Talk:List of concentration and internment camps

Streamlined U.S-Mexico border language

Given that my edit was reverted, I'm turning here to look for acceptable language. As the description now stands, it excessively weighs minority opinion and downplays the widespread, multi-field representation of scholars who apply the label "concentration camp" to this situation. So, here's my proposed language:

Main article: Immigration detention in the United States

In 2006, the administration under president George W. Bush instituted a policy that illegal immigrants entering the United States from its border with Mexico would be detained until deportation, but exceptions were made if these migrants were children, families and asylum seekers. In these exceptions, a practice called catch and release was employed, in which the migrants would be released into the United States while waiting to attend an immigration court hearing on whether they would be legally permitted to remain in the country. This policy continued under the administration of president Barack Obama.

In May 2018, the administration under president Donald Trump 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 arriving at the United States-Mexico border, including those seeking asylum from violence in their home countries. 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 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. Many experts, including Andrea Pitzer, the author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, have acknowledged the designation of the detention centers as "concentration camps" particularly given that the centers, previously cited by Texas officials for more than 150 health violations and reported deaths in custody, reflect a record typical of the history of deliberate substandard healthcare and nutrition in concentration camps. Though some organizations have tried to resist the "concentration camp" label for these facilities, hundreds of Holocaust and genocide scholars rejected this resistance via an open letter addressed to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

References

I think it accurately states that there are "historians and social scientists" who apply the label, without claiming only some do or that all do (and avoids stating "Many historians and social scientists"). It acknowledges the opinions of some that the label should be reserved for the Holocaust only, but notes the response from a substantive portion of the academic community denouncing this position. And it includes additional sourcing.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

First of all right off the bad you are misrepresenting the open letter. The open letter did not say the detention centers are concentration camps, they merely responded to the USHMM's statement that you can't call it a concentration camp. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You also can't say "Historians" you need to say "some" because saying "historians" implies that it is across the board and that is deceitful, which I'm assuming you wouldn't want to be. Further, if you're trying to streamline, this sentence is not needed and does absolutely nothing "at places like Fort Sill, a former site of the Internment of Japanese Americans." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not say the open letter called them concentration camps. This is exactly what I wrote: Though some organizations have tried to resist the "concentration camp" label for these facilities, hundreds of Holocaust and genocide scholars rejected this resistance via an open letter addressed to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Did the Museum and Yad Vashem "tr[y] to resist the 'concentration camp' label for these facilities"? Yes. Did the open letter "[reject] this resistance"? Also yes. Was that letter addressed to the Museum? Again, yes.

Sure, let's delete the entire reference to Fort Sill. I'm fine with that. That sentence can end after "12,000 children." In fact, I'll go do that right now.

Finally, as I noted in my description below the proposed text, saying "Historians and social scientists" does not say "all" of the experts in those fields, nor does it even say "many" (though, if you're insistent, I'd be more than happy to describe them as "many"). It does however acknowledge the apparent majority opinion of those with expertise on the subject.

But, given that you've outright stated you don't really care about the sources on this subject,[diff] it's a little hard to productively discuss the language for this section with you. I am really hoping someone else will contribute as well so productive change can occur.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to hold off on deleting the Fort Sill reference and let either you do it, or see if there's anyone who raises an objection. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

@Pinchme123: - In May 2018, under the direction of Attorney General Jeff Sessions put in office by president Donald J. Trump, US officials began forcibly separating children and parents arriving at the US border. - this, above, is inaccurate. Note that [1] There were some family separations under the Obama administration, but experts say not at the scale of the Trump administration's and that they were relatively rare. You have to explain that large-scale family separations is due to the "zero-tolerance" policy which mandated the prosecution of all adults who were referred by immigration authorities for violating immigration laws. starship.paint (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Let's just treat the green block of text as editable so we don't need to reproduce it every time. starship.paint (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Gotcha. I've changed the beginning and added appropriate sources. I've gotta step away but I'll pick this back up later tomorrow. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The language large scale, forcible separation is not in the cited source, which doesn't appear to talk about the scale of the action. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've updated with two new sources, one that specifically says "large-scale," and another that specifically says "forcibly separated." --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Better, but still not a fix. The NBC News story says that President Donald Trump has for months urged his administration to reinstate large-scale separation of migrant families crossing the border. This is not the same as reporting that it has indeed happened on a large scale. Trump urges many things that do not happen. I'm not saying it didn't happen, either. I'm just saying that this source doesn't say it happened. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, for something to be reinstated, it has to have happened before. It isn't just an implication, the use of that term requires it. Additionally, the article is describing large-scale separations of the past, which is more than enough to satisfy the description without using a direct quote. However, to appease, I've added a second source that says, The president saw Nielsen as soft on immigration, even as she was under fire from the media and Democrats for her role in the Trump administration's large-scale practice of family separations.. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This source says they were criticized for large-scale separation. But you can be criticized for doing something you didn't do. Sorry if this is frustrating; if you disagree with me, I will relent. But wouldn't it be better to just say how many separations we're talking about here? I think we have sourcing for 3000, or "several thousand" if that sounds better. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the provided sources more than adequately justify this paragraph describing the separations as "large-scale," particularly because the direct quote I noted from that Newsweek article explicitly describes it as, "the Trump administration's large-scale practice of family separations." That isn't a criticism itself, that's a direct description of the thing that was being criticized. As for the number, the sentence following that notes that the number had grown to nearly 15,000 by the end of 2018 (I just added "nearly" to head-off criticism, though I would assume that the real number - which isn't provided - is close enough to 15,000 to warrant rounding up, as NPR did).

