This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of concentration and internment camps article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Opening the discussion here since this article contains factually incorrect information. According to the cited definition on the Internment article:
"Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial. The term is especially used for the confinement "of enemy citizens in wartime or of terrorism suspects".
Immigration detention facilities are by definition NOT internment/concentration camps since the people being held in them are being charged with the crime of improper entry. Q.E.D. There has not been official designation by a governing body of merit such as the EU, UN, etc. nor are there peer-reviewed publications that explain why immigration detention facilities are designated as "concentration/internment" camps. There are content experts that have made the determination that these are not to be called internment/concentration camps, including the official stance of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ( https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/why-holocaust-analogies-are-dangerous).
If we want to include in these series of articles that there are politicians, members of the media, and academics that want to call them concentration camps, then we can do that, but we need to make sure that the readers are reminded they are objectively NOT concentration camps according to the facts. -- 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E ( talk) 00:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I am proposing the following verbiage:
In May 2018, President Trump's administration instituted a "zero tolerance" policy mandating the criminal prosecution of all adults who were referred by immigration authorities for violating immigration laws. This policy directly led to the large-scale, forcible separation of children and parents illegally crossing the United States-Mexico border, including those claiming asylum after being detained. Parents were arrested and put into criminal detention, while their children were taken away, classified as unaccompanied alien minors, to be put into child immigrant detention centers. Though in June 2018 Trump signed an executive order ostensibly ending the family separation component of his administration's migrant detentions, it continued in limited fashion under alternative justifications into 2019. By the end of 2018 the number of children being held had swelled to a high of nearly 15,000, which by August 2019 had been reduced to less than 9,000. Though by definition immigration detention facilities are not considered internment/concentration camps, in 2019, a naming controversy arose. Various politicians, academics, and journalists made claims that these immigration detention facilities should be labeled as "concentration camps". Notable groups, such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, panned and rejected these analogies. Though the conditions of the facilities have been almost universally panned, including by a human rights chief in the UN, the UN has not designated these facilities as internment/concentration camps, and have reiterated that states do have the sovereign prerogative to decide on the conditions of entry and stay of foreign nationals.
Please make comments and supply edits. The sources are more or less the same, probably taking a few out (many just cite the same source anyway). We can add the sources before we post. -- 166.216.158.172 ( talk) 05:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
That is what we at Wikipedia call original research. You take one definition and make your own interpretation of it. Sorry, but Wikipedia works by using reliable sources.
This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.. -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 18:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
You are "interpret[ing]" content from another Wikipedia page in order to explain away the statements by content experts, which is substituting your own position for theirs.
These are concentration camps; this has already been decided by experts and affirmed by the Wikipedia editing community. Arguing otherwise without sources showing a change in the relevant experts is useless.
Assuming, for the sake of this conversation, that you intend to use the same sources for the sentences of the paragraph you've proposed that are identical to the collaboratively written entry already the article, you still have yet to provide sources for the remaining content you're trying to suggest changing to. Without sources, there is nothing here to respond to, other than to assume this is original research. Until you provide sources and allow for a discussion of them, any attempt to include unsourced content will likely be reverted. Please also remember, if your edits are reverted, they have been challenged and per existing sanctions you must find consensus here on the talk page before reinstating them. As of yet I see no editors here supporting your proposed changes. -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 03:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
These are concentration camps; this has already been decided by experts and affirmed by the Wikipedia editing community. Arguing otherwise without sources showing a change in the relevant experts is useless.
If you have a problem with the Wikipedia community's decision to follow content experts
But the community has already decided, this entry is to be included here and so it will remain here, with neutral language describing the example.
The Wikipedia does not exist to carry water for a particular politician or party and their singular p.o.v. of what is and is not considered an internment camp.
There is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that they are indeed considered as such, so the Wiki should follow that.
I would point out to the OP (as has been noted in previous discussions), this is not a List of concentration camps, but a List of concentration and internment camps; whether the phrase "concentration camp" is applicable is not dispositive of the issue.
The inclusion of criminal charges is also of no particular relevance,
since any government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" a class of people with a crime, ostensibly requiring their confinement
According to Internment, this article should list places that describe the "imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges." This is a necessary condition for listing a camp here (but not sufficient, as POW camps that would otherwise meet this criteria are listed elsewhere). However, the "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border" section does not cite any sources that meet this criteria. While there's a number of experts who use the word "concentration camps", this seems like a clear case where they are using a different definition from what this page is using.
Reading this section, I'm led to believe that the immigrants are being held without charges. This is not true (they were charged with the crime of Unlawful Entry).
In order for this section to remain, we need to find a reliable source that says the immigrants are being held "without charges or intent to file charges" in accordance with the definition being used by this page. Alternatively, the definition of Internment needs to be adjusted.
Or, if it turns out that we can find a reliable source that says all of the immigrants have been charged with a crime and are being processed lawfully, that would contradict the requirement for listing an example on this page, and it would need to be removed in its entirety, maybe moved to a list in a different article, that doesn't imply being held without charges. -- Awwright ( talk) 20:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The Powers That Be may have a desire to keep an eye out for the deletion of these two properly cited statements also.
