioned against comparisons with Concentration Camps that killed 6 million Jews and with the atrocities of the Holocaust. Most people associate concentration camps with the systematic extermination of the Jews. Language and categorization that echoes this comparison is inappropriate. I think the American Immigration Policy should be removed.

Condemnation of comparison and categorization as concentration camps: Chuck Todd- MSNBC ; Jake Tapper- CNN- ; Bill Hemmer- Fox News ; Holocaust Survivors condemnation of comparison of immigration centers to concentration camps

^ 8 USC ss 1221-1232 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229a ) ^ ( https://twitter.com/yadvashem/status/1141267813249835008 ) ^ Senior Historian From Yad Vashem -(https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-exactly-is-a-concentration-camp-aoc/) ^ ( https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/statement-regarding-the-museums-position-on-holocaust-analogies ) ^ ( https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/449237-auschwitz-memorial-responds-to-msnbc-host-chris-hayes-over ) ^ (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/20/chuck_todd_why_arent_democrats_calling_out_alexandria_ocasio-cortez_for_concentration_camp_comments.html) ^ ( https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1144378806268026882 ) ^ ( https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-fox-news-concentration-camps-1444606 ) ^ (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-holocaust-survivors-respond-to-aocs-concentration-camp-comments)

I added disputed, but hope higher ups make this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.20.255 (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that the U.S. Immigration System through time - the system as it was from 2016 and prior - may not be an appropriate example for this page's list, as those detention and processing facilities do not appear to have been previously described as internment or concentration camps by experts. Further, they may not meet the definition(s) as provided in this article, given that the system at that time did not appear to be used in a punitive way while simultaneously limiting detainees' access to the judicial system, but instead was used to help facilitate quick access to the judicial system. (No sources provided because, well, how would one "prove" this negative?)

However, with regard to this system from 2017 onward, experts have been rather emphatic in noting the changes in policies and application of those policies - including rendering it next to impossible to seek asylum through the so-called "official" channels available to those who present themselves at the U.S.-Mexico border - that have turned previous detention and processing centers into concentration camps. Given that the this change lines up directly with the change in U.S. administration, it would make sense that the system as previously administered was not an example of internment/concentration camps, but that the system as it currently exists is. For citations, read those already included in support of the entry "Trump administration family separation policy (2017-present)"

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources used for the entry "Immigration detention under Bush and Obama," one was an opinion article and should remain deleted. Of the remaining three, only one of these - Some of the pictures of border kids that haunt me most are from 2014. Here’s why | Philadelphia Inquirer - describes any detention or processing facilities prior to 2017 as as even just potentially punitive in nature:

When Free had a chance encounter with the president at a political event, he warned him that the detention centers would be "a stain on his legacy." He said the president wanted to know if Free was an immigration lawyer — implying that everyday citizens weren't worried about what goes on at the border — and then said, according to Free: "I'll tell you what we can't have, it's these parents sending their kids here on a dangerous journey and putting their lives at risk." The message that Free took away was that the president saw family detention as a deterrent to keep more refugees from coming.

Will Bunch, Philadelphia Inquirer

This quote shows only an evaluation of remarks by the president by a single individual. The other two remaining references do not describe any conditions nor circumstances prior to 2016 that would meet the definition of an internment or concentration camp used in this article.

Unless other citations can be provided for "Immigration detention under Bush and Obama" that supports its inclusion on a list of internment/concentration camps, this should be removed from the list.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In follow-up to my earlier post, every single citation listed for the Immigration Detention Centers relies on one single author: Andrea Pitzer. She does not appear to have a PhD or even Masters Degree. I can find no basis to qualify her as an expert on this matter. She is not more credible than multiple Holocaust museums who have many experts with PhDs studying the field, Holocaust Survivors, and multiple journalists that I have listed.

There has been no evidence provided that the detained individuals will not receive trials for their asylum claims. On the contrary, the law requires they will, which i cited. Further, there has been an extensive Humanitarian aid package of 4.6 billion of dollars passed and on its way to the detained individuals. This shows there is no punitive intent to inflict harm or a design for harm, but the country is merely being overwhelmed by the number of immigrants.

The Japanese were American Citizens and were put in camps because of their immutable traits. The European Jews (should have been citizens) and were rightful inhabitants of their land, they were put in camps (and killed) for immutable traits. The same can be said about the African Boers in South Africa. The undocumented migrants are coming of their own free will, unlike every other example, and are not being targeted due to immutable traits, but immigration status.

The only other expert in any of the articles J. Hyslop states, "all four of the early instances—Americans in the Philippines, Spanish in Cuba, and British in South Africa, and Germans in Southwest Africa—they're all essentially overriding any sense of rights of the civilian population." Every instance was a native population being moved based on their immutable traits. With the Detention Centers, a population is coming into a foreign country and is being asked to stop pending a hearing. It doesn't appear to be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.20.255 (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The conditions are atrocious, but having a picture of Holocaust survivors across from the detention center is insulting to every single holocaust survivor. The immigration policy can be deeply wrong, embarrassing, and even human rights violations without being a concentration camp. B

Regarding Obama and Pre-2017, you rely upon hearsay for establishing an encyclopedia article establishing consensus definitions of Concentration Camps. We do not know if this statement happened, nor do we know what the president meant by the statement. This does not seem appropriate.

I agree with the suggestion below to just put the list of examples article that doesn't highlight the Immigration Detention Centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8B00:2C60:5987:CC33:AF1A:8431 (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that American Immigration centers should not be included in the examples because of the stated facts above. It seems like the consensus is that it shouldn’t be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

With regard to U.S. centers from 2017 and onward, I would disagree. Multiple RS are used to justify their inclusion, with voices from multiple experts included in those examples (one source alone quotes from three separate experts). Further, arguments to exclude because of comparisons to Holocaust camps fail, given that multiple examples here come from other time periods and locations and are meant to exemplify the broadness of the category.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with Pinchme123's statement above. The inclusion is justified based on multiple sources/experts. Doremo (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with Pinchme123. Objectively and disregarding political bias, the practice seems to meet the definition and as such warrant inclusion. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly DoubleGrazing your opinion is biased. Stating you have no bias doesn’t mean anything. It clearly does not meet the definition of a concentration or interment camp. The article provides a definition, "imprisonment . . . without charges, or intent to file charges, and thus no trial". This is false. There is a trial and due process to determine if there is a legal right of entry and whether there is a valid asylum claim. [10]. Controlling the flow immigration is done by nearly every country around the world. Being held pending an immigration hearing is not a concentration camp. There has been no evidence of deplorable and inhumane conditions in these centers comparable to a concentration camp. Detention is based on citizenship status, not immutable traits.

One can believe that the actions are deeply immoral including the family seperation, but the concentration camp categorization and comparison is not appropriate.

Yad Vashem [11] [12], the US Holocaust Museum [13], and Aushwitz Museum [14] have cautioned against comparisons with Concentration Camps that killed 6 million Jews and with the atrocities of the Holocaust. Most people associate concentration camps with the systematic extermination of the Jews. Language and categorization that echoes this comparison is inappropriate. I think the American Immigration Policy should be removed.

Condemnation of comparison and categorization as concentration camps: Chuck Todd- MSNBC [15]; Jake Tapper- CNN- [16]; Bill Hemmer- Fox News [17]; Holocaust Survivors condemnation of comparison of immigration centers to concentration camps [18] There has been no evidence provided that the detained individuals will not receive trials for their asylum claims. On the contrary, the law requires they will, which i cited. Further, there has been an extensive Humanitarian aid package of 4.6 billion of dollars passed and on its way to the detained individuals. [19] This shows there is no punitive intent to inflict harm or a design for harm, but the country is merely being overwhelmed by the number of immigrants.

