Talk:List of concentration and internment camps

US-Mexico Border: Reinstate note about internal ICE document describing deaths as "preventable"

Because of this article's discretionary sanctions and my lack of familiarity with the editing community's terminology (I do not know if my edit would violate the sanction), I am opening this section here to address recently-deleted content.

Someone removed language quoted from an internal ICE document that was obtained via an FOIA request, simply because the entity that made the request is a supposedly-biased source: The Young Turks. The document itself is the source of the content of the article, not the analysis provided by the FOIA-filing entity. Originally, the reference to the document was through the tweet from author of the article on tyt.com; this tweet included a link to the tyt.com article as well as image scans of the document itself.

To sidestep the cries of bias and improper sourcing (despite the fact that the ICE document itself is the source, not the tweet or tyt.com article), I propose linking to the tyt.com article as the public location of the document, as well as an nbcnews.com article reiterating the content of the ICE document. Without objection, I will revise and insert the following revised text back into the appropriate location in this article:

Following the death of Mexican national Efrain De La Rosa in ICE custody, Immigration and Customs Enforcement claimed that De La Rosa passed away due to self-inflicted strangulation.. An internal ICE document, later written by an unknown agency staffer and received via a FOIA request , describes the ICE Health Services Corps as "dysfunctional" and notes that "preventable harm and death of detainees has occurred".

--Pinchme123 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Any removal of U.S. Concentration Camps at U.S.-Mexico border subject to the Discretionary Sanctions stated on the edit page

One editor has repeatedly removed content under the United States section. This content is subject to an arbitration agreement, and as such is subject to the 1RR rule regarding reversion of edits and to a requirement for consensus prior to reinstating challenged edits.

So far multiple editors have agreed that this content, regarding concentration camps at the U.S.-Mexico border, has been appropriately included. So, to the editor who keep removing this content, please come discuss your reasons here on the talk page and try to find consensus with us other editors. In the mean-time, I think the content should remain as it was before the dispute began, which is with it being present.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

And yet you have no issue with Obama having these detention centers? [1] To call these concentration camps is wrong and AOC can take her dogwhistling and shove it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with your "whataboutism." Are you suggesting this article should also include content related to detention centers under previous administrations? If so, do you have sources identifying those centers specifically as concentration camps, or otherwise discuss their existence in a way that supports the label?

--Pinchme123 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, you violated DS by reverting, I suggest you self-revert or you might be reported. Secondly, these are the same camps that Obama had. The same camps that had more children in detention under the Obama administration than under the Trump administration. Thirdly, it is POV to call it a concentration camp, when it's not. I also would like to know if you've ever edited Wikipedia before. I find it hard to believe that someone with less than 60 edits is so familiar with all Wikipedia policies. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the header clearly states "Certain types of camps are excluded from this list, particularly refugee camps set up to house refugees who have fled across the border from another country in fear of persecution, or have been set up by an international non-governmental organization. Prisoner-of-war camps are treated under a separate category." So these camps are not to be included at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: You protected this page originally, can you please comment on this? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't really have a comment right now as I am not familiar enough with the edit history to tell which edit is longstanding: the addition or the removal. What I can tell you is that you should avoid such exclamations as "fuck off with that Holocaust revisionism" — that is definitely not okay. El_C 00:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That's what it is though. Calling what is going on at the Southern Border a concentration camp is revisionism. See the statement of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: [2] or here: [3] Regardless, the paragraph he put in is extremely biased, it completely ignores Obama and is just full of NPOV, besides ignoring the lead that states that camps at the borders are not to be included in this article. I understand the need to make Trump or the US look bad, but we have policies to follow. The article says that border camps are not to be included, so it shouldn't be included. I will not back down from calling out this Holocaust revisionism because this is what it is. And we don't have to AGF, because where were all these people until now? It's hypocritical and just politics. And I will not stand for it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As I have noted on Sir Joseph's message on my talk page, I do not think I have violated DS; I have challenged their edit with my one allowed revert. This discussion section is here specifically to give editors who do not want this specific content on this page to argue for its deletion. Given that Sir Joseph is the first to engage here, it seems like this discussion might finally happen.

I still support this content's inclusion on the page. In response to the argument pointing to the introduction statement, I object to that being a reason to remove this content for a few reasons.

1. These camps are not described anywhere as "refugee camps," but rather, most charitably as detention facilities that house immigrants, including refugees.
2. The statement clearly states that the camps to be excluded must be for "camps set up to house refugees who have fled across the border from another country in fear of persecution." No sources have been provided claiming the people held in these concentration camps have fled due to fear of persecution specifically. Most sources used in the section discuss violence in individuals' respective countries.
3. There are several concentration camps discussed in this article that specifically describe internees/inhabitants as "refugees." See List of concentration and internment camps#Australia, Canada: Internment of Jewish Refugees, Denmark: After World War II, Finland: WWII, France: Spanish Republicans, India: World War II, Netherlands.

Until someone can provide a more adequate reason for deleting this content, I think it should remain.

Finally, it is not "revisionism" to include an example in this article when that example has specific support by experts relevant to the subject. That expert determination is visible at a number of the references used in the content under discussion. Further, those experts in those links specifically note that the label "concentration camp" is broader than the very specific example of death camps run by Nazis during World War II.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought you said there's consensus to include, but it's just you on the talk page. As for "experts" I note that the United States Holocaust Museum, and Yad Vashem are not on your side, so your experts might be part of the Twiteerati, but they are not the ones respected for Holocaust studies, and yes, it is 100% Holocaust revisionism to call the camps on the border a concentration camp, and those doing it are horrible people. Not sure where you are getting death camp from, I didn't mention death camp, and that is exactly why it's so wrong to call it a concentration camp. People are already ignorant of the Holocaust, we don't need to water it down even more by calling a detention center for illegal immigrants who will be temporarily housed there as a concentration camp. Here's more on the evils of AOC and what she is doing to America, [4] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's just not a civil way to engage with other editors. Anyway, that does not really answer my question about which version constitutes longstanding text. I didn't know which it was when I protected the article, and I still don't know now. /investigating El_C 00:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that if you want to add something like that, you need a strong consensus, not someone with 60 edits and some Twitter experts going against the USHMM and Yad Vashem among others, besides the sheer bias of those paragraphs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia:Consensus was achieved when the majority of editors established via edits that the content should remain. As that link explains, consensus should be reached organically, via editing. Usually it's when persistent disputes arise - such as this one on whether or not to delete already-included content - that consensus is found through a discussion on the talk page. If a neutral party would like to correct me, I'd be happy to hear an alternative explanation.