Trump used facilities that were built during the Obama-Biden administration to house children at the border. Michelle Obama spoke at the 2020 Democratic National Convention and noted the "cages". What she did not say is that the very same "cages" were built during and used in her husband’s administration, for the same purpose; that of holding migrant kids temporarily. [1] Gek75231 ( talk) 01:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, this individual seems to take umbarrage with these properly quoted referenced statements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Pinchme123
Appropriate attention & actions toward said user would be appreciated.
Sincerely, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Gek75231 Gek75231 ( talk) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
References
You deemed "The letter is a defense of analogies to allow for 'learning from the past' but does not discuss Ocasio-Cortez's comments or the U.S. detention camps." as unnecessary clarification. I agree that the individual need not be cited, despite being a core part of the sources you provided, but I believe there is still a need for the clarification that the rejection of resistance was not the whether the label is correct or incorrect, but rather the right to use it as an argument of analogy and for learning purposes. That was my core point and thus I think this clarification is needed for reading this page. 69.122.71.186 ( talk) 18:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Under section "World War I (Austria-Hungary)", Subsection "Austria", add in:
- Mauthausen [link to town, not the WWII concentration camp], formed 22. September 1914. Housed Serbian and Italian POWs and Serbian civilian internees. - Aschach an der Donau [link to town], Housed Serbian and Montenegrin POW officers and soldiers and civilian internees.
Edits:
- Braunau in Bohemia (today: Broumov in the Czech Republic), it was formed on 11. June 1915. Housed Serbian and Russian POWs and civilian internees, including underage Serbian children. - Heinrichsgrien to Heinrichsgrün - Heinrichsgrün (today: Jindřichovice Czech Republic), formed beginning of June 1915, received first internees 17. June 1915. Housed Russian, Italian, Montenegrin and Serbian POWs and Montenegrin and Serbian civilian internees.
Under section "World War I (Austria-Hungary)", Subsection "Hungary", add in:
- Sopronnyék (today: Samersdorf, Austria), formed on 5. April 1915. Housed Serbian and Montenegrin POWs and civilian internees, including underage children. - Boldogasszony (today: Frauerkirchen, Austria), formed in February 1915. Housed Russian, Italian, Romanian, Serbian and Montenegrin POWs and Serbian and Montenegrin civilian internees.
Everythingaboo (
talk) 15:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of concentration and internment camps article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This talk page has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Opening the discussion here since this article contains factually incorrect information. According to the cited definition on the Internment article:
"Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial. The term is especially used for the confinement "of enemy citizens in wartime or of terrorism suspects".
Immigration detention facilities are by definition NOT internment/concentration camps since the people being held in them are being charged with the crime of improper entry. Q.E.D. There has not been official designation by a governing body of merit such as the EU, UN, etc. nor are there peer-reviewed publications that explain why immigration detention facilities are designated as "concentration/internment" camps. There are content experts that have made the determination that these are not to be called internment/concentration camps, including the official stance of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ( https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/why-holocaust-analogies-are-dangerous).
If we want to include in these series of articles that there are politicians, members of the media, and academics that want to call them concentration camps, then we can do that, but we need to make sure that the readers are reminded they are objectively NOT concentration camps according to the facts. -- 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E ( talk) 00:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I am proposing the following verbiage:
In May 2018, President Trump's administration instituted a "zero tolerance" policy mandating the criminal prosecution of all adults who were referred by immigration authorities for violating immigration laws. This policy directly led to the large-scale, forcible separation of children and parents illegally crossing the United States-Mexico border, including those claiming asylum after being detained. Parents were arrested and put into criminal detention, while their children were taken away, classified as unaccompanied alien minors, to be put into child immigrant detention centers. Though in June 2018 Trump signed an executive order ostensibly ending the family separation component of his administration's migrant detentions, it continued in limited fashion under alternative justifications into 2019. By the end of 2018 the number of children being held had swelled to a high of nearly 15,000, which by August 2019 had been reduced to less than 9,000. Though by definition immigration detention facilities are not considered internment/concentration camps, in 2019, a naming controversy arose. Various politicians, academics, and journalists made claims that these immigration detention facilities should be labeled as "concentration camps". Notable groups, such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, panned and rejected these analogies. Though the conditions of the facilities have been almost universally panned, including by a human rights chief in the UN, the UN has not designated these facilities as internment/concentration camps, and have reiterated that states do have the sovereign prerogative to decide on the conditions of entry and stay of foreign nationals.
Please make comments and supply edits. The sources are more or less the same, probably taking a few out (many just cite the same source anyway). We can add the sources before we post. -- 166.216.158.172 ( talk) 05:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
That is what we at Wikipedia call original research. You take one definition and make your own interpretation of it. Sorry, but Wikipedia works by using reliable sources.
This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.. -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 18:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
You are "interpret[ing]" content from another Wikipedia page in order to explain away the statements by content experts, which is substituting your own position for theirs.