However, if someone else agrees with you that the current sources do not justify "large-scale" in this paragraph, we can continue discussing how to change it.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Anome: Given your addition of Pitzer's name and your change to describe scholars as "experts" rather than "historians" on the main article, I'm adding this to the working language above, including changing "historians and social scientists" to "experts".

I am also changing "some" to "many," given the many scholars discussed in the RfC, such as Starship.paint's list in the RfC survey: [diff]. If needed, I can stack several of the references from where Starship.paint pulled those, but I personally think two sources is enough.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC) BTW, here is a ref from the ACLU that states, "There were definitely parts of the Obama program that did similar—and, in fact, some of the same—things," [2] so we should most definitely include that these detention centers predate Trump. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• The paragraph itself is unbalanced, it quotes Pitzer pushing for a POV that it is a concentration camp but doesn't quote anyone that it isn't. The USHMM letter doesn't address the detention center, that letter just says you shouldn't use any comparison, so there is no balance to Pitzer. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Others can weigh in about whether or not the proposed paragraph is balanced and whether or not a content expert's expertise is POV. I was fine leaving it as "Many historians and social scientists" or "Many experts," but another editor raised an objection on the main page that this wasn't specific enough, so The Anome added it. Anyone other than Sir Joseph have an opinion?

There's no RS labeling anything prior to the system as its run by the current U.S. admin as concentration camps. The quote in the source you've provided only notes partial similarity, including some same things but crucially not calling them identical, and does not say anything close to 'Obama had concentration camps too.' In fact, that exact quote continues, "But this all-encompassing skepticism of asylum seekers fleeing violence—justifying cruel treatment, justifying changes in the law, and justifying overcrowding to the point of unsafe and deadly conditions—[is] of a scale and a type that we haven’t seen before." Definitely not the same at all and definitely describing a drastic worsening of conditions under the current admin. Provide actual RS and this can be included.

If USHMM statement isn't about this specific concentration camps in the U.S., then why does it say, quote, situation on the United States southern border? No, the statement is obviously about them, so the retraction request from hundreds of experts stays as well. Unless you'd like to do away with all the content about the label criticisms? This would mean removing the reference to the Yad Vashem statement as well.

Sir Joseph, I see you're continuing to edit the main page, despite knowing of this collaborative process here. You even previously said you think the part about Fort Sill should be deleted. Care to take care of that deletion on its own, right now? For the part you did delete, I'm leaving it in the proposed language here with a supporting citation (because it is in fact accurate).

Finally, if something requires citation, please tag it as needing citation rather than outright deleting it.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pinchme123 and Shinealittlelight: - (1) Clinical Law Review [3] The Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” policy and implementation of wide-scale family separation in 2018, (2) Associated Press [4] When the Trump administration stopped large-scale family separations in June, (3) The Atlantic [5] His Walmart facility had become a symbol of Trump’s industrial-scale separation policy. starship.paint (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Starship.paint. The Clinical Law Review article is the most authoritative of all those available here, however it is behind a paywall, so I think I'll supplement with the Newsweek piece already there. And the Associated Press article has an exact number of children detained at the end of 2018, so I think I should use that one for that sentence. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: - the quote from the Clinical Law Review article is in the article's abstract, which is not behind the paywall. starship.paint (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint and Shinealittlelight: Yes, what I meant was, I'll use that one plus another, so that the full version of something is available for readers to access. Do you see any other issues with the proposed language? At this point, is it fine to update the main article with what's been done so far (while also keeping this here for more discussion, should anything else major arise)? --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