As for the experts I am citing, they are the historians and other scholars who are quoted. These include historian Andrea Spitzer, author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, historian Waitman Wade Beorn at the University of Virginia, and sociologist Jonathan Hyslop at Colgate University, to name a few in just one article already used as a reference. Certainly not the supposedly anonymous "Twitter experts" Sir Joseph seems to be characterizing them as.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary findings regarding consensus for inlcuding US camps

While inclusion does appear to be, overall, the longstanding text, it is difficult to tell that there is clear consensus for it, since a proper RfC was inexplicably never launched and properly closed. Obviously, the addition of the US camps saw strong opposition from the beginning and that has not changed. Perhaps it's time to set up an RfC on the matter so as to settle that question once and for all. Sorry, but that discussion in the archive is just a bit difficult to parse. Again, it really ought to have been structured in an RfC format so that a proper closing would be able to sum up the consensus or lack thereof in a concise manner. Anyway, such an RfC should ask the question of whether there is consensus to remove (i.e. remove or include?) mention of the US camps as, again, inclusion does appear to be the longstanding text, even though clear consensus is not that clear, at least not to me. El_C 01:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Considering that the text in the article is extremely biased, I'd considered TNT to that if it needs to go in. Forgetting the Holocaust revisionism and antisemitic dogwhistling of calling it a concentration camp, the paragraphs itself are just so biased. One reading it would come to the conclusion that the camps just came into being in 2018, when they were clearly in existence before, and not just that, the camps used were used before. The "Japanese internment camp" link that they used was also used during Obama's administration. I'm not going to start an RFC to have this removed, that is preposterous. This should not be here at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What you do is your prerogative — I'm just reporting on the finding of my brief investigation regarding this dispute. El_C 01:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

New discussion about removal

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 Support not having it classified as a concentration camp. Hurledhandbook (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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 detention camps should not be included. 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. Hurledhandbook (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond here, as these two comments from Hurledhandbook are copy/pasted from Talk:Internment from previously-unregistered editors, and where I have already responded (twice), and this editor chose to begin a new discussion here, rather than contribute to the ongoing RfC below. To quote my response on Talk:Internment, "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) 17:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m copy/pasting then because you are not responding to them. You just avoid what I’m saying by saying “arguments to exclude because of comparisons to Holocaust camps fail”. That’s not dealing with it. You are just avoiding the question. The definition of a concentration camp is “Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons”

As you can see in the definition, they are different from detention camps and different from camps interning people because of civil crimes which is what is happening at the border. They are getting a fair trial. The border is just overwhelming by the large influx of people. They are not being put in the camps because of race, religion or anything besides that they have committed an illegal activity which is crossing the border. The illegal immigrants are not being mass executed nor forced to work. With all of the information it is clear it’s not a concentration camp nor an internment camp.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not avoiding dealing with the argument that calling the U.S. facilities "concentration camps" is somehow inappropriate because of the Holocaust, because this matter has been discussed extensively on this very talk page, by myself and other editors. Feel free to read those discussions and then thoughtfully contribute to them in their respective locations.

A single encyclopedic definition does not discount the conclusions of hundreds of experts.

It is arguable whether or not asylum seekers have broken a law when presenting themselves to border patrol agents, and the law which they have supposedly broken is a misdemeanor. Further, I can find no supporting evidence that children locked up in these concentration camps are never charged with a crime. If anyone can find support for such a claim, please provide it, otherwise I argue it is safe to conclude the children are being held without being charged or without trial, since it is longstanding precedent to refrain from charging children who are brought along during the alleged criminal activities of those adults who have brought them.

I cannot think of any other misdemeanor charges that lead to someone in the U.S. being detained for weeks or months on end, without at least one hearing in front of a judge to determine the appropriateness of that detainment first. Given this, it seems the supposed misdemeanors individuals are being charged with in order to justify their detainment in these concentration camps are merely a pretext.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

“Unlike most large American magazines, Newsweek has not used fact-checkers since 1996.“

Your source the Newsweek is not reliable at all. It over exaggerates the number of people signed to the document and it also exaggerated the credentials of these people. I doubt besides maybe a handful of “experts” signed it and these “experts” are not experts at all.

Also “For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both.” So yes illegal entry is punishable by up to 6 months in prison. These children are held for their safety as their parents are also being detained. Are they just supposed to let child out on there own? Currently the government doesn’t have the resources to have enough to judges to hear the cases of illegal immigrants so it leads to the long delays. Also these people are free to leave to go back to Mexico or their home country. It has been proven catch and release of illegal immigrants is ineffective and detaining them is the best method.

While you might not think it isn’t appropriate to call them concentration camps because of the holocaust, many survivors do and because it offends them we can not use it if we use liberal guidelines. But of course since you disagree you won’t follow the guideline liberals like you have set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Newsweek, I am not going to respond to your unsourced quotation. You are more than welcome to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and ague with editors ther for recognizing Newsweek as a reliable source though, should you decide you don't want Newsweek to be considered one.

Regarding your unsourced quotation for the supposed criminal penalty that may not even apply, this does not in any way address why people who have not yet been convicted of a crime are being locked up for extended periods of time in these concentration camps. It does not explain why children are being locked up without being charged at all (because there is a key difference between providing housing for vulnerable children and locking them in a concentration camp). No, "these people" are not "free to leave" to go anywhere. They must first meet the stringent demands placed upon them by those who have put them in these concentration camps to begin with.

Regarding your assertion "[i]t has been proven catch and release of illegal immigrants is ineffective and detaining them is the best method," this is the "best method" to what? And when you've decided what this is supposedly "the best method" to do, please provide relevant reliable sources to support this assertion.

Regarding your final paragraph, the entire point of the article that this talk page is a discussion for is to note examples of concentration and internment camps, where dozens of examples that are not from Nazi Germany are found. The U.S. concentration camps at the border are fully in line with these other examples. I'm not quite sure what you are referring to as "liberal guidelines," so if you would like to provide a source for this as well, that would be useful.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh sorry the source that shows Newsweek is not a reliable source is from Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek

Yes illegal immigrants in detention centers leave and return if they want to.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/05/08/more-detained-immigrants-are-giving-up-court-fights-and-leaving-the-u-s

Detention before removal is by far the most effective means to ensure that illegal immigrants comply with lawful deportation instead of catch and release.

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/trump-administration-reverting-catch-and-release-congress-blame

Sorry but the US detention centers are no where near concentration camps. Apparently you can’t read anything Because the definition of concentration camps has been given to you by me multiple times and the detention centers are not even close to the definition.

Maybe some more definitions will help you.

The holocaust museums definition. P.S. these guys are experts in concentration camps and they also say the US detention centers are not concentration camps. “The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy.”