The Japanese were American Citizens and were put in camps because of their immutable traits. The European Jews (should have been citizens) and were rightful inhabitants of their land, they were put in camps (and killed) for immutable traits. The same can be said about the African Boers in South Africa. The undocumented migrants are coming of their own free will, unlike every other example, and are not being targeted due to immutable traits, but immigration status.

^ 8 USC ss 1221-1232 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229a ) ^ ( https://twitter.com/yadvashem/status/1141267813249835008 ) ^ Senior Historian From Yad Vashem -(https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-exactly-is-a-concentration-camp-aoc/) ^ ( https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/statement-regarding-the-museums-position-on-holocaust-analogies ) ^ ( https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/449237-auschwitz-memorial-responds-to-msnbc-host-chris-hayes-over ) ^ (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/20/chuck_todd_why_arent_democrats_calling_out_alexandria_ocasio-cortez_for_concentration_camp_comments.html) ^ ( https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1144378806268026882 ) ^ ( https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-fox-news-concentration-camps-1444606 ) ^ (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-holocaust-survivors-respond-to-aocs-concentration-camp-comments) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 13:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the first sentence, this whole comment is copied above (posted originally by 73.19.20.255) and has been responded to there. As additional refutation of the sources Hurledhandbook cites that rely on the Holocaust to deny that the current U.S. facilities cannot be called "concentration camps," there are numerous news outlets that have reported on an effort by hundreds of genocide experts to have the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum retract their statement. Newseek's article: "More than 400 Holocaust, genocide experts think Ocasio-Cortez should be allowed to call migrant detention centers 'concentration camps'". And as I stated in my last comment, this article includes multiple examples of internment and concentration camps from locations and time periods outside of Nazi Holocaust camps.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but that article just says 400 “experts”. Who are these so called “experts”? They are nobody’s. They are professors at colleges. They are not experts. Ah, yes. The fabled “concentration camp experts.” We can only assume the “experts” she consulted don’t work at the Auschwitz Museum or United States Holocaust Museum or the Wiesenthal Center or, you know, any places that employ actual concentration camp experts who are sick and tired of AOC’s Holocaust comparisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

All of us hiding behind fake names on Wikipedia are the nobodies, not 400 college professors. They are our intellectual and professional community. Doremo (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Here are some people who are actual experts on the holocaust and concentration camps. Also Bernie Sanders because he is Jewish, a politician and he is a democrat. Even comparing the detention camps to concentration camps is disgusting. https://nypost.com/2019/06/19/israeli-holocaust-museum-lectures-aoc-after-concentration-camp-remarks/

https://forward.com/news/national/426187/sanders-aoc-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camps/

https://jewishjournal.com/news/nation/300186/wiesenthal-center-calls-aocs-concentration-camp-remarks-insult-to-victims-of-the-shoah/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It should not be included because it doesn’t meet the definition of an internment camp. The definition of internet camp is “a prison camp for the confinement of enemy aliens, prisoners of war, political prisoners, etc.” These illegal immigrants are put in the camps because they are illegally crossing the border. This is therefore a crime and should be dealt with accordingly. They are not being put in the camps because of their race, religion, etc.. they are being put in for a crime. There is no mistreatment and it is not ill willed. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/internment-camp

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/july/leader-of-national-hispanic-christian-group-tours-border-facility-pushes-back-against-reports-of-mistreatment-of-migrant-children — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove list of examples

There's no legitimate criteria for what should be included in the "Examples" list here, when we already have List of concentration and internment camps. I suggest we remove the examples section completely, or eventually, we'll end up with everything at List of concentration and internment camps also listed here. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

My twopenn'orth: I don't see any harm in retaining this section, whereas I do find that helps to flesh out the point that internment/concentration camps wasn't just a Nazi practice. Just because there isn't clear criteria for inclusion doesn't suggest to me that we couldn't include some examples notable for their historical significance or currency. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the list should be retained. It is a relatively brief list of notable examples. Doremo (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the current absence of any defined criteria for inclusion, does not mean that nothing should be included. Key examples should be retained. MPS1992 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It should not be included because it doesn’t meet the definition of an internment camp. The definition of internet camp is “a prison camp for the confinement of enemy aliens, prisoners of war, political prisoners, etc.”

These illegal immigrants are put in the camps because they are illegally crossing the border. This is therefore a crime and should be dealt with accordingly. They are not being put in the camps because of their race, religion, etc.. they are being put in for a crime. There is no mistreatment and it is not ill willed.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/internment-camp

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/july/leader-of-national-hispanic-christian-group-tours-border-facility-pushes-back-against-reports-of-mistreatment-of-migrant-children — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DoubleGrazing, Doremo, and MPS1992. A shortened list of notable examples with a link to the main List of concentration and internment camps seems entirely appropriate.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

REMOVE the reference to the Trump administraion family separation policy. FIRST, is was NOT Trump's policy, but Barrack Obama's policy. Second, It is more than disgusting for a site such as this to reference a politically charged snark and besmirchment of our fine law enforcement from a clearly biased and bigoted person for a legitimate source as an "example". This is BullShit!! Take it OFF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.104.34 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The entry is well-sourced to multiple experts and provides value to the page as an example of a contemporary internment/concentration camp system. Please keep your language civil. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

3 million Uyghurs?

The sources for 3 million Uyghurs being detained are quite old. Every estimate I've seen in 2019 - and this is an issue I follow quite regularly - has indicated it is thought to be around 1 million. 18 month old outdated sources should be removed and the most recent estimates should be given.

Philologick (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Politics is not "consensus".

Why are supporting links for detention centers associated Trump admin sources from political blog (Huffington Post) and politics pages of Esquire?

Are detainees really being held arbitrarily and absent due process? In fact they are accused of actual illegality and are only being detained pending adjudication.

All of the supposed references on this go back to a single "expert" who I'm sure just accidentally happens to be an anti-Trump leftist. If we can get her reported throughout more and more of liberal media does that make that one person each more of a "consensus"? Hogwash. Get the politics off the site.

Leftist moderation of Wikipedia does not alter reality and the truth, it simply discredits Wikipedia. Crybaby politics at the long overdue the rule of law insults actual victims of genocidal internment like the Holocaust. Cpurick (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The provided sources quote multiple experts, though one of them is quoted more than once (and wrote one of the sources). --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the inclusion of the detention centers in any list as a concentration camp or internment, ultimately harms Wikipedia as an unbiased source and is pushed for inclusion by people with agendas and people with political motives, besides which the US detention centers don't meet the guidelines for inclusion as per the article's lead or definitions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

As Sir Joseph is well aware, the matter of whether or not the U.S.-Mexico border concentration camps are appropriate for concentration/internment camp lists on Wikipedia was settled by an RfC at Talk:List of concentration and internment camps#RFC about U.S.-Mexico border camps. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

As you're well aware, an RFC is only for that specific page, not for the entire Wikipedia. Regardless, I'm taking this page off my watchlist, please don't ping me. I've had enough of your bias. Congratulations on helping Trump win in 2020. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References 23,24,25,26 (as of this edit) are on the Trump detention centers. Two of them are bylines by Andrea Pitzer. The other two both refer to an "expert" and in both those cases "the" expert is Andrea Pitzer. Thus, the entire "consensus" is ONE expert with an obvious political bias. Furthermore, you appear to be defending it with similar bias. It is what it is. This is an insult to anybody who understands what a concentration camp is/was. Cpurick

You are correct about two of them having Pitzer as a byline; given that she's a content expert, I'm not sure this is a bad thing. In one of the other two sources - the Esquire piece - two other experts aside from Pitzer are included: another historian and a sociologist. In the Huffington Post article, another historian is also quoted.