These sources are sufficient for that language. My opinion is that the actual number is still preferable as it is more informative and less vague. But I defer. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: - I feel that this element (the bolded part) is missing, basically, it's the link of how a zero tolerance policy causes family separation. [6] New York Times Technically, there is no Trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children. But the “zero tolerance policy” results in unlawful immigrants being taken into federal criminal custody, at which point their children are considered unaccompanied alien minors and taken away. Unlike Mr. Obama’s administration, Mr. Trump’s is treating all people who have crossed the border without authorization as subject to criminal prosecution, even if they tell the officer apprehending them that they are seeking asylum based on fear of returning to their home country, and whether or not they have their children in tow. starship.paint (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: How about this: This policy directly led to the large-scale,[3][4] forcible separation of children and parents arriving at the United States-Mexico border,[5] including those seeking asylum from violence in their home countries.[6] Thousands of children, taken from their parents as "unaccompanied minors" after those parents were arrested,[7] were placed in "detention centers" [8] which at the end of 2018 had swelled to hold nearly 15,000 children. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: - there seems to be some issues. Officially, separations were supposed to have ended in June 2018, although there have been various reports that separation has continued in 2019 [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Also, children are officially supposed to be released from CBP detention/custody within 72 hours to be passed to HHS (however some children have been detained for longer) [12]. It seems to me that the parents being detained (presumably for an indefinite time until their trial) is a concern (more related to the concentration camp label) that is not as emphasized in the current text. starship.paint (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Ok here's where I'm at. I want to add a sentence explaining that, though the separation policy ostensibly ended in June 2018 with an executive order, it has continued into 2019 (and presumably this will mean reordering the 150,000 15,000 children part, because that figure come from the end of 2018). For the adult component, while I personally agree that holding adults for long and indefinite periods of time, using low-level misdemeanor charges (not even convictions) for reasoning is not adequate justification, I am less sure how to go about adding it while still retaining brevity (writing about uncharged children being held is a no-brainer). I worry about this section expanding too much, given that one concern noted in the RfC closure was that it was too long compared to others in the article. This is also why I made sure to add the "Main" link at the top.

Also, I am now at a point in the year where more of my attention needs to be turned elsewhere. I'd like to write the sentence I mentioned above and then put my work on the main article (because I think it is better than what is there currently). After that, I'd like someone else to take the lead.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just noticed, the "main" link I included is to Trump administration family separation policy and Starship.paint posted in a conversation elsewhere a link to Trump administration migrant detentions. I think a case could be made for linking to either (or both) and wanted to put that into the conversation. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's how I dealt with the executive order and ongoing separations: Thousands of children, taken from their parents as "unaccompanied minors" after those parents were arrested,[7] were placed in "detention centers."[8] Though in June 2018 U.S. president Donald Trump signed an executive order ostensibly ending the family separation component of his administration's migrant detention policy, it continued under alternative justifications into 2019.[9] By the end of 2018 the number of children being held had swelled to a high of nearly 15,000,[10][11] which by August 2019 had been reduced to less than 9,000.[12] --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: - I've done some changes but the current version is by no means perfect, I think the experts weren't necessarily only restricting the "concentration camp" label to the child camps, but the adult camps as well. starship.paint (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I agree that the experts are probably using the label for adult camps too, but to switch over to looking for that material would take an inordinate amount of mental capacity and I now need to shift my focus to other things. I hope you will take the ball and run with it, so to speak. And I agree that no, of course what's been done isn't perfect, but it's far better than what had been there before!

I still disagree with presenting past immigration detention as being also labeled concentration camps, as I still do not think the one line in one source we previously discussed is enough to do so. I think adding context of the historical origins of detention facilities prior to them becoming concentration camps is possibly definitely appropriate, though much better suited to a main article about this and not necessarily this comparatively brief intro here. I see your change does include this historical context, but the source you've used does not in any way support labeling things prior to the current administration as concentration camps, so I think my one suggestion would be to somehow convey the drastic deterioration of conditions under the current administration, such that experts confidently label them concentration camps now, whereas they didn't before (or, it was unclear at the very least) (after re-reading, I take this part back; the first paragraph appropriately reads like background right now). For this reason, I also think the "Main" article link should go to Trump administration migrant detentions if including adults, or Trump administration family separation policy if remaining focused on minors (I still think this, because the "concentration camp" label applies to the current administration, not the whole or even few-decade history of U.S. immigration detention).