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/concentration-camps-1933-39

Also to address this comment “this does not in any way address why people who have not yet been convicted of a crime are being locked up for extended periods of time”. You know what happens to people who are accused of crimes but are not convicted yet? They sit in a jail cell unless they can meet bail if that’s an option.

Your comment on child is weird. What else are they supposed to do with the children of illegal immigrants? Release them on there own? Of course not you put them in the detention center.

Here is the source that says illegal immigrant ion can be up to 6 months in jail.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

Hurledhandbook (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source
2. Per the Snopes article "Are Migrants ‘Free to Leave Detention Centers Any Time’?" which rates this statement as "Mostly False" (Snopes is also listed as reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), "Migrants in detention facilities are in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and attempting to leave a facility without authorization is a criminal offense. The option of 'voluntary departure' is blocked off to many by significant legal and financial barriers, and the entire process is subject to the authority and discretion of immigration officials and courts. Migrants cannot simply 'leave at any time.'" Further supporting this interpretation is this immigration attorney's article, stating "voluntary departure before immigration proceedings are filed is not available for alien nationals stopped at the US border." So even if someone held in one of these concentration camps knew enough about their legal options to file a Voluntary Departure application, they could not until after their first hearing, which is a pretty big hurdle for something that can supposedly be done at any time.
3. Your heritage.org source is an opinion article - marked "Commentary" - and so not a reliable source because its author is not an expert in the subject. Please provide something that ins't an opinion article.
4. The definition you've cited perfectly describes the concentration camps we are discussing here, because
5. it is not at all appropriate under the U.S.'s constitutional democracy to hold people for extended periods of time without providing an initial hearing for filing charges and determining release or bail. Thus, these concentration camps are where individuals "are detained or confined... under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy."
6. It is not normal for children to be locked up when their parents are accused of crimes. Even in extreme cases where children are taken from their parents because of their parents' legal troubles, these children aren't put into a jail of their own.
7. You have yet to provide a reliable source that states that the people being placed in the U.S. concentration camps are subject to 8 U.S. Code § 1325. In fact, the Justice department itself states an amendment to 8 U.S. Code § 1325, "an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty," which is distinctly different from a criminal punishment and cannot include imprisonment.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Here is a different source that shows Newsweek isn’t reliable https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2012/the-story-of-when-newsweek-ditched-its-fact-checkers-then-made-a-major-error/

2. The author of the heritage article is an expert actual. Maybe if you looked him up you would. He has a PhD. Based on your claims in an argument earlier on this page, if you are a professor or have a PhD then you are an expert on the holocaust.

3.show me on the constitution where it says it’s unconstitutional to “hold people for extended periods of time without providing an initial hearing for filing charges and determining release or bail. “

4. You haven’t provided a source that says the illegal immigrants are not subjected to the law that literally says illegal immigrants who are caught go to prison for up to 6 months. Maybe you should stop being so dumb.

5.actually you are wrong about only facing civil penalties. They face criminal and civil penalties. “Aliens who enter the United States illegally between ports of entry face two types of penalties. They face civil penalties for illegal presence in the United States, and they face criminal penalties for having entered the country illegally“ you can be on bail. There is a procedure for bonding out and release of individuals on their own recognizance

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45266.pdf

8. They are not held without being charged so it isn’t unconstitutional. ICE can hold an individual arrested without a warrant for 48 hours. the deportation officer will serve you and the immigration court with a Notice to Appear (NTA). If you are a US Citizen you can be held without a charge for 72 hours. This all has been decided by the courts so it’s constitutional. There is a procedure for bonding out and release of individuals on their own recognizance

http://www.apsanlaw.com/mlaw-272.Procedures-Followed-by-ICE-for-The-Arrest-and-Detention-of-Non-Criminal-Aliens.html

9. You have yet to say or provide a source to where these children will go if they are caught illegally crossing the border. Just releasing them to be by themselves is very dangerous and the safest place is to stay with their family.these children have no where to go so the government takes custody of them until their parents are deported. Children who’s parents are arrest go to family unless they don’t have any like the illegal immigrants so they both enter government custody.

10. Sorry but you can voluntarily depart from the US if you are an illegal immigrant. You don’t need to be heard by a judge. “The departure may or may not have been preceded by a hearing before an immigration judge”

https://www.justia.com/immigration/deportation-removal/voluntary-departure/

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/voluntary-departure

11. Nothing you have provided says it’s a concentration camps.

Hurledhandbook (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 June 2019

Serious formatting issues in the Mexico border section. While anons have repeatedly vandalized it, I as a registered user for several years can't touch it. First, small caps in headers. Second, format the refs like this: Ribbet32 (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. This is literally the part of the article that is currently in dispute! No changes will be made without consensus from multiple editors. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is where I'd put a comment in support of this edit, so feel free to move this as needed.

The way I see it, Ribbet32 (talk) is making an edit request for more or less 'housekeeping' kinds of cleanup. It doesn't appear to alter any of the article content or even alter or remove any references, but rather put things more in-line with normal WP conventions for section heading capitalizations and reference popovers. I definitely support this mild cleanup and understand why they might use the template straight-away, since the requested changes aren't affecting what is included in article's content, but instead how the content looks.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the caps in the header, which is basic editing and definitely should not require consensus, and ran ReFill to fix bare links on the page. It's not quite identical to what was proposed, but it eliminates the embarrassment of bare links. bd2412 T 04:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where this stands, but considering the detention centers have been in existence for years and more children have been detained under Obama than Trump and there are videos of Obama telling people not to come with their children, and there are pictures of Obama admin officials visiting the centers it is extremely NPOV to call these Trump camps and to start the timeline at 2018. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Undocumented migrants at the Mexico–United States border

In May of 2018, under the direction of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, US officials began forcibly separating children and parents arriving at the US border. This included those seeking asylum from violence in their home countries. Under this policy thousands of minors, taken from their parents, were placed in concentration camps or "detention centers" which now hold some 12,000 children at places like Fort Sill, a former site of the Internment of Japanese Americans. Historians have acknowledged this designation 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.

Following the 2018 death of Mexican national Efrain De La Rosa in ICE custody at another immigration detention facility, Immigration and Customs Enforcement claimed that De La Rosa passed away due to self-inflicted strangulation. An internal ICE document, later written by an unknown agency staffer and made public via a FOIA request, describes the ICE Health Services Corps as "dysfunctional" and notes that "preventable harm and death of detainees has occurred" at numerous camps nationwide. The document specifically notes multiple camps near the U.S.-Mexico border as having had preventable deaths.