The page is currently protected, but once that is lifted, I can diversify the sources to address your concerns. The RfC I linked to before contains a ton of sources from a broad range of experts all using the label, and at one point another editor even compiled quotes from an additional five experts (not including Pitzer). Here's that list: [diff]

--Pinchme123 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I again propose that the bullet list of examples be removed entirely. Any short list, particularly one without any (let alone clear) criteria, will inevitably be controversial, POV, and arbitrary. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

When you last informally proposed to remove the list at the beginning of July, four editors (including myself) stated that they thought the list should stay, for varying reasons. I don't know if anything has changed in a month and a half to justify reversing course. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article was, at least for a time, locked to editing over a dispute about what to include in the list, so... - Themightyquill (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What to include in the list, not whether or not to include the list at all, so... --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I am disgusted at the obvious influence of politics here. Disgusted. It borders on criminal that leftist academics steward so much of our knowledge.

The US Southern Border detainees are here in violation of law. Their detention is part of lawful due process, they are afforded representation and they are free to go if they want to leave the country. None of those conditions apply to any form of internment. There is no particular expertise or authority that comes from having a political agenda, just a demonstration of petty bitterness and poor sportsmanship among sore losers of a political race. Cpurick (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the detainees are here, I think they are in the USA! MPS1992 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Cpurick, your "anti-Trump leftist" happens to be a journalist who writes for a reliable publication with an editorial board and all the other things that an RS requires. They are not opinion pieces; perhaps you are not acquainted with with (investigative) journalists do. I don't care if you're disgusted by your own imagination ("It borders on criminal that leftist academics steward so much of our knowledge" is just a bunch of uneducated nonsense), but I do care that you mistake this talk page for a forum. See WP:FORUM. Ima leave a note on DS that are relevant (all of a sudden) to this field on your talk page, and let this serve as a public reminder to stay on topic and not abuse Wikipedia for spreading poorly informed opinion. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies

""your "anti-Trump leftist" happens to be a journalist who writes for a reliable publication with an editorial board and all the other things that an RS requires."

The two are not mutually exclusive. Lately a journalist with an editorial board is more likely to be an anti-Trump leftist than not.

The liberal moderation continues to ignore that detainees are in the US illegally and therefore lawfully detained under the rule of law and with due process. They are not held indefinitely but are each scheduled for adjudication, and that they are all free to leave the US and detention anytime, such that their detention is conditional only on their resolve to remain in the US, and not as part of some plan to detain arbitrary populations.

None of that is consistent with any other example of internment, and one does not need to be a leftist journalist to recognize that.

The assertion that the border facilities are internment is political. The suggestion that "a journalist" is necessarily apolitical is also political. The defense of the political mischaracterization of this "internment" is political. Denying that it is political is political. Use reason, and not politics, and remove the ridiculous example. Cpurick (talk)

Whatever. "Lately a journalist with an editorial board is more likely to be an anti-Trump leftist than not": Wikipedia has no room for your conspiracy theories. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a highly misleading wiki entry.

It mixes up re-concentration camps : "accommodation for the non-combatants of a district" and concentration camps "prisons where people are deliberately held in harsh and overcrowded conditions possibly awaiting execution or slave labour"

These are not the same things!

It claims that the re-concentration camps in Cuba(Spanish), the Philippines(American) and South Africa(British) were prisons. Does any one have any good sources to support this?

--Cheezypeaz (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The above appears to be a failure to understand Spanish reconcentrado; there are no "re-concentration camps" in English. Spanish reconcentrar means 'to concentrate, bring together'. Doremo (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The contributor also seems to have invented his/her own definition of the term ("prisons where people ..."). We should stick to objective definitions, such as this from Merriam-Webster: "concentration camp: a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or foreign nationals) are detained or confined and sometimes subjected to physical and mental abuse and indignity" Doremo (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the definition of reconcentrar. I did not know this. However my point still stands.

The article defines internment as being imprisonment and concentration camps as a type of internment. Therefore concentration camps must be prisons. Were the Spanish, American and British camps prisons? If they were then OK. If not then the article is misleading.

The definitions I gave were based on what I remembered of the OED (V2) definitions. The correct definitions are...

OED v2 : concentration camp, a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African War of 1899–1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939–45;

OED v3 (current)

1. Military (orig. and chiefly U.S.). A camp for the concentration and temporary accommodation of large numbers of troops awaiting active service

2.a. A camp in which large numbers of people, esp. political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution.

2.b. figurative. Something likened to a concentration camp, esp. in being a place of oppression, suffering, and inhumanity.

The Spanish, American and British camps now seem now to fall under 2.b. "figurative" for the following reasons 1) they were for people who happened to be living in a particular area where there was military activity - they were not political prisoners, they were not members of a persecuted minority. 2) The British camps were not prisons, I doubt if the Spanish or American ones were. 3) no forced labour or executions.

The Webster definition is less exacting but it still contains "detained or confined" which anyone will read as imprisoned. This definition is so imprecise it means that all prisoner of war camps and foreign national internment camps are automatically also concentration camps.

I know this topic is very political. I'm arguing that we don't mislead our readers by trying to cram everything in to one definition. If we do that the Spanish/American/British camps are no longer concentration camps. ( and arguably aren't given the current meaning of "concentration camp".)

P.S. I was probably mislead about the term "reconcentration camp" by this article which contains the following "The English term concentration camp was first used in order to refer to the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps)"

Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

According to the cited definition on the 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 enforcement and immigration detention facilities are by definition not internment camps. Unless they are designated so by a legitimate governing body of merit (the UN specifically panned the facilities, but did not designate them as refugee/internment/concentration camps), or if there is a peer-reviewed journal entry / body of work in an esteemed journal of history or related subject that specifically outlines why the immigration detention facilities are internment camps, then I will continue to remove this factually incorrect entries. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Entry is well-cited, using Wikipedia-acceptable reliable sources that all call these concentration camps concentration camps and all rely on content experts to make that determination. The entry is therefore factual and a valid example for inclusion on this page. Do not delete again without specific reliable sources questioning their labeling as concentration camps. --Pinchme123 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Entry is well-cited, using Wikipedia-acceptable reliable sources that all call these concentration camps concentration camps and all rely on content experts to make that determination.

The entry is not well-cited, and the source is opinion piece written by journalists. The source you're citing does not cite any official designation by a governing body 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),

I'll repeat myself again since it's apparently not getting through to you: "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". These 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. I will remove the offending entry once the ban is lifted due to the fact that their inclusion in this article is factually incorrect.