I unfortunately don't have the time to keep working so much on this here, so please do carry on with the writing. I can peek back in to offer my two cents though, so don't feel like I shouldn't be pinged or anything like that.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC) (edited 03:48, 24 August 2019 UTC)

@Pinchme123: - I'm busy as well, so I just inserted the stuff into the article and let's see what others will chip in. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Some updates have been happening since last I looked. I just want to ask (in good faith) why the section starts in 2006 instead of 1996? I come up with that year because of our article for Immigration detention in the United States, which states: "Mandatory detention was officially authorized by President Bill Clinton in 1996, with the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility acts. From 1996 to 1998, the number of immigrants in detention increased from 8,500 to 16,000", with citations. BaronGrackle (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The newest edits that are being reverted more closely match the reality of the situation. The current version is biased, and does not paint the reality that by definition, immigration detention facilities are not internment/concentration camps. The sourced materials do not even clearly support the claims made, and journalists and hyperbolic politicians making these claims do not make them true. The linked statements by the US Holocaust Museum support the opposite of the narrative being written. I suggest we either remove the section in it's entirety, or move to a more neutral language, like the one being reverted. I will tag this section as NPOV for the time being, until this is further discussed--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:AB (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you please point to the specific sources that rely on "journalists and hyperbolic politicians" rather than content experts/scholars? The edits previously reverted (possibly by you? you may have also written the original edits?) didn't provide any new sources, but instead recharacterized the people who those sources relied upon as "politicians and members of the media" in the existing sources that weren't deleted outright [diff].

As for your argument that the section should be removed outright, it should stay per, per the RfC about keeping this entry.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, your main source listed is a magazine: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/ This opinion piece was written by journalist Jack Holmes, and quotes the opinion of another journalist, Andrea Pitzer. This was tweeted out by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a politician known for hyperbole on Twitter. They are not experts/scholars in the field. The edits do not need additional sources, but they instead rechaterize these people to their factual job titles, in an unbiased fashion. As for removing the section outright, I propose a new RFC for its removal. I will keep the NPOV tag on since even if the section is kept, it needs to be reworded to align with facts, and use non-biased language. Immigration internment camps do not even meet Wikipedia's definition: "Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial." Those held in the immigration internment camps along the border are indeed being charged, or have charges incoming, and attend immigration court. So, by definition, these are not internment camps.--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:46 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "main source" here; there are however 21 sources, many of which rely on content experts. The Esquire piece you've singled out has statements from not just "expert" (per the article title) Andrea Pitzer - who literally wrote an influential book on the subject of concentration camps throughout history - but also historian Waitman Wade Beorn from University of Virginia and sociologist Jonathan Hyslop from Colgate University. To be clear, Pitzer is held as a content expert on the subject of concentration camp history, so I think describing her as such and relying on her expert opinion is entirely appropriate. The piece itself is not opinion as you have stated, but rather a longform news article in a reputable news publication.

Next, this section doesn't rely on any politicians' beliefs for what's written about these concentration camps, Representative Ocasio-Cortez included, so I'm not sure why you're bringing her up. It does however include links to an open letter signed by hundreds of content experts, which shows support for labeling these concentration camps as concentration camps. Wikipedia is not a reputable source in these kinds of discussion by the way, which is why we rely on determinations by content experts about these things.

Since you do not think additional sourcing is needed, would you please point to other already-included sources that are mischaracterized, or otherwise explain why several sources should be deleted?

Finally, I doubt another RfC would be accepted at this time, without some evidence of a change in things from when the last one was concluded in August. You are however free to try an open one and see if it plays out, though my guess is that members of the editing community will close it quickly as inappropriate.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "main source" here; there are however 21 sources, many of which rely on content experts.

Most of those do not rely on content experts, but are opinion pieces written by journalists.

The Esquire piece you've singled out has statements from not just "expert" (per the article title) Andrea Pitzer - who literally wrote an influential book on the subject of concentration camps throughout history

She is called an "expert" by a journalist, but she does not have an degree in history or a related subject; she is a journalist. She could have been called "literally Stalin" by a journalist, but that does not make her so. She wrote a book on concentration camps throughout history, but managed to not include/mention these immigration detention centers in her book even though they had been around for over a decade by the time she wrote her book.

but also historian Waitman Wade Beorn from University of Virginia and sociologist Jonathan Hyslop from Colgate University.

So now we have two people who have altered the definition of what constitutes an "internment camp" or "concentration camp" to conform to their views. Edna Friedberg, Ph.D., is a historian in the Museum’s William Levine Family Institute for Holocaust Education, says otherwise.