These are concentration camps; this has already been decided by experts and affirmed by the Wikipedia editing community. Arguing otherwise without sources showing a change in the relevant experts is useless.
Assuming, for the sake of this conversation, that you intend to use the same sources for the sentences of the paragraph you've proposed that are identical to the collaboratively written entry already the article, you still have yet to provide sources for the remaining content you're trying to suggest changing to. Without sources, there is nothing here to respond to, other than to assume this is original research. Until you provide sources and allow for a discussion of them, any attempt to include unsourced content will likely be reverted. Please also remember, if your edits are reverted, they have been challenged and per existing sanctions you must find consensus here on the talk page before reinstating them. As of yet I see no editors here supporting your proposed changes. -- Pinchme123 ( talk) 03:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
These are concentration camps; this has already been decided by experts and affirmed by the Wikipedia editing community. Arguing otherwise without sources showing a change in the relevant experts is useless.
If you have a problem with the Wikipedia community's decision to follow content experts
But the community has already decided, this entry is to be included here and so it will remain here, with neutral language describing the example.
The Wikipedia does not exist to carry water for a particular politician or party and their singular p.o.v. of what is and is not considered an internment camp.
There is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that they are indeed considered as such, so the Wiki should follow that.
I would point out to the OP (as has been noted in previous discussions), this is not a List of concentration camps, but a List of concentration and internment camps; whether the phrase "concentration camp" is applicable is not dispositive of the issue.
The inclusion of criminal charges is also of no particular relevance,
since any government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" a class of people with a crime, ostensibly requiring their confinement
According to Internment, this article should list places that describe the "imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges." This is a necessary condition for listing a camp here (but not sufficient, as POW camps that would otherwise meet this criteria are listed elsewhere). However, the "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border" section does not cite any sources that meet this criteria. While there's a number of experts who use the word "concentration camps", this seems like a clear case where they are using a different definition from what this page is using.
Reading this section, I'm led to believe that the immigrants are being held without charges. This is not true (they were charged with the crime of Unlawful Entry).
In order for this section to remain, we need to find a reliable source that says the immigrants are being held "without charges or intent to file charges" in accordance with the definition being used by this page. Alternatively, the definition of Internment needs to be adjusted.
Or, if it turns out that we can find a reliable source that says all of the immigrants have been charged with a crime and are being processed lawfully, that would contradict the requirement for listing an example on this page, and it would need to be removed in its entirety, maybe moved to a list in a different article, that doesn't imply being held without charges. -- Awwright ( talk) 20:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The Powers That Be may have a desire to keep an eye out for the deletion of these two properly cited statements also.
Trump used facilities that were built during the Obama-Biden administration to house children at the border. Michelle Obama spoke at the 2020 Democratic National Convention and noted the "cages". What she did not say is that the very same "cages" were built during and used in her husband’s administration, for the same purpose; that of holding migrant kids temporarily. [1] Gek75231 ( talk) 01:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, this individual seems to take umbarrage with these properly quoted referenced statements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Pinchme123
Appropriate attention & actions toward said user would be appreciated.
Sincerely, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Gek75231 Gek75231 ( talk) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
References
You deemed "The letter is a defense of analogies to allow for 'learning from the past' but does not discuss Ocasio-Cortez's comments or the U.S. detention camps." as unnecessary clarification. I agree that the individual need not be cited, despite being a core part of the sources you provided, but I believe there is still a need for the clarification that the rejection of resistance was not the whether the label is correct or incorrect, but rather the right to use it as an argument of analogy and for learning purposes. That was my core point and thus I think this clarification is needed for reading this page. 69.122.71.186 ( talk) 18:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Under section "World War I (Austria-Hungary)", Subsection "Austria", add in:
- Mauthausen [link to town, not the WWII concentration camp], formed 22. September 1914. Housed Serbian and Italian POWs and Serbian civilian internees. - Aschach an der Donau [link to town], Housed Serbian and Montenegrin POW officers and soldiers and civilian internees.
Edits:
- Braunau in Bohemia (today: Broumov in the Czech Republic), it was formed on 11. June 1915. Housed Serbian and Russian POWs and civilian internees, including underage Serbian children. - Heinrichsgrien to Heinrichsgrün - Heinrichsgrün (today: Jindřichovice Czech Republic), formed beginning of June 1915, received first internees 17. June 1915. Housed Russian, Italian, Montenegrin and Serbian POWs and Montenegrin and Serbian civilian internees.
Under section "World War I (Austria-Hungary)", Subsection "Hungary", add in:
- Sopronnyék (today: Samersdorf, Austria), formed on 5. April 1915. Housed Serbian and Montenegrin POWs and civilian internees, including underage children. - Boldogasszony (today: Frauerkirchen, Austria), formed in February 1915. Housed Russian, Italian, Romanian, Serbian and Montenegrin POWs and Serbian and Montenegrin civilian internees.
Everythingaboo (
talk) 15:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
References