References

US concentration camps – Arpaio

The "Tent City" at the Maricopa County jail near Phoenix, Arizona was described by then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a 2010 speech as a concentration camp. The jail was controversial for over twenty years due to perceived excessive force and brutality; over a span of three years in the mid-200s, Arpaio was the subject of over two thousand lawsuits. In 2013, Arpaio was sanctioned for racially profiling Latinos, and was later convicted of contempt of court for violating court orders with regards to the 2013 ruling.

Pace the current controversy with regards to the ICE camps, I think it should be relatively uncontroversial to include the precursor in Arizona run by Joe Arpaio, given that he openly admitted that it was a concentration camp. Sceptre (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Also I recommend the following edit for historical views

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 and by 2008 this number increased to more than 30,000. According to the Global Detention Project, the United States possesses the largest immigration detention system in the world. In 2003, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) was created under the Department of Homeland Security. ICE enforces the United States' immigration and customs laws, uses investigative techniques to apprehend and detain those suspected of violating them, and then deports many of these individuals. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D10:4A8E:DA11:71D8 (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the sources provided describing these in the exact terms, inclusion of the "Arpaio" camps seems appropriate.

The sources provided for including U.S. immigration system from 1996 up to ICE operations in 2003 and later do not however describe any detention facilities as internment or concentration camps, nor do any of the sources describe conditions and contexts that would indicate that they are in fact internment or concentration camps. If sources can be provided that show experts labeling facilities during this time in the U.S. as such, then this could be revisited.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The Maricopa County Tent City is now listed under Migrants at the Mexico–United States border. This seems misleading as the tent city was for inmates, not migrants. "Many of the people targeted were American citizens or legal residents."[5] // Liftarn (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC about U.S.-Mexico border camps

Should the content discussing the camps at the U.S.-Mexico border be deleted from this article discussing examples of concentration camps? --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Its inclusion is well-sourced from multiple expert scholars on the subject of "concentration camps" broadly. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I realize now, this doesn't match the normal conventions. My vote is Keep. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Yad Vashem and others, have already reported on the use of this Holocaust Revisionism. It should not be here, especially if it wasn't here when President Obama was in office, because that will show a clear bias of Wikipedia and we wouldn't want that now, would we? No matter what you think of the conditions of the detention centers at the border, a temporary detention until you're adjudicated is not the same thing as a concentration camp, no matter how much some moron on Twitter says it is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The experts used as references in this section are historians and other scholars who are quoted in multiple sources. These include historian Andrea Spitzer, author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, historian Waitman Wade Beorn at the University of Virginia, and sociologist Jonathan Hyslop at Colgate University, to name a few in just one article already used as a reference. Certainly not the "moron on Twitter" Sir Joseph seems to be characterizing them as.

I don't see how it can be seen as bias to defer to scholars on the subject. I do however see it as bias to misrepresent statements by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in service of an argument. For the record, the aforementioned statement states "The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum unequivocally rejects efforts to create analogies between the Holocaust and other events, whether historical or contemporary." This statement does not contribute to a conversation about labeling of camps at the U.S.-Mexico border as "concentration camps," as this label is far more broad than the extreme Holocaust examples of such camps during World War II. To quote one expert I've already mentioned, Dr. Beorn, "Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz."

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

References

This is why it's wrong. Auschwitz wasn't a concentration camp. It would also help if AOC would be a cosponsor of HR 943 which is the Never Again Education Act [6], but she's not, so we know she's using this for political gain, like we saw with her photo-ops. Please don't respond to me again. I already made my opinion known about this Holocaust revisionism and I will not change my mind. And please don't badger people in the voting section, that's not what it's for. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, please try to keep this discussion on topic. AOC's behaviour and the extent to which it may be for political gain is not the subject of this RfC. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Leaning against removal. The title of this article reflects concentration and internment camps, which seems broad enough to encompass a wider variety of circumstances, including those described with respect to these facilities. bd2412 T 02:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I understand that WP:NPOV is frequently not observed around here, but putting Mexican border detention centers together with Buchenwald makes it a little too obvious what game is being played. In particular, the existence of Voluntary departure (United States) is a crucial difference. Seriously I was tempted to vote "keep because of WP:NPOV" as a joke, but I'd rather not get sanctioned for doing that. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Remove. While the political back and forth here is strong, it is not clear these meet the definition and will pass the WP:10YT test. I'd prefer to see actual published scholarship referring to these as concentration (or internment) camps - as opposed to tweets by politicians followed by TV appearances by one expert supporting this. It is quite clear this is a disputed label at present - given that United States Holocaust Memorial Museum contested this opinion - [7] . In short - this is a WP:RECENTISM based !vote - lets keep contemporary American-Politics off of pages unless it is clearly obvious that the label fits. We have enough American politics drama on other pages (e.g. including this back and forth (whether this is or isn't a concentration camp) should probably discussed first on Family immigration detention in the United States). Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Icewhiz: I have also looked at the statement of the Holocaust Museum; although it might speak to the use of the term "concentration camp", it would not address the classification of places as "internment camps". Perhaps the solution is to split this article between locations that were clearly concentration camps, and those that were/are merely internment camps. bd2412 T 17:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @BD2412: - look at Internment - "internment camp" and "concentration camp" are interchangeable terms. The historical context is different in WW2 (different US vs. German terminology, though prior English terminology - British concentration camps was in this mold) - but it's the same thing AFAICT. The question here is more whether immigrant / refugee camps should be classified as internment/concentration camps (not a straightforward question) - muddled with a current AP2 issue (leading to harsh rhetoric from both sides here). I'd prefer to see published scholarship using this term in a consistent, and uncontested basis (or to precise - a clear majority opinion, say over 80%), as opposed to TV appearances and open letters. I'm relatively unimpressed by "X scholars signed open letter Y" - even when X is 400. I'd be far more impressed if we were discussing 3-4 journal articles. Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Remove as politically partisan claim. Dahn (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep is sourced to reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment isn't this clearly out of scope of the article, per the lead? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep neither type of camp is the exclusive purview of any one country or regime, and by the same token varying degrees of similarity can exist between them. ——SerialNumber54129 09:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per RS and Serial Number. Arguments against keep that use the Holocaust Museum's stance against comparing things to the Holocaust miss the point when the article already includes literal dozens of other examples that are not from the Holocaust. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Remove/Keep? - These are "concentration camps" by definition. But, as Peacemaker67 points out, the lede excludes camps set up to house refugees or those seeking asylum. I don't know how to square that with the fact that Australian asylum facilities operated on Nauru and Manus Island are included in the article. This seems to be inconsistent. If we are going to exclude discussion of the American refugee camps, why are we not excluding the Australian ones?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I am changing my vote to Keep. I think this would however require us to update the lede for consistency. The article already contains information about "concentration camps" housing refugees/asylum seekers (in Australia/Nauru/Manus Island). These American detention facilities satisfy the definition of "concentration camp" also. I agree with PraiseVivec's summary of the reasons people do not want use the term, and do not think any of them are a good reason not to include these facilities in the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: The matter has been discussed a year back; sample:

These detention facilities for refugee children can rightly be labeled “concentration camps.” The Nazis do not own the term irrevocably, as it refers to prisonlike facilities where individuals are forcibly detained because of who they are.