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

German South-West Africa camps

I see above there is some discussion of whether or not to actually include the examples section, but, if it's kept, I think a mention of the camps in the Herero and Namaqua genocide would be notable as the first in the list that mentions Unethical human experimentation (there was already Unethical human experimentation in the United States on prisoners and slaves). Especially as it occurred at the start of the last century by the German Empire, which the genocide article shows has been linked to the Nazi's later experimentation it should go in the examples, if not in the definition along with the UK&USA camps. The article is a bit small and messy in general, but I don't know enough to really help in expansion, nor would I know where to start. What does strike me as odd is the Chilean & British-Kenyan camps going in before 'during the 20th century' rather than after (maybe in the paragraph of, but before, the Chinese re-education camps?) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Clinton, Obama, and Trump concentration camps

The article currently lists this as an example of an internment camp:

• Trump administration migrant detentions as part of immigration detention in the United States (2018–present)

References

However, according to The Esquire, " the Obama administration ... pioneered some of the tactics the Trump administration is now using to try to manage the situation at the border" and the system was "set up by the Bill Clinton administration, built on by Barack Obama's government. Moreover, according to Politifact, overall, experts say US detention facilities are not similar to earliest concentration camps or Nazi camps.

What should we do to bring this article closer to neutral point of view?

1. Change the entry to Immigration detention in the United States in the United States since Bill Clinton admnistration.
2. As above, but also cite experts to highlight that the viewpoint is highly disputed.
3. Add separate lines for Clinton, Obama, and Trump administrations.
4. As above, but also cite experts to highlight that the viewpoint is highly disputed.
5. Remove the entry, but use an entry pointing to Immigration detention in the United States in See also section, possibly with a brief annotation.
6. Something else. Why?

Comments? Politrukki (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I would argue, as I have elsewhere on Talk:List of concentration and internment camps, that the second sentence in full is important: "But by Pitzer's measure, the system at the southern border first set up by the Bill Clinton administration, built on by Barack Obama's government, and brought into extreme and perilous new territory by Donald Trump and his allies does qualify." To me at least, this is describing how the situation has changed from the past, to explain why the current concentration camps weren't concentration camps before. As for the first quote you've used, you've cut off the beginning of the sentence where it specifically states that it refers only to Fort Sill. It does not describe all immigration detention centers, and even in the part of the quote you included makes it clear it's only referring to some of the things Trump administration does and not all of them. It's the totality that explains why these are concentration camps now and weren't under the Obama, Bush, or Clinton administrations.

Finally, in response to the Politifact article, the question isn't whether or not these concentration camps are similar to others of the past or Nazi-specific camps, but whether or not experts today identify them as camps. And I think the sources here already make clear, experts do call them concentration camps, under the Trump administration.

So my vote is to keep it as is. If others show consensus that more sources are needed, then we can add others.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Extermination vs internment

See this article, this book, this book, or this book for a discussion of the terminology. In RS, internment is defined as "Internment may be defined as an extra-judicial deprivation of liberty by executive action"[1] An extermination camp does not fit that definition as people are not deprived of their liberty but killed more or less immediately.

Also, it is not correct to say, "The paragraph should stay, until such a time sources can be produced on the talk page to explain otherwise."—see WP:ONUS. The one who advocates keeping material should be able to produce sources for it. (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Onus does not apply, as this is a dispute over removal of existing content based upon your unsupported assertion that the content is inaccurate, not the inclusion of new content that has a source but may not be necessary. The paragraph is both accurate and useful to readers.

Regarding sources provided, linking to a bunch of books and vaguely claiming they support your assertion is not enough. Provide specific citations, including pages.

I'll get you started with one of my own. Per Encyclopedia Britannica: Extermination camp, German Vernichtungslager, Nazi German concentration camp that specialized in the mass annihilation (Vernichtung) of unwanted persons in the Third Reich and conquered territories..

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica is not necessarily a RS. it is a general rather than scholarly encyclopedia. As for the USHMM source you cited, it states: "In time their extensive camp system came to include concentration camps, where persons were incarcerated without observation of the standard norms applying to arrest and custody; labor camps; prisoner-of-war camps; transit camps; and camps which served as killing centers, often called extermination camps or death camps." The distinction between concentration and extermination camps is upheld.

USHMM also states in a different article: "Many people refer to all of the Nazi incarceration sites during the Holocaust as concentration camps. The term concentration camp is used very loosely to describe places of incarceration and murder under the Nazi regime, however, not all sites established by the Nazis were concentration camps." It cites "killing centers" (i.e. extermination camps) as separate from concentration camps.[2] (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) buidhe I see no reason to discount Encyclopedia Britannica as an unreliable source at this time for this particular subject. Its author is Michael Berenbaum, who helped create the USHMM. He's a Holocaust scholar working at American Jewish University.

Further, the USHMM source specifically backs up the sentence to which it is attached as a reference. From the Wiki: The label concentration camp is often additionally used for [extermination camp]. From the source that you've also quoted, with emphasis: In time their extensive camp system came to include concentration camps, where persons were incarcerated without observation of the standard norms applying to arrest and custody; labor camps; prisoner-of-war camps; transit camps; and camps which served as killing centers, often called extermination camps or death camps. Also: The concentration camps, standing outside the reach of the German justice authorities, had always been places where the SS could kill prisoners. After the beginning of the war, however, the camps increasingly became sites for the systematic murder of individuals or small groups of persons. And then: In Auschwitz-Birkenau, the SS had within the concentration camp system a killing center that had four gas chambers and that, at the height of the deportations, could kill up to 6,000 Jews each day. This source explicitly states, some types of concentration camps are often called "extermination camps;" it does not state that the labels are mutually exclusive.

Next, I took a look at the first source you provided (two of the books were inaccessible and the other was in German). It too does not claim mutual exclusivity of concentration camps and extermination camps, but rather that the latter is a specific extreme kind of the former. In fact, its argument is about the distinction between internment camps and concentration camps, since, after the atrocities of the Holocaust became known, the term concentration camp was inextricably linked to Nazi death camps. This is a powerful argument in support of the paragraph explicitly outlines the distinction between concentration camps that are synonymous to internment camps and concentration camps that are of the extermination kind.

Thus, the distinction is in specificity, not exclusivity, and this should be clearly spelled out in the article. Which is why the paragraph should remain.

Not to mention, you're deleting the entire paragraph, which was fully sourced, all because you seem to misunderstand the last sentence of it. Please immediately reinstate it.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not fully sourced, you're misrepresenting the source to say something other than what it says. "Camp system" is a vague term, and more broad that "interment" or "concentration camps". I am still waiting for the source that says that extermination is a type of internment.

I did not say that concentration and extermination camps are mutually exclusive; just that the latter is not a subset of the former, as your preferred texts states. I am still waiting for a source which states that explicitly. Auschwitz, Jasenovac and Majdanek are all correctly described as both extermination and concentration camps, fullfilling both functions simultaneously. But Chelmno, Treblinka, etc. are not concentration camps or sites of "internment". (t · c) buidhe 04:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

buidhe: Please do not change indenting style mid-conversation. It is highly distracting. I've fixed it for you.

So now you're demanding sources to support specific label for specific camps? None of these are listed in the paragraph in question and so no, I don't see a reason to meet your goalpost-moved demand. I provided a specific source and pointed out in two of your specific sources how "extermination camps" is considered a specific kind of "concentration camp," complete with emphasized uses of "concentration" and "extermination." You've so far only provided one source that claims this is not the case. I count three to one, in support of already-existing content in the article. At best, the fact that two USHMM sources contradict one another probably means it should be dropped from consideration, leaving two sources in support.