To be clear, Pitzer is held as a content expert on the subject of concentration camp history, so I think describing her as such and relying on her expert opinion is entirely appropriate. The piece itself is not opinion as you have stated, but rather a longform news article in a reputable news publication.

To be clear, Pitzer is not held as a content expert on the subject, she is a journalist. Does she have a Ph.D in a related field? Does she have peer reviewed publications in a history or related field's journal? No, she doesn't. The Esquire piece, though longform, is indeed an opinion piece from a politics editor.

Next, this section doesn't rely on any politicians' beliefs for what's written about these concentration camps, Representative Ocasio-Cortez included, so I'm not sure why you're bringing her up.

The genesis of calling immigration detainment facilities "concentration camps", and including them in this page starts with Representative Ocasio-Cortez calling them that, and a large percentage of your linked sources include her by name; that is why she is brought up.

It does however include links to an open letter signed by hundreds of content experts, which shows support for labeling these concentration camps as concentration camps.

The open letter is signed by hundreds of people, some with titles such as "Professor of Music" and "Lecturer in Drama and Performance". These are not content experts, and you claiming so is disingenuous at best, and outright lying at worst.

Wikipedia is not a reputable source in these kinds of discussion by the way, which is why we rely on determinations by content experts about these things.

Wikipedia is absolutely a reputable source for a derivative page by the way, because we're being consistent with the definition that Wikipedia uses: "The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term concentration camp as: "A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group which the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable."

Since you do not think additional sourcing is needed, would you please point to other already-included sources that are mischaracterized, or otherwise explain why several sources should be deleted?

You mischaracterized a mostly random group of academics, journalists, etc. as experts, and that their idea of what constitutes a "concentration camp" is absolute fact. While on the other hand, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum specifically outlines that these analogies to "concentration camps" are not to be made. They're not the only group listed in the already existing sources that say otherwise as well (The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, Holocaust commemoration group From the Depths, etc.).

So, what does all this equate to? To be consistent with the parent topic's (Internment) definition of what internment is, then by definition, immigration detention facilities are not "internment/concentration camps", full stop. These camps have not been designated as "concentration camps" by the US government, the UN, etc. The wording you chose, "acknowledged the designation of the detention centers", is biased and has no basis in facts or reality. Similarly, labeling the preeminent organization on Holocaust history in the US as "some organization" is very out of touch, and biased. In addition, claiming that "hundreds of Holocaust and genocide scholars rejected this resistance" from the sourced article is objectively and factually incorrect, as I outlined above. What we need is a section that outlines there are people out there who want to label immigration detention facilities as "concentration camps" and there are others who don't. That's all we have to highlight in that section. The way it's currently worded, "acknowledged the designation" is biased, and not based in reality since these facilities BY DEFINITION are not internment/concentration camps. Q.E.D.

I believe the consensus is to move towards neutral language, highlight that there are parties and "experts" on both sides of this argument, that it's become a hot political topic, and maybe also highlight that though there has been poor treatment, lack of funding, etc. that these facilities are by definition not internment/concentration camps. I will try to construct something later tonight or this week that hopefully paints the reality of this situation better. The current state of that section is a poor representation of what Wikipedia should be about; when I first read it, I lost some faith sadly.

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:45 (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Your opinions are noted. I'm not going to go around on all these arguments again; you can see a long history of discussing all these arguments in this talk page's archives [Archive 4] and [Archive 5], including in the RfC discussion.

At this point, I say these arguments don't show a problem with POV. This section was completely rewritten following the aforementioned RfC via a multi-editor collaboration. @Aquillion: may or may not agree, but I think they agree that there's no POV problem with the entry. As such, without other editors agreeing that there'a POV problem, I think it's appropriate to remove the tag.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Your opinions are noted. I'm not going to go around on all these arguments again; you can see a long history of discussing all these arguments in this talk page's archives ... including in the RfC discussion.

A lot of what I posted is not opinion; it's objective fact. You're not "going around the arguments" because you have no valid or factual response or retort. I saw the talk pages, and they pretty much sum up that it's a biased opinion not based in fact to call immigration detention facilities "internment/concentration" camps.

At this point, I say these arguments don't show a problem with POV. This section was completely rewritten following the aforementioned RfC via a multi-editor collaboration. Aquillion may or may not agree, but I think they agree that there's no POV problem with the entry.