Yes, you can call the border centers ‘concentration camps,’ but apply the history with care, Washington Post, by Waitman Wade Beorn, June 2018. More recently, 400 Holocaust and genocide scholars signed an open letter asking USHMM to reconsider their position: More than 400 Holocaust, Genocide Experts Think that Ocasio-Cortez Should be Allowed to Call Migrant Detention Centers 'Concentration Camps', Newsweek, July 2019. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Remove. Putting extermination camps in one list with detention centers, refugee camps, jails and prisons does a disservice to the reader by muddying the waters. And this appears to have been done intentionally in service of political motivations. The next step should be to split up this list into two articles, List of concentration camps and List of internment facilities. Hecato (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keeep - As mentioned before, plenty of sources refer to these centers as concentrations camps, because that is what they are. People who are opposed to the use of the term seems to fall into three categories: People who think that "concentration camp" is the same as "extermination camp", despite the fact that the two terms don't mean the same thing, people who think using the word is demeaning to those who died at the hands of Nazi Germany, despite the fact that WWII was far from being the first time in history when such camps were used, and those who oppose the use of the term for political reasons (i.e. Trump supporters).. That being said, hundreds of Holocaust scholars have defended the use of the term, and so did several Holocaust survivors.. I believe that to not use the term to refer to the detention camps on the US Southern border is disingenuous, as the term has been used throughout history to refer to such camps and the American media would have no issue using the term if this was happening in any other country. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

References

• Keep concentration and internment camps by definition and backed by sources, despite partisan inclinations to remove it. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Let's actually review all the sources we have here: Of the 12 sources cited, only 6 make any reference to concentration/internment camps at all. Of these, one is a discussion of the use of a former Japanese internship facility, and does not refer to the detention facilities as internment/concentration camps. Of the remaining 5 sources, one is a response from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and another a discussion of responses to AOC's comments. We're then left with the NYRB article, which is an opinion piece, the Esquire article which discusses the view of one historian, and the Houston Chronicle article which discusses an online movement in support of this description. Of these, only the last two references give any kind of credible support for including this content, and this is weak at best (while the AOC and USHMM articles are fine as in-line references for AOC's comments and responses to the online commentary).

In all, I'm not seeing anything like the range of high quality references I would expect for the inclusion of content as bold and potentially contentious as this. Until I do, I feel this content should be removed. This has the appearance of WP:RECENT politics spilling over where it shouldn't (per User:Icewhiz's comments). Endymion.12 (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC):

• Remove per Endymion.12. It isn't politically neutral and only a few of the cited sources call it a concentration camp, far from the amount that would be needed to include a controversial example. Jdcomix (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Remove: the determination to classify detention centers as "concentration camps" is not up to petitions (signed by people of random backgrounds) on the internet, nor is it up to viral Twitter comments(of whatever politician).

Currently this controversy takes up more space on this page than Cambodia under the Red Khmers which is ridiculous!

Also, the claim in the listed Newsweek article (a source which, according to Wikipedia has not used fact-checkers since 1996) -- "400 Holocaust and genocide scholars signed an open letter asking USHMM to reconsider their position" is exaggerating the number of domain experts: more than 400 people did indeed sign the letter, but only about 13% (so far: 78 out of the 580 people who have signed the petition) are actually Holocaust Scholars (the rest occupy all sorts of non-expert positions in academia or administration). Here's the full list of signatories. Further more, there's no scholarly or legal consensus to support the designation yet.

Media stirred controversies should not matter here even if some scholars (not clear how representative their self-selected set is for the research field) are OK with the comparison.

Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust museum, The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, The Anti-Defamation League, The Simon Wiesenthal Center and others have criticized the move and urged caution in drawing comparisons with concentration camps, which sounds like the fair approach to take.

The letter does not call the illegal immigrant detention centers as "concentration camps" either, it just criticizes "the Museum’s decision to completely reject drawing any possible analogies to the Holocaust, or to the events leading up to it." which is something entirely different. Concentration camp analogies made by politicians are not proof of concentration camps. So far, this looks more like a Holocaust Revisionism controversy for the sake of scoring political points. Mcrt007 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No. Not enough reliable sources to list in Wikipedia. Those who use the term are giving only their opinions. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - I see a reasonable argument that they should be included and one good point that they shouldn't. We must way WP:RECENT against the sources suggesting inclusion. Given that, I think that we should provisionally keep it, but specify that it is disputed, with the expectation that in 3 or 4 years, we will discuss it again. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, since the list is in prose and can provide appropriate context. There's extensive coverage among reliable sources that relates them to the topic, so regardless of whether, in the long term, those comparisons will be seen as apt, they are relevant enough to include in the list as a point of reference. Indeed, the sourcing for that section is better than several of the other items in the list. --Aquillion (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: This was asked and answered a year ago, so this editor wonders why this year is so different from last year.; sample:

These detention facilities for refugee children can rightly be labeled “concentration camps.” The Nazis do not own the term irrevocably, as it refers to prisonlike facilities where individuals are forcibly detained because of who they are.

Yes, you can call the border centers ‘concentration camps,’ but apply the history with care, Washington Post, by Waitman Wade Beorn, June 2018. More recently, 400 Holocaust and genocide scholars signed an open letter asking USHMM to reconsider their position: More than 400 Holocaust, Genocide Experts Think that Ocasio-Cortez Should be Allowed to Call Migrant Detention Centers 'Concentration Camps', Newsweek, July 2019.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just to note because people keep using the Newsweek article, the 400 scholars did not say that the detention centers are concentration camps, they just said that they want the USHMM to retract its letter that nobody can make the claim. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Remove per Endymion.12 Galestar (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep generally per SN54129. The border camps have been described by reliable sources quoting various experts as concentration camps. No claim is being made here that they are the same as Nazi death camps nor that any parallel to the Holocaust is occurring (not in Wikipedia's voice, I mean). Removing information because it doesn't meet some editors' own qualifications for what can and cannot be described as a concentration camp is not what encyclopedias do; we follow sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, per the above comments. I think this should be a standalone article with a summary here. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove. From Sir Joseph and my own findings, the border detention centers are not even close to being concentration camps.