But fine, reinstate the paragraph and remove the two words "the subset" if it'll make you happy. The rest of the paragraph is fully acceptable though and is a necessary clarification for why, despite often being called "concentration camps" the specific type "extermination camps" or "death camps" are excluded from this article.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

However you cut it, the information you are adding is not sourced correctly. "The label concentration camp is often additionally used for the latter [extermination camps], such as those created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya, Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and Soviet gulags in operation into the 1980s." Cited source does not mention Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian colonization of Libya, or gulags. Furthermore, it does not say that "Nazi concentration camps" are a type of extermination camp. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the following wording would be a verifiably sourced and accurate compromise:

The term "concentration camp" or "internment camp" is used to refer to a variety of systems that greatly differed in their severity, mortality rate, and architecture; their defining characteristic was that inmates were held without due process or the rule of law. Extermination camps or death camps, whose primary purpose was killing, are also imprecisely referred to as "concentration camps".

"Stone 2015" is already cited in the article (t · c) buidhe 06:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References

(ec) buidhe: Again, stop changing the indent style. Repeatedly changing it after being asked to adhere to normal talk page behavior is disruptive and reflects poorly on your willingness to discuss things civilly.

I wrote a reply to your first comment, but since you've suggested alternative language, I'll delete that reply and instead respond to the alternative. No this isn't acceptable, because it does not explicitly explain why some camps labeled concentration camps by scholars are excluded. They are excluded because, although they are specifically labeled as such, they are of a certain kind – they are extermination camps or death camps – and so are covered under their own article. It also inaccurately describes the label, and is only supported by part of one of the sources you've provided, and no others so far. The source you're basing it on comes from a publication that even has conflicting explanations. I'll take the multiple sources supporting the 'subset' distinction – including the one that explicitly states this distinction outright – over the conflicting source.

So again, I'm asking you to reinstate the paragraph.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, talk page guidelines do not ban {{outdent}}ing. Second, I will not restore your preferred version because it is not compatible with core content policy, specifically WP:V. Where are the souces saying explicitly that extermination camp is a subset of concentration camp? The only source that you quoted, the encyclopedia brittanica source, seems to me to be stating that some nazi concentration camps were also extermination camps. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to outdenting (nor did I anywhere claim a "ban" on anything) and you'll notice I never changed the outdenting. You repeatedly used bullets rather than indents. Thank you for not doing it again.

I am asking you restore the original stable version – not "(my) preferred version" – from before this dispute began, for while we are resolving the dispute. Verifiability/ONUS doesn't apply here because this is a dispute about removal of already-established content, not insertion of new content. So yes, the stable version does in fact "comply with core content policy."

The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't say "some nazi [sic] concentration camps were also extermination camps." It says, extermination camps are a type of concentration camp. This is approaching WP:IDHT.

Finally, I look forward to your responses to the other objections I raised to your compromise.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS refers to all material in mainspace: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." If you disagree with my behavior, feel free to report me to the admin noticeboard of your choice.

In the meantime, I await the sources that actually support the entire content in your preferred version of the content. I refer to it as your preferred version because it is the one that you continue to support. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The quote you've just provided, it's literally about including new content, not about eliminating existing content.

I've already provided multiple sources that explicitly state the language used. You've even wholly reversed the language of one of those sources in a dishonest attempt to claim it says the opposite.

Looks like this needs dispute resolution.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

buidhe: Please note, you have once again shifted the goalposts. The article content in question – which you still have not reinstated, despite WP:BRD – does not state "concentration camps are a subset of extermination camps" as you claimed at the dispute case; but I pointed out that many sources, including ones you yourself provided, do in fact describe them as such, as a part of my argument for why this content should remain in. Claiming some Wikipedia policy about extraordinary claims should apply in support of you deleting content that doesn't even include the so-called extraordinary claim is... I don't even know what to label it.

The fact is, the sentence as stated is perfectly factual and backed by the sources I added: the extermination camp label is in fact applied by many, many scholars to "extermination camps," or "death camps," or, as USHMM even calls them "killing centers." That the concentration camp label is applied to them, and an explanation for why this specific article does not deal with them, should be included for reader comprehension.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

More top-tier secondary sources that describe concentration camps as including extermination camps:

JANM: During World War II, America’s concentration camps were clearly distinguishable from Nazi Germany’s. Nazi camps were places of torture, barbarous medical experiments, and summary executions; some were extermination centers with gas chambers.

The Guardian: ...use of concentration camps by Nazi Germany in its effort to exterminate Jews. (previously unsigned; one of these days I won't forget --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC))

Since buidhe sees fit to keep updating their summary at dispute resolution, I'll continue to do what is asked of editors there and refrain from such changes, instead using the Talk page.

Apologies for characterizing you having reversed the wording of a source, more than once ([diff], [diff], in order to claim it says the opposite as a "dishonest" action. Feel free to explain your completely innocent reason for doing so here.

But it is not a personal attack to point out the shifting target of your argument in the face of sound sourcing, and to label that shift as "moving the goalposts." Personal attacks are against individuals, not their content.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said before, I do not dispute that *some Nazi concentration camps were also extermination camps*. These sources do not support the statement in the previous version of the article: "This article involves internment generally, as distinct from the subset, the extermination camps, commonly referred to as death camps". And yes, calling another editor "dishonest" is a personal attack. (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I see you're still unable to adhere to ongoing indenting. Here, I'll fix that for you again.

Apologies for characterizing you having reversed the wording of a source ([diff]), apparently in order to claim it says the opposite, as a "dishonest" action. Feel free to explain your completely innocent reason for doing so here.

But it is not a personal attack to point out the shifting target of your argument in the face of sound sourcing, and to label that shift as "moving the goalposts." Personal attacks are against individuals, not their content.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's my working version of the disputed content, with reliable sources added. Not WP:OR involved.

This article involves internment generally, as distinct from the subset, the extermination camps, commonly referred to as death camps.. The label concentration camp is often additionally used for the latter, such as those created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya, Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and Soviet gulags in operation into the 1980s.

References

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: are extermination camps a subset of concentration camps?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus in favour of the proposal, and the requisite edit has already been made. Therefore it isn't strictly necessary to type a hatnote for this RfC, but the matter remains listed at WP:ANRFC, where it is described as contentious, and I wish to remove it from the backlog. I hereby do so.—S Marshall T/C 13:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the current paragraph in the lead:

This article involves internment generally, as distinct from the subset, the extermination camps, commonly referred to as death camps. The label concentration camp is often additionally used for the latter, such as those created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya, Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and Soviet gulags in operation into the 1980s.

be replaced by:

The term "concentration camp" or "internment camp" is used to refer to a variety of systems that greatly differ in their severity, mortality rate, and architecture; their defining characteristic is that inmates are held outside the rule of law. Extermination camps or death camps, whose primary purpose is killing, are also imprecisely referred to as "concentration camps".