If it's not a problem with POV, then it's a problem with them being factually incorrect, meaning they should be removed. @Hurledhandbook: and @Sir Joseph: will agree that there are problems. As such, with other editors agreeing that there is a NPOV problem, and a problem with facts about the definition of internment, I think it's appropriate to keep the tag, and rewrite the section to reflect objective facts and reality. Unless you can find a peer reviewed study that has been included in a journal or history publication of merit that designates immigration detention facilities as "internment/concentration" camps, we need to change or remove the section to reflect reality, and not opinion. I am calling for an RFC to remove the section until proper publications with peer reviewed studies say otherwise.

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it's reasonable to tag the section as NPOV based on an objection to its inclusion when that was just decided recently by an WP:RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not if the section is to be included or not, it has no bearing on it being a NPOV issue. Reverted.--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:46 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

As a reminder, this article is under a WP:1RR restriction, which you violated with your most recent revert. --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:46, you also renamed the article section in question when reinstating the NPOV tag, which was challenged before, so you've also violated this article's WP:CRP restriction as well. Please, find consensus for these changes before reinstating any of them. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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. // Liftarn (talk) 08:13, 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 is not original research, as everything posted is factual, and sourced (sources are already cited on the page). There's only one way to interpret the definition that is listed on the Internment page, and it is clear that these immigration facilities are not "concentration camps". You have not proposed any changes or edits, so, please at least try to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.195.119 (talk • contribs)

You are "interpret[ing]" content from another Wikipedia page in order to explain away the statements by content experts, which is substituting your own position for theirs. This is absolutely original research: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You are "interpret[ing]" content from another Wikipedia page in order to explain away the statements by content experts, which is substituting your own position for theirs.

Wrong. I am reciting ("interpreting") facts in order to explain how immigration detention facilities are not "internment/concentration camps". We've already been over that the "content experts" you're attempting to use are not experts in the field. You're trying to use "original research" as a defense but it falls through here; it's like if I said "carbon is a non-metallic element", and I link the definition and Wiki page, and you claim this is "original research". The above block I suggested is based in fact and reality, and correctly describes the situation we're facing. Unless you have edits to propose, I will link the sources and replace.

--107.77.214.158 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

These are not concentration camps, by definition. This has not been decided on by experts, and the Wikipedia editing community is delusional if they believe so. Numerous other sources have made counter-claims, and the definition stands. Unless you can find a governmental body of merit that has classified these as concentration camps, or a peer reviewed article in a well renown journal of history or related subject, then this is simply a matter of opinion. And because this is a matter of opinion, there is a POV issue with that section.

Why don't we reframe this section as a naming controversy instead? This article badly needs a balanced approach; it's a disservice to Wikipedia and its readers to leave it the way it is.

--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is to me a complete impasse. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia community's decision to follow content experts, take that up in another way, such as by challenging the RfC close or starting a new RfC altogether. But the community has already decided, this entry is to be included here and so it will remain here, with neutral language describing the example.

If you cannot provide sources for your proposed language, then it is entirely inappropriate for inclusion. Without anyone other than you arguing for a POV issue, that tag now has no support for inclusion and the editors who have engaged you here apparently show consensus that it is inappropriate. I will be removing it per conditions #1 and #2.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Wikipedia community's decision to follow content experts

The issue is they're not content experts, and you're claiming they are. That is a factually incorrect claim. A "senior lecturer of music" is not a content expert on concentration/internment camps.

But the community has already decided, this entry is to be included here and so it will remain here, with neutral language describing the example.

If the entry stays, I'm fine with it, as long as it has neutral language and actually describes the facts of the matter. It currently contains non-neutral language, and falsities. Once the lock is lifted, I will make edits to ensure the language is more neutral, and is centered around the facts.

--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:80 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Any inappropriate content changed/added without proper sourcing will be challenged. Expect to be required to find consensus for such content, should you be bold in making the edits and they are reverted for lack of source support. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia does not exist to carry water for a particular politician or party and their singular p.o.v. of what is and is not considered an internment camp. There is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that they are indeeed considered as such, so the Wiki should follow that. Zaathras (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia does not exist to carry water for a particular politician or party and their singular p.o.v. of what is and is not considered an internment camp.

I'd hope that is the case, but sometimes it definitely doesn't seem like this is a true statement.

There is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that they are indeed considered as such, so the Wiki should follow that.

Except there's not. There are highly politicized pieces from those who are not experts in field. Similarly, there is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that says these are not "interment/concentration" camps. We need to make sure we have a NPOV here.