• Remove. There is nothing accomplished by blurring this distinction. Concentration camps serve a different purpose from the detention centers that address the problems of the porous US/Mexico border. Bus stop (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Include, but streamline the content of the subsection. Far too many of the comments above (on both sides) are utilizing arguments like that "Concentration camps do X, but these detention centers do Y". Respectfully (and we must respectful of opinions in such an emotionally charged area) this is pretty blatant WP:original research. It doesn't really matter if the centers meet the idiosyncratic notions of this or that editor as to what constitutes a concentration camp. What matters is what WP:reliable sources say on the matter. I see that there are at least a handful of RS that have expressly and directly engaged with the question of whether or not these centers qualify--that in itself makes any overly-broad moratorium on discussing the subject on this article a no-go under our policies, since there seems be more sufficient WP:WEIGHT to the discussion within RS (which include news reports, scholarly works, and officials operating as primary sources).

Now, clearly, this being one of the newer applications of the term, the positions ought to be clearly attributed--which, from a review of the subsection, seems to be the case. There should also be room made for countervailing perspectives: this is also done in the current version. However, there should also be a limit on the amount of collateral detail that is brought in which seems like a borderline WP:SYNTH means of using Wikipedia's own voice to bolster the claim that these are concentration camps. In that respect, there are at least a few sentences/clauses that could be pulled out. Still, looking at the sourcing available here, I don't see how we can censor all discussion of whether these centers qualify from the article and still claim to be following this project's WP:NPOV policy. Again, I appreciate that this topic pushes buttons for people on both sides of this issue, but everybody needs to please try to remember that Wikipedia does not exist to echo your own perspectives on a topic in particular, but rather to contextually represent all perspectives, once they have established a certain degree of weight in the sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

No offense was intended by having discussion under a vote, so my apologies (some Wikipedia conventions are new to me). Since Sir Joseph responded to my comment there, I won't move it or their response, but I wanted open this area for any future discussions.

Again, I apologize for discussing things in the wrong location. If Sir Joseph wishes to move my comment and their response to this area without altering any of its content, I would of course not object.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

To support assertions that experts and scholars agree the camps at the U.S.-Mexico border should be called "concentration camps," I would like to highlight news about a letter delivered today to the director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (see also "Holocaust scholars ask DC museum to stop rejecting border camp comparisons"). This letter, also published as an open letter, specifically rebukes the museum's statement claiming that these camps shouldn't be compared to the Holocaust. Since having been delivered and made public, the number of signatories has jumped to over 300 so far (as noted at the bottom of the page where the letter is published). To quote from the letter:

By “unequivocally rejecting efforts to create analogies between the Holocaust and other events, whether historical or contemporary,” the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is taking a radical position that is far removed from mainstream scholarship on the Holocaust and genocide.

— "An Open Letter to the Director of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum" signed by hundreds of scholars

--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That open letter does not say that the detention centers on the border are concentration camps. You are misleading the public if you are implying that is what is says. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The statement from the director of the United States Holocaust Remembrance Museum does not say that the detention centers are not concentration camps. You are misleading the public if you are implying (in fact, outright stating) that is what it says.

What I am claiming is that, if other WP editors' arguments rely on pointing to the Holocaust to deny the label "concentration camp" that experts (that I've already referenced elsewhere) have ascribed to the U.S.-Mexico border camps because those WP editors think they aren't comparable and that the comparison is "revisionism," then at the very least it should be acknowledged that the mainstream position of scholars on the subject is that this comparison is absolutely appropriate.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No, the open letter just says that people can debate if they want to, not that it is. You are using the open letter as an assertion that they agree with you that it is concentration camp, but the open letter says no such thing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not using the letter in this way, I am using it to refute any arguments that invoke Holocaust concentration camps as the reason why these shouldn't also be labeled concentration camps. It should be noted however, Newsweek, The Hill, CNN, the Huffington Post, and Jewish News Syndicate all interpret this open letter as the scholars supporting the use of the "concentration camp" label for the U.S.-Mexico border camps.

So, if you insist on disregarding the open letter from hundreds of experts, then the statement from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum should be disregarded entirely as well, as it does not claim that the U.S.-Mexico border camps are not concentration camps. And so should any other statement invoking the Holocaust to deny the "concentration camp" label be disregarded, because all such statements are inappropriately equating "concentration camp" with "Holocaust concentration camp," which is not relevant to the discussion here.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Misleading again, I just checked one of your sources, The Hill, and it said no such thing. Perhaps you should check your sources before pasting it to Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Hill: "More than 300 scholars have signed on to an open letter urging the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to retract its statement that rejects comparisons between migrant detention facilities and concentration camps." How else is this opening statement to be interpreted?

Because it sounds to me like your interpretation is, 'The Hill is saying that the scholars are demanding that the museum retract their rejection of the comparison, but please don't take that to mean that the scholars support the comparison.' Would you like to clarify?

--Pinchme123 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll say it for the last time, the open letter does not say that the detention centers are concentration camps, it says that the USHMM should retract the statement that you can't make any comparison or analogy ever. For you to now say that they say it is a concentration camp is SYNTH and putting words in their mouth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And I'll say it once again, the five news agencies I linked to are the ones who all interpret the letter. I am not putting words in anyone's mouths, I am noting that five news agencies have made the same specific interpretation - which is the purview of those news agencies to do. You can be angry that so many news orgs (correctly, in my opinion) interpret the letter this way, but your anger doesn't change those interpretations.

Feel free to provide links of your own that show alternative interpretations by relevant, reliable sources, to make a case for that alternative interpretation. But, as of right now, your own interpretation is unsupported and should thus be ignored. I look forward to reading your sources, should you find any.

By the way, the letter is up to over five hundred signatures.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And yet nowhere in that open letter are the detention centers on the southern border mentioned. It's clear that you have an agenda to push. It's also clear that you are willing to violate Wikipedia policies and logic to do so. Other people here hopefully will see through your misleading use of sources. What the open letter says is not what you are saying it says. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Further to the above, the current paragraph is so out of date and biased, Sessions is not in office anymore, there is no zero tolerance policy anymore, the entire paragraph sounds like it was written by a partisan hack, not by someone editing a Wikipedia article. I do understand the need to make Trump look bad, I really do, but we should at least strive to make believe we are impartial when writing an article in Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• How about we start an article entitled "Socialist and National Socialist politicians", with a focus on Bernie Sanders and Adolph Hitler. Both are clearly on topic, and hey, the names "Socialist and National Socialist" are similar, just like "internment and concentration" are in this article!Adoring nanny (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If you can find enough experts linking "Bernie Sanders and Adolph [sic] Hitler" linking the two, feel free to do so. But I don't see how that blatantly-unsupported characterization is "just like 'internment and concentration' in this article," nor do I see how it contributes to the discussion here.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems disingenuous to discount the NYRB article as opinion when the "opinion" writer is an expert on the subject and since it is not marked by the venue as an opinion piece (take as analogy the value of expert opinion in courts of law). It also seems disingenuous to place such little weight on the open letter, when the purpose of its inclusion in this discussion is to note the hundreds of experts and their expert opinions on the subject at hand (the current count of signatures is 580, verifiable on the main document for the signature process), as interpreted by several news articles (I added five to the discussion, at least), left out of the count. One source in the count, apparently not discussed above, includes interviews with three experts, which I have pointed out elsewhere on the talk page.