(t · c) buidhe 05:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Ref 1. should also contain |quote=Concentration camps throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are by no means all the same, with respect either to the degree of violence that characterizes them or the extent to which their inmates are abandoned by the authorities... The crucial characteristic of a concentration camp is not whether it has barbed wire, fences, or watchtowers; it is, rather, the gathering of civilians, defined by a regime as de facto ‘enemies’, in order to hold them against their will without charge in a place where the rule of law has been suspended. which has been omitted in order to shorten the statement so that Legobot can process this RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Survey

• Support.
  1. There is no dispute in scholarly sources that extermination camps, whose purpose is killing people, not interning them, are not a subset of concentration camps or a type of internment. (The term "concentration and extermination camp" is often used for sites that fulfilled both purposes.) Scholarly encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Der Ort des Terrors classify extermination camps separately. (Sources: [3] [4])
  2. In addition, the classification of German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya, Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and Soviet gulags in operation into the 1980s as extermination camps is not accurate. Although a list of sources was provided at WP:DRN, these fail verification. (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support I'd prefer the distinction between a concentration camp and an extermination camp to be reduced to a footnote, not explained in the lead. FDW777 (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: How does "outside the rule of law" get added to the definition? This means that under a regime where concentration camps are permitted by law they are not concentration camps. The use of the past tense (differed, was, were held) also makes it sounds like concentration camps are a historical phenomenon that cannot exist in the modern world. Doremo (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Discussion moved below. (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per Buidhe. I think "outside the rule of law" could be better phrased on the basis of the source provided, but it is certainly better than the alternative. Perhaps "outside the scope of ordinary criminal law"? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Material which is off topic and in the wrong place; move to discussion section if necessary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bad open: this is already being discussed via an open case at dispute resolution and opening this here is WP:FORUMSHOPping. Should this not be immediately closed, I propose the existing text be updated with the already provided factual citations, which support each portion of it. It is deeply disingenuous for it to have been posted without those updated citations, given OP's knowledge of them from DRN. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Additionally, at DRN, the sources OP claims failed verification in fact passed verification, as the moderator found the original text with added sources to have been factual. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Given that people might continue voting, despite the forum-shopping, I also think it's important to provide the version of this that passed verification with its sourcing: This article involves internment or concentration camps generally, as distinct from the subset, the extermination camps, commonly referred to as death camps.. The label concentration camp in particular is often additionally used for the latter, such as those created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya, Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and Soviet gulags in operation into the 1980s. References --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support replacement. I do believe the phrase "are held outside the rule of law." is important to distinguish it from a place of confinment where the normal laws of society still function (such as a prison). I think the paragraph is clear and concise, using a footnote is unnecessary.   // Timothy :: talk  06:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose replacement. The paragraph serves an important function: to inform readers why an incredibly-common subtype of internment/concentration camp – extermination camp – is not discussed here and is instead covered in another article, and the proposal fails to do this. Instead the paragraph's language is fine, though it requires properly-inserted citations to verify its accuracy. Here is my proposed insertion of those citations only (though its language could be improved, as long as its purpose is retained):

Proposed sourcing

This article involves internment or concentration camps generally, as distinct from the subset, the extermination camps, commonly referred to as death camps.. The label concentration camp in particular is often additionally used for the latter, such as those created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya, Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and Soviet gulags in operation into the 1980s. References

Pinchme123 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, considering the source mentioned above. Idealigic (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Extermination camps were unrelated to internment camps. See for example: "Killing Centers: An Overview" from USHMM: Unlike concentration camps, which served primarily as detention and labor centers, killing centers (also referred to as "extermination camps" or "death camps") were almost exclusively "death factories.". --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The change follows the sources. Extermination is unrelated to internment. In some cases large Nazi camp complexes had both functions (Auschwitz was made up of over 40 different camps of varying purpose and function!), but other Nazi extermination camps (such as Sobibor extermination camp) did not do internment/concentration.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The change is reasonable, and an improvement on the original which seems to beg the question of what a "death camp" is. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support GMPX1234 (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

Discussion

• I would alternatively support the distinction between concentration and extermination camps being discussed in a footnote, per FDW777. (t · c) buidhe 08:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(moved from above)

1. Doremo, "rule of law" is not quite synonymous with what is legal in a particular country. However, if the prisoners have been convicted of something defined as a crime (even something like "criticizing the Communist Party") then it is not a concentration camp/internment. According to Stone, "The crucial characteristic of a concentration camp is not whether it has barbed wire, fences, or watchtowers; it is, rather, the gathering of civilians, defined by a regime as de facto ‘enemies’, in order to hold them against their will without charge in a place where the rule of law has been suspended." (emph added) Historian Anika Walke said, "Today, there is a scholarly consensus to define concentration camps as camps in which large groups of civilians are held without trial or even without having violated any laws."[5] Historian Andrea Pitzer, who wrote a book on the subject, said that "mass detention of civilians without trial" is a concentration camp.[6]
2. Good point, I changed to present tense. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I find the distinction between "rule of law" and "legal" to be rather slippery and unhelpful. For example, if the Herero are deemed to have rebelled against the legal German authorities (on whatever grounds), then this would imply that the Shark Island concentration camp was not a concentration camp. I would think that a concentration camp is where, to put it plainly, people are concentrated ("a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or foreign nationals) are detained or confined and sometimes subjected to physical and mental abuse and indignity", to cite Merriam-Webster) without introducing legal squirminess to the definition. People can be concentrated in a camp and treated unfairly whether or not the rule of law—which varies between places and times—is followed. Doremo (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Or, to offer a hypothetical example, if the German legal authorities had suddenly declared in 1944 that the Dachau camp was operating legally and everyone at the camp was thereby summarily and legally convicted en masse of crimes against the state (and it continued business as usual), would that suddenly make it not a concentration camp? Doremo (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see what you're getting at here. However, the absence of criminal charges, trial, or conviction is the definition of "internment/concentration camp" used by scholars. 1) The prisoners at Shark Island were not convicted of any crime. Many were children, women, or other noncombatants. 2) The authorities can't just declare someone guilty of a crime. It requires a court to enter a guilty verdict.[7] Which even in Nazi Germany required a certain amount of process.

To give a different counterexample, consider prisons in Alabama in 2020. People are concentrated there against their will, and systematically mistreated[8][9] but they are not "concentration camps". Why not? (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it's a degree of meeting the criteria. Two men individually convicted of a universally acknowledged offense (say, murder) sharing a prison cell are not in a concentration camp (even if treated poorly), but thousands of people indiscriminately rounded up and held without charges are (even if treated decently). And somewhere in between is, say, people summarily or even systematically convicted of violating more arbitrary laws (political, moral, racial, religious, etc.) that are shipped off to a camp. Being legally sent to Dachau after being convicted as a Jehovah's Witness or homosexual, and therefore an enemy of the Reich, doesn't seem to make it not a concentration camp. Or, say, that the Jehovah's Witness and homosexuals at Dachau were not in a concentration camp, whereas the Catholics and heterosexuals at Dachau at the same time were in a concentration camp. For example, at Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany we have "Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced. Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps." The "rule of law" argument suggests that these 5,000 to 15,000 were not actually in concentration camps if they were officially sentenced. Doremo (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit complicated. However, during Nazi Germany prisons continued to operate. These prisons arguably meet the Merriam-Webster definition of "concentration camp" (conditions were poor; many prisoners were convicted of political offenses, homosexuality, being conscientious objectors, etc.)[10] yet nevertheless scholarship distinguishes them from Nazi concentration camps. (t · c) buidhe 14:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(moved from above)

Dispute resolution is a non-binding process. Since you weren't interested in reconsidering your position in the face of contrary evidence, I decided to open a RfC to decide the matter. I will repost here what I found when I checked the sources above: (t · c) buidhe 15:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Madley says that "Though referred to as a Konzentrationslager in Reichstag debates, it [Shark Island] functioned as an extermination center". It does not say that "[the camps] created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide" (in general) were extermination camps. Also, is this just his opinion or is it widely supported?
2. The statement that "Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya" created extermination camps is not verified by the cited source.
3. The USHMM source does not say that "Nazi concentration camps" in general were extermination camps—they weren't. USHMM encyclopedia as stated above separates the two.
4. I cannot verify what it supposedly says in Appelbaum's book—quote would be helpful. However, it is not correct that Gulags were extermination camps either. Mortality rate was much lower, as we now know thanks to Soviet archives. "Mortality in Soviet gulag camps and labor colonies was 24.9% in 1942, 5.95% in 1945, and 0.95% in 1950." One of the primary purposes of Gulag was to support industrialization, not to kill prisoners.