--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:80 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Except there is, you can't just be dishonest about sources that are clearly in the article now to support that view. Zaathras (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would point out to the OP (as has been noted in previous discussions), this is not a List of concentration camps, but a List of concentration and internment camps; whether the phrase "concentration camp" is applicable is not dispositive of the issue. The inclusion of criminal charges is also of no particular relevance, since any government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" a class of people with a crime, ostensibly requiring their confinement (by comparison, the Nazi regime enacted numerous laws effectively making Jews "illegals" and thus legally subject to the treatment that was accorded to them). BD2412 T 17:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I would point out to the OP (as has been noted in previous discussions), this is not a List of concentration camps, but a List of concentration and internment camps; whether the phrase "concentration camp" is applicable is not dispositive of the issue.

These do not fit the definition of internment nor concentration camps, so, your point is moot.

The inclusion of criminal charges is also of no particular relevance,

It is absolutely relevant since the definition in the sister page is "the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial."

since any government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" a class of people with a crime, ostensibly requiring their confinement

This is illogical reasoning. Using this "logic", we should include primary schools in this list since the government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" children with a crime, and ostensibly require their confinement. On top of all that, the US government is not charging a protected class of people, it's enforcing its immigration laws for those who voluntarily decide to commit a crime. For all these reasons and more, these are factually not interment/concentration camps.

--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:80 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion here about precise definitions and whether you personally believe those definitions fit, but ultimately the only thing we should be discussing is whether reliable sources describe these locations as concentration or internment camps. The last Request for Comment on the matter concluded that reliable sources did generally refer to these locations as such, so that's what Wikipedia uses. Our personal opinions on whether definitions fit or the logic is sound is irrelevant. Sam Walton (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's ...dangerous to use whether the people in a facility have been charged with a crime as the whole determination of whether something is a concentration camp or not. For reasons cited above, although in reverse, too. I don't think we should allow governments to decide whether their detention facilities are concentration camps or not based on whether they've charged the prisoners. It means that, if we say its only a concentration camp if the imprisoned have not been charged and there is no intent to try them, then the death camps of the Nazis would not be concentration camps, because they created laws that made being Jewish (or gay, or slavic, or so on and so on) illegal. If we say that it's only concentration camp if the imprisoned have been charged and there's an intent to try, then gross violations of human rights are somehow not concentration camps on that basis. I don't think that the... "legal status" of the imprisoned is a good basis for whether something is a concentration camp or not. I think the treatment of those people, and overall intent of the facility--namely the concentration of an "undesirable" category of people into one location where they can exterminated, either through formal execution or working them to death, or both, or simply allowing them to die due to gross indifference and negligence--should be the determining factor. Now, we can argue whether that is the intent of "immigrant detention facilities," and I would say it is, but I imagine OP would disagree, but my point here is that "whether the targeted people are formally charged with a crime or not" is not a rational criteria for whether something is a concentration camp or not (although it does provide the answer to the question that prompted me to come to the Talk page- why Tevego is a concentration camp, but earlier labor camps with lethal consequences practiced by America, England and Spain are not) --ValravenApocalypse (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

USHMM and Open Letter to the Director of the USHMM

As requested, I am posting the source to end the confusion. The "more than 400 Holocaust, genocide scholars" bit from Newsweek is objectively wrong, and is not the source material. The author of that opinion piece should fix the title of the article since it's editorialized, and factually incorrect.

If you go to the actual source, you can clearly see there are many who are decidedly not experts in the field of Holocaust/genocide history: https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/07/01/an-open-letter-to-the-director-of-the-holocaust-memorial-museum/

The list contains entries such as:

 Douglas G. Morris, Independent Scholar, Trial Attorney, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.
 Imani Danielle Mosley, Assistant Professor of Music, Wichita State University
 Katherine Roseau, Assistant Professor of French, Mercer University
 etc.

Unless there is definitive proof that all 400+ of these scholars are Holocaust and genocide experts (including the attorneys listed as "independent scholars"), then the change I made will stay. 172.58.46.144 (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, your reinstatement of challenged material is a violation of this page's WP:CRP discretionary sanction and I suggest you self-revert to rectify this.