The text has not been substantively updated since just after the beginning of this RfC, save for one set of changes to include the Memorial Museum's statement and note that it does not directly speak to the label "concentration camp" broadly (and to include a statement by a single other, which I didn't delete because I didn't want to start an edit war on something that has an ongoing RfC). To find relevant sources to the discussion, one must look here, to the talk page, where this discussion has been happening. Here, I personally have included the aforementioned news articles to support and other editors have noted their own evaluations of the sources. Which is all to say, this section is well-sourced and well-supported, despite attempts by some to downplay and discredit perfectly acceptable sources. --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we'll have the discussion here actually, rather than in the survey. The NYRB article is sufficiently editorialised to not be considered disinterested reporting. It represents the opinion of one person, expert or not. The open letter is fine as a source, but even if it were included, I still don't see the range and volume of high-quality sources making uncontentious reference to detention centres as concentration camps (and not as some kind of analogy) to justify a subsection in this article which is nearly as long as the section on Japanese, German, and Italian internship in WWII.

On a side note, would you like to account for how you are so familiar with Wikipedia processes having only made 82 edits to the site in total? Also, do not baselessly speculate about the motives of users, it will get you in trouble. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

"Also, do not baselessly speculate about the motives of users, it will get you in trouble" sounds like a fine bit of advice to direct at yourself, so thank you for stating it! My newness with written engagement does not preclude me from having built and understanding of processes by having been reading along for quite a while. I may be new to engaging, but I do know what disingenuous representation of sources looks like and have seen many times when other editors respond to such misrepresentation in a clear but civil fashion, including without veiled threats like the one I've quoted at the beginning of this response.

Your personal evaluation of an expert's written piece as "editorialised" is not sufficient enough to overrule the publishing authority's determination of that piece as not being "opinion," especially when that publishing authority's reliability is not in question. NYRB considers Pitzer's expertise sufficient enough to publish it without labeling it "opinion." It, plus the article that includes three separate experts using the label without it being an analogy, plus the five news articles I have provided describing the open letter as an argument in favor of using the label without it being an analogy, plus the open letter itself as a refutation of those who point to the Holocaust as a reason why the label shouldn't be applied, is more than sufficient RS to justify inclusion.

Finally, your emphasis on section length seems to indicate that this example should be included, but its relative size to others on the list is, to you, inappropriate. Should the RfC fail to find consensus for removal, it would be perfectly acceptable to include sources from this talk page but not yet in the actual article section to further support its material, thus justifying the longer length. It would also be perfectly acceptable to discuss which aspects of these concentration camps should be noted in the section, which would presumably affect the section's length as well; perhaps the portions of the section discussing the Holocaust should be excluded from this section entirely?

So at the moment, I'm being accused of attempting "to downplay and discredit perfectly acceptable sources", in some apparently cynical and conspiratorial way, based on the fact that I (1) neglected to mention a source/s you had posted on the talk page (which I had not noticed), and because I (2) referred to an NYRB article as an "opinion piece", which apparently wasn't consistent with your hairsplitting interpretation of what constitutes an "opinion article". It's acceptable to refer to any editorialised or non-news reporting as "opinion", even if this isn't indicated by the publication (the NYRB doesn't have an "opinion" section). This doesn't mean that it's invalid as a source, it just means it needs to be supplemented with other sources, especially non-editorial news/academic sources.

There is more than enough room for honest disagreement here. Your current approach is combative and inappropriate, and what's more reflects badly on you and any valid arguments you are making, so please refrain from doing it. It will get you in trouble, as I said.

On the final point, as this story develops and more sources become available, some of the content in this section might be appropriate for inclusion in this article, so long as it is given due WP:WEIGHT. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Dishonesty in representing sources should be civilly noted when it occurs. This is what I have done. I did not mention any sort of "conspiracy," nor did I invoke anything related to "cynicism," but instead noted your specific misrepresentations. These include a source - the Esquire piece - from the section of the article under discussion (where you took your 12 articles from), which you claimed only relies on one expert (as if "historian" is the only kind of expert allowed in this discussion), when it actually quotes three experts.

I am glad you have finally noticed the very large discussion with plenty of sources, occurring in the Discussion section of this RfC. I certainly hope others will notice the discussion and sources and take them into consideration before putting in their voice for or against consensus as well.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mcrt007: could you please provide your source for the evaluation of credentials for those experts who have so far signed the open letter? --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Pinchme123:As I've mentioned in my previous comment: the source is the original documented linked by the media (which originated with Aliza Luft, Tomaz Jardim, Eugene Finkel & co). It has been uploaded by its authors here which is the link quoted by RS. Academics & administrators of all types signed it (Law School, Sociology, History, Philosophy, Architecture, Religion, Music, etc). You can see who the Holocaust Scholars are by checking the document (they will show up with credentials in Holocaust Studies, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Holocaust Education, Holocaust Research, Jewish History and the Holocaust, Teaching about the Holocaust, Holocaust and Genocide Education, Holocaust Geographies, Holocaust History, Holocaust and History, Holocaust Courses, Holocaust and Peace Studies, Holocaust Testimonies, Holocaust Commission, etc). I've checked the document and separated all the Holocaust experts (about 78 people out of the 580 currently listed) from the other signatories and could provide a list of the names & credentials if needed (though that would flood this section, probably). Mcrt007 (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mcrt007:So, you don't have a source for this determination and are instead relying on WP:OR? Without tracing each expert's name to determine why their stated titled did not include the term "Holocaust" (which isn't even the requisite credential for being able to sign the letter), it would not be possible to claim that those signatures are from people who don't match the description, so it's hard to take this Original Research as acceptable in even a non-Wikipedia setting if that hasn't been documented somewhere. Do you have that documentation?

The apparent original list of open letter signatures is archived here: Internet Archive: An Open Letter to the Director of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Prior to being made public, the letter had 140 signatures. To avoid claims that non-scholars or non-experts are on the list, I suggest we take the conservative approach and evaluate the letter as if it had at least 140 experts, rather than get into a debate over some legitimate number and to avoid any Original Research. Should someone provide a reliable source with a more accurate evaluation, then this could be revisited.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The source I've provided is as good if not better than the one you recommend and reading through it is no more WP:OR than reading the 140 names listed in the NYBooks article. There's no reason to assume the original letters had at least 140 experts just because 140 people signed it, especially since, among them you have obvious non-expert like: Paul Jaskot, Professor of Art; Brigid Cohen, Associate Professor of Music; Brett Kaplan, Professor of Literature; Laurel Leff, Associate Professor of Journalism; Tabea Linhard, Professor of Spanish, Comparative Literature; Stef Craps, Professor of English Literature; Aliza Luft, Assistant Professor of Sociology;Daniel H. Magilow, Professor of German; Debarati Sanyal, Professor of French; Diane Wolf, Professor of Sociology; Danielle Fosler-Lussier, Professor of Music; and many other non-experts who, overall, massively outnumber those who seem to be the genuine experts in the nybooks article. What's even more important is that "concentration camp" determinations are made by relevant research, investigations, studies and books, not by a handful of people signing random letters on the internet. Mcrt007 (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

While your lack of familiarity regarding expertise in any given subject and the field of study under which they fall can be set aside, what cannot is that you have decided yourself to count up those who you (wrongly) think are not experts in order to make an evaluation, which you have done on the original document collecting signatures. This is Original Research in plain terms. But yes, genocide scholars are found all over the social sciences and humanities, including music, literature, and language studies. And it's alarming you opted to put even a sociologist! on your list of supposed non-experts. You originally stated that you were excluding anyone who specifically did not include "Holocaust" in their listed credentials for their signature; are you now shifting your position?

None of us are in a position to evaluate the expertise of the list of experts, as they have been described as such by the original publication of the letter, as well as plenty of subsequent news articles. So, once again, unless you or someone else can provide an RS that calls into question the validity of the list of signatures, so far there are plenty of news articles that do not. The list I have previously provided: Newsweek, The Hill, CNN, the Huffington Post, and Jewish News Syndicate. Please do feel free to fill in with your sources stating the contrary.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You're making lots of baseless claims which you can't back up or are contradicted by the sources you quote and even by the letter itself. The CNN article states: "nearly 150 scholars, many who teach about the Holocaust, urged the US Holocaust Memorial Museum to retract its recent statement". Yes, the CNN article says an ambiguous "many who teach about the Holocaust"; it does not say ALL the signatories are experts. The HuffPost article calls all of the signatories "historians" which is obviously false and sloppy journalism (and it doesn't even call them experts on the problem as you'd like to present them). Most importantly, you even lie about the letter which say nowhere that its signatories are "experts" on the subject. The letter (and its original version published on NYBooks) make claims similar to those in the CNN article, e.g.: "We are scholars .... many of us teach the Holocaust at our universities"! Nothing describes the 140+ original signatories as "experts" on the topic in the letter's arguments. Last but not least: the letter does not call the illegal immigrant detention centers as "concentration camps" either, it just criticizes "the Museum’s decision to completely reject drawing any possible analogies to the Holocaust, or to the events leading up to it." which is something entirely different: concentration camp analogies made by politicians are not the same as concentration camps. Mcrt007 (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to provide any sources of your own supporting your contention that the letter is signed by non-experts, or discuss your shifting position as to which experts you personally feel should be excluded? How about explaining why you left out the majority of the quote that you copied here, to downplay all the other ways the experts who signed the letter are, in fact, experts: "We are scholars who strongly support the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Many of us write on the Holocaust and genocide; we have researched in the USHMM’s library and archives or served as fellows or associated scholars; we have been grateful for the Museum’s support and intellectual community. Many of us teach the Holocaust at our universities, and have drawn on the Museum’s online resources." Clearly the letter states the many ways in which these experts engage with the subject matter at hand (because, it apparently needs to be said, there's more to being an expert than teaching at a university).

I stand by the sources I've provided and the way I have described them. You're falling into the same trap with the CNN article: just because not all the experts who signed do not teach about the Holocaust specifically at a university does not mean they are not genocide experts. But also, I specifically said these articles "do not" call into question the expertise of signatories, not that they confirmed their expertise. This is true for every one of the articles I provided and serves as plenty of evidence that their expertise is not questioned. And this is also why I asked for any sources that specifically do challenge the claimed expertise of those who signed.

For the sake of discussion, remove the Huffington Post article from the list; there are still four RS that do not claim those signatures come from non-experts. One even outright states they are all genocide experts. To replace that Huffington Post article, here's a news report from the University of Maine, which also outright states that all those who originally signed prior to publication are genocide experts of some kind. So, five articles in support of their expertise (three implicit and two explicit). Please provide relevant sources that refute this expertise.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You provide yet other deflections, fallacies and non-points. Among your sources: The JNS does not call the signatories experts, it just calls them "academics". Similarly, The Hill calls them simply (generic) "scholars" and makes no comment on expertise. Business Insider makes similar comments to those in your CNN link. The letter itself offers no proof that all signatories are Holocaust experts, it only claims that "many" of them write or teach on the Holocaust. Truth is, with the evidence available so far, there's no reason to believe anything outside a minority of the signatories have any real expertise in the field. Putting your name on a petition does not automatically qualify you as an expert in the Holocaust. Mcrt007 (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so to be clear, there are no sources provided here refuting the multiple RS I've listed that state outright that those who signed the letter are experts on the subject of genocide (not limited to the Holocaust). I have also provided multiple additional sources that state those who signed are scholars and those sources do not question their inclusion.

Until someone can provide reliable sources questioning the expertise of those who signed, the multiple ones I've provided that explicitly states their expertise, along with the multiple ones I've provided that make no claim otherwise should be sufficient to uphold the validity of the letter as a refutation of any claim that people cannot label non-Holocaust camps as concentration camps (which has always been its stated reason for inclusion for this discussion). it should have been understood before, but unsupported Original Research isn't acceptable. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the original letter (probably the most important document here) does not support your claims. CNN, The Hill, The JNS, The Washington Post and Business Insider do not support your claims either (as mentioned above), Huffington Post is not exactly a RS and you're giving undue weight to claims in Newsweek (which, according to Wikipedia has not used fact-checkers since 1996) and a blog on umaine.edu which are not supported by the text of the original letter and make exaggerated claims when compared with much of the other RS. An article in PolitiFact, regarding Ocasio's claims, also states that many historians are skeptical of the "concentration camp" comparison Mcrt007 (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Every assertion you make here is false. Every one of those articles I provided support my claims, which is that 1) Reliable sources, the University of Maine short