References

No one said DRN is binding, nor are you the arbitor of whether or not I am "interested in reconsidering [my] position." What I said is you opening this while discussion is ongoing is a clear violation of WP:FORUMSHOP. Since I now know you've seen this text and are refusing to update the suggestions at the top of this RFC, I will go ahead and do so. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC question should not be changed, since several people have already given their opinion. However, you are welcome to support any version of text in your !vote. (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I expect you to reinstate the original RFC version then, since you already changed your own proposed langauge. Additionally, do not revert talk pages comments, as you did when you reverted my edit. I'm having an extremely hard time keeping up WP:AGF given all of your conduct. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Given buidhe's demand that RFC text not be exited once participation by others has begun, I expect their original language to be put back. Otherwise, let's close this given the forum-shopping and follow the correct process. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• The issue here is that the RfC proposes replacing current article text with a different version. You cannot go back and change the version that was present in the article when the RfC was started. This is important, because in the event of a no consensus result would default to keeping the current article text, not your altered version. (t · c) buidhe 17:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• I see no policies stating this, so I'll assume this is another of your innocent mistakes. But to be clear, the issue isn't in changing the current article text, it is in changing the sourced article text (which existed at one point before your reverted it in our near-edit war). The current version is the one I reinstated, since it came from before the near-edit-war, so that our DRN process was engaged in in good faith. It would be in the service of good-faith consensus-building to use the sourced version. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Applebaum, on the page in question and the one preceding it is talking about the Gulag death statistics you refer to. In case you need complete ones, they are

• 1930 (7,980/4.2%)
• 1931 (7,283/2.9%)
• 1932 (13,197/4.81%)
• 1933 (67,297/15.3%)
• 1934 (25,187/4.28%)
• 1935 (31,636/2.75%)
• 1936 (24,99/2.11%)
• 1937 (31,056/2.42%)
• 1938 (106,654/5.35%)
• 1939 (44,750/3.1%)
• 1940 (41,275/2.72%)
• 1941 (115,484/6.1%)
• 1942 (352,560/24.9%)
• 1943 (267,826/22.4%)
• 1944 (114,481/9.2%)
• 1945 (81,917/5.95%)
• 1946 (30,715/2.2%)
• 1947 (66,830/3.59%)
• 1948 (50,659/2.28%)
• 1949 (29,350/1.21%)
• 1950 (24,511(0.95%)
• 1951 (22,466/0.92%)
• 1952 (20,643/0.84%)
• 1953 (9,628/0.67%)

She attributes the 1933 spike to the Soviet famine of 1932–33, the smaller spike in 1938 to mass executions that took place that year (presumably the Great Purge), and the 1942 spike to the well-documented food shortages during the war. While those particular pages don't appear to reference the concentration camp point, she does use the term so frequently elsewhere in the book I could provide an alternate page number if one is needed. FDW777 (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,000 bytes (including references), the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  Redrose64, I don't know how it is possible to write a brief statement for an RfC that asks about switching one block of text for another? (t · c) buidhe 03:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  Well, does ref. 1 really need that |quote=Concentration camps throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are by no means all the same, with respect either to the degree of violence that characterizes them or the extent to which their inmates are abandoned by the authorities... The crucial characteristic of a concentration camp is not whether it has barbed wire, fences, or watchtowers; it is, rather, the gathering of civilians, defined by a regime as de facto ‘enemies’, in order to hold them against their will without charge in a place where the rule of law has been suspended. parameter? Cutting that out will eliminate over 550 characters, and will almost certainly make the RfC statement of a size that Legobot can manage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  I gave up waiting, and did it myself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  You see, it worked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Closing note

I am implementing the RfC, as there is a clear consensus. RfC does not need a formal closure per WP:RFCCLOSE. If a formal closure is desired, it may be requested using the instructions there. (t · c) buidhe 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

RFCs run 30 days and should be closed by an uninvolved administrator. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

To further clarify, it seems wholly inappropriate for OP, who was specifically told by another editor that their RFC couldn't even be reported properly because it didn't meet the guidelines for a "brief and neutral statement," to decide unilaterally that their own RFC has received enough input. OP never even addressed the "brief and neutral" concern raised. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus here is clear.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

To amplify the comments by Pinchme123: RfCs typically run for 30 days. How it works is as follows. Legobot maintains a database table of open RfCs and checks all of them once an hour. When checking, it locates the {{rfc}} tag, then scans from that point onward, searching for the next valid timestamp. If it finds one, and that timestamp is more than 30 days earlier, it removes the {{rfc}} tag and delists the RfC from pages such as WP:RFC/HIST; if the timestamp is less than 30 days ago, the tag is left alone and the entry remains in the listing. If, when scanning through the RfC text, Legobot can't find a valid timestamp within a certain length, it gives up and moves on to the next RfC in its table. This is what has happened here (the amount of text between {{rfc}} and timestamp is too great), so there will be no automatic removal after 30 days - effectively, this is an indefinite-duration RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I really wish OP had responded to your previous concerns Redrose64, since, as you noted at that time, this problem doesn't just interfere with Legobot's auto-removal of the tag, but also prevents it from being properly listed at RFC list pages. Its too-long statement interfered with its visibility. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit to shorten the statement will cause the RfC to be listed correctly at WP:RFC/HIST with effect from 21:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC) and will also enable automatic delisting at 06:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

redrose64, where would one go to then, to then see if this RFC's proposed change was prematurely implemented by another voter and should be reverted (I can't revert it myself lest I bring ire upon myself)? Especially if this RFC hasn't been closed and there doesn't appear to be broad agreement among participants to end it early? --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As predicted, to the exact minute. You can send this to WP:AN/RFC if you like. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Premature attempt to implement RFC

Given this RFC has so few participants, that it was malformed such that Legobot can't list it properly elsewhere, and that there have been two oppose votes along with two votes indicating the proposed altered language isn't acceptable, this RFC should either be closed by an uninvolved editor/administrator, or allowed to run until Legobot closes it automatically. Until that time, it seems prudent to refrain from prematurely implementing the proposed language, given the ambiguity of consensus or lack thereof. If OP or anyone else wishes to request an early close form an uninvolved admin/editor, they would of course be entitled to do so. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Consensus here is clear, and stonewalling that change to remove poorly sourced original research is unbecoming.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Glad a neutral third party closed this, as would be expected. No WP:OR in original, as is clear in the provided sourcing in the RFC. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Immigration detention centres are not concentration camps

Immigration detention centres are not concentration camps. The claim that immigration detention centres are concentration camps is a false claim, which I believe this false claim was used for political reasons by a Trump hater to make Trump look bad. This article says that a concentration camp is where someone is detained by the government without a trial whilst being charged with no crime, and not being arrested on the suspicion of crime (ie. a police station).

Every country has the right to defend its borders, and to deport and detain people (in order to establish their nationality and identity) who enter the country illegally. But entering a country illegally is a crime. If my assertion is wrong, then that would mean that every country in the world contains concentration camps right now, as every country detains illegal immigrants, so this article shouldn't be biased towards any particular country. desbest (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Whether a place is a concentration (or internment) camp has got nothing to do with whether people are innocent or not. FDW777 (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

How can you say that, if the first sentence of this article reads...

Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges[1] or intent to file charges.

Why did you mention innocent and guilty as if that matters? That's the wrong terminology, and for an encyclopedia people should use the correct terminology as people expect high accuracy from them. You should have said charged with a crime, or not charged with a crime. You appear to be under the impression that a person should only be detained if they are found guilty of a crime in a court of law. However it is very common in most countries for people to be detained for long periods just for being charged of a crime, before a court date ever happens.

In the United Kingdom and the United States, a person who is arrested on suspicion of committing murder and then charged with a crime, can be detained until the court case happens, instead of being released on bail until the court case, despite them having no court verdict or criminal record.

So even if a person is detained on suspicion of a crime (including illegal entry into a country), that doesn't qualify for being a concentration camp. As this wikipedia article says which I quoted, a person has to be detained without charges or intent to file charges.

People inside immigration detention are charged with a crime, the crime of illegally entering a country. The people detained in the Holocaust under Nazi rule in the 1940s and the muslims detained in the Xinjiang concentration camps in 2020 are not charged with a crime. So yes, there is a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desbest (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written to reflect that which is stated by content experts, not the personal opinions or conclusions of its editors. As the sources provided for the entry you object to make clear, it is considered by experts to be accurately characterized as concentration or internment camps (in this case, the former). Therefore, the entry meets the requirements for being listed here. Additionally, the sentence you have quoted from this article's intro states, those are "commonly" the characteristics, not necessarily always the case. What is certain though is that the relevant experts label the Trump administration concentration camps as exactly that. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The word "commonly" in that definition is used as a weasel word, as it allows things to be classed into a category that meets a specific criteria, whilst also allowing other things that don't meet the criteria described, to also be classed into the same category (based on someone's arbitrary discretion). I have read the four sources described which contain the relevant experts you describe, and without a definite concrete clear cut black and white definition of what a concentration camp actually is, that doesn't use weasel words, I can't begin to take the 4 sources this article links to into account - as people can use newspeak to manipulate the meaning of words in order to restrict the range of thought and expand the range of pejoratives. So either the definition of concentration camp in this article would have to be updated, or you would have to reply to my comment with an even better and more accurate definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desbest (talk • contribs) 03:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I can say that quite easily because someone can be guilty as sin, and still be detained without having any charges filed against them. FDW777 (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"Polish death camp" controversy

Since much the article is primarily about terminology, would it make sense to make some reference to the "Polish death camp" controversy, to illustrate the degree to which the term "concentration camp" has developed such an overwhelmingly negative connotation that there are now specific laws about its use in Poland? I see it's linked in the "See also" section, but perhaps it's worth discussing in the body. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with this wiki page

There is a clear agreement of the meaning of "Internment Camp" which is imprisonment without trial.

By defining "concentration camps" as a subset of "internment camps" it logically follows that all concentration camps must be prison camps.

However in the past the term "concentration camp" has been used to describe US army staging camps, pow camps, refugee camps, displaced person camps, camps for non-combatants removed from districts where the enemy was operating, internment camps, death camps etc.

Therefore we need evidence that any camps mentioned on this page were prison camps.

The Spanish camps in Cuba & the British camps in the Boer War were not prisons and therefore should be removed from this page.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the Interment page of Wikipedia list immigration detention centers as 'Trump detention centers' shows how politicized Wikipedia has become...

The interment of immigrants in the United States has been around for awhile. The numbers in fact started to rise during the Obama Administration to label them as "Trump's" camps is wrong. To label them after any president is wrong as well. Best part is that the page is locked so there's no way of changing it to be factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.14.73 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

As well as cheapening the term especially compared to the entries listed above it, the 'Trump' 'concentration camps' have a lower death rate than the local outside population. Notice they're now known as child migrant facilities. The number of deaths per year is similar rate under the administration of other presidents As someone mentioned on reddit: "What I find so remarkable about this fact is that so few people have died in custody just based on basic mortality statistics. ICE is holding about 40,000 detainees on an average day. The yearly death rate in the U.S. is about .85% So, if the ICE center death rate followed the national norm, we should expect to see 680 deaths in a two year period, not 22. I get that most of the U.S. deaths are very elderly people and most people crossing the border would not be old and infirmed. But 22 in two years still sounds like a shockingly low number for deaths by natural causes for that large a population." It's more or less propaganda now under any political page. Sad to see what wiki has become. At least the completely non political pages are usually ok 109.146.171.54 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Anti-gay camps

These camps aren’t anti-gay, they specifically target gay men as all the sources point out. The link should be changed to read gay male camps or similar. Currently, organizations recommend the use of “gay” to refer to all LGBT+ people and “gay men” to refer to that group specifically. The link is therefore inaccurate 46.15.32.218 (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

Omarska camp was just one of many concentration camps in Bosnia,majority were held by Croats and Bosniaks....but here, "accidentally", only Omarska concentration camp held by bosnian Serbs is noted. I would like to at least add Dretelj concentration camp, also existing in Bosnia, held by Croatian forces. 178.237.220.215 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2022

The reference to calling these Trump camps is false and the dates are false. Obama built the camps before Trump took office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/kids-in-cages-debate-trump-obama/2020/10/23/8ff96f3c-1532-11eb-82af-864652063d61_story.html 2600:1700:1DD4:A0:C01E:3790:1782:516F (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide sources labeling the camps under Obama as internment camps. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Trump is mentioned only once in the article, and that is a Wikilink to another article. Please be specific about what you are asking changed. RudolfRed (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty apparent that all other examples are on a "country" basis; only this example decides to ascribe it to a "government". The inconsistency shows the politcalisation of the issue which is unbecoming an encyclopaedic archive. 2A02:C7C:362E:BC00:4DF1:6862:5D74:1C18 (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"Trump administration internment camps" said to be active past the end of the Trump administration

Either the camps are no longer active or the currently used label doesn't reflect reality. if they're still active they need to be renamed to a more generic descriptor such as "US immigration internment camps" if they aren't the date/year in which they were dismantled needs to be added and sourced, because to leave it as is seems to imply the Trump administration is still actively using the camps, which it clearly cannot be doing since it doesn't exist anymore.

This of course isn't even addressing the issue of the label itself being controversial enough that a section exists in its page about the controversy. But regardless of that what cannot be disputed is the fact that a defunct administration cannot be actively managing internment camps. 79.24.5.213 (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Italian interment camps not included in the topic

Adding a link to wiki page in the closed camps section https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_Italian_concentration_camps 46.123.250.147 (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Early example

It says the first example may be in the 1830s but doesn't say what that example is. Firestar47 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

See also

What's the justification for Bantustan being included in See also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcljlm (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Should American Civil War prison camps be included in the Examples section??

These were prisoner of war camps. Concentration or internment deals specifically with the extra-judicial detention of civilians, often selected by arbitrary criteria such as ethnicity, religion, political association, etc. Sometimes the interning authority claims the detention of civilians is justified by the need to remove irregular (non-uniformed) combatants from the field. That does not generally apply regarding prison camps in the American Civil War as detainees were (mostly? I can't be certain this is universally true) uniformed combatants belonging to an organized military.

Were civilians detained en masse by either side during the American Civil War? If yes, that warrants inclusion. Catercorn (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Catercorn I'm very much inclined to agree. POW detention is clearly a different concept; and if it wasn't, all modern interstate wars would need to be on the list father than just the American Civil War. I'd remove it. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)