As for your personal interpretation of the "actual source" material, this is WP:OR. As has been exhaustively discussed before, the included reliable sources, including the Newsweek article, describe the signatories of the open letter in question as Holocaust and genocide scholars and/or experts. If you wish to challenge this specific assertion, please provide a reliable sources - not your personal interpretation - to do so. Until such sources are provided, I urge you to self-revert to keep from being out of step with this page's discretionary sanctions.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what is challenged? The source material (not the Newsweek article that is clearly wrong, and Newsweek has been known to not have fact checking) does not make the claim that all of the scholars listed are Holocaust/genocide experts. Here are additional reliable sources that state "scholars", not "Holocaust and genocide experts/scholars": https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/451268-hundreds-of-scholars-urge-dc-holocaust-museum-to-stop-rejecting and https://www.businessinsider.com/scholars-call-on-holocaust-museum-in-concentration-camp-controversy-2019-7?op=1

It clearly states on the aforementioned sources, and the original source that "the scholars, many of whom have studied the Nazi genocide of Jews and other minorities..." Maybe English is not your first language, in which case it may not make sense. It's not WP:OR to correctly read and understand English as it's printed on the original source material. The usage of "many of whom" there means that a proportion, though not ALL, of the scholars have studied/are experts in the subject. It does not give a proportion, but it's immaterial since the use of "many of whom" is logically opposed to "all of whom".

So now that we've definitively proved that not all of the listed scholars are Holocaust/genocide experts, the edits should stay. Unless you have a source material that states ALL of the scholars are genocide/Holocaust experts, all you're doing is WP:OR by trying to prove a negative.

172.58.30.198 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Again IP, your personal interpretation of source material is WP:OR. Newsweek is a reputable source that has appropriately reported the hundreds of scholars as Holocaust and genocide scholars. You'd also do better to not read the word "all" into what the sentence in question already states. A reasonable argument can be made that, as long as 200+ of the signatories are Holocaust or genocide scholars, the Newsweek interpretation is 100% factual.

Unless you can provide reputable sources that discount this interpretation by specifically asserting that enough of those who signed the letter were not Holocaust or genocide scholars/experts and so it wasn't "hundreds" of them, I don't see a strong case for making the requested language change. And since the language you're challenging here was reached via extended discussion (see Talk:List of concentration and internment camps#Streamlined U.S-Mexico border language), your proposed edit will need consensus to success.

Finally, suggesting that English is not someone's first language as an argument for why they don't agree with you is a personal attack. Please strike your personal attack against me immediately.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Correctly understanding English sentences is not personal interpretation, nor is it WP:OR. Newsweek is not a super reputable source, and has not appropriately reported the original source correctly, and has instead editorialized it. I did not read the word "all" into what the sentence in question states. The sentence in question specifically outlines "many of whom", which directly translates to NOT ALL members, but "many" (which could be 10%, 30%, or 5%). A reasonable argument can be made that as long as 200+ of the signatories are Holocaust or genocide scholars, then indeed the Newsweek editorialization is 100% factual. But you have yet to provide any source that states this! The burden of proof for that is on you, the original one making the claim.

Unless you can provide a reputable source that specifically states that enough of those signatories are Holocaust of genocide scholars, we cannot assume "hundreds" of them are.

Consider the sentence "100 million tax payers, many of whom are Muslims, protested the IRS". This does not mean tens of millions of tax payers are Muslim, it could be as small as five hundred thousand. Unless there's a specific source that states how "many" there are, we cannot make the claim "100 million Muslim tax payers protested the IRS". It is not properly understanding the semantics.

Finally, suggesting that English is not someone's first language isn't an argument nor a personal attack when it's clear that the semantics are not being understood. I will refuse to strike it, as it is not an "argument" or "personal attack", it's an observation.

2607:FB90:4A34:9254:58E9:3552:CAC8:CAA5 (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Shouting and doubling-down on your personal attack against me isn't acceptable. I am, for the last time, noting my objection to this proposed change, but I'm done engaging with someone who can't be bothered to remain civil. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

First off, it never was an insult, so you can't double down on something that never happened in the first place. It seems that instead of using sources, facts, logic, semantics, etc., you're resigned to inventing insults as "an argument". It appears that you're objecting due to the way you feel about the subject, not due to any logic or reason here. If you intend on commenting on this, please try to bring something new, since whatever points you've brought up have easily been torn down. Guess there's not much to gain from someone who can't be bothered to look at the logic and semantics behind the points being brought up. 2607:FB90:2840:F19C:58E9:3552:CAC8:CAA5 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Bereza Kartuska concentration camp

These is a big banner to discuss reversions, so here I am. The correct name is Bereza Kartuska concentration camp. This is a site that was used for holding political prisoners, in particular ethnic minorities. While detained in the camp they were tortured. Modern scholars nearly always use concentration camp, for example: [13]. Carpathian fox (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

References

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

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

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

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

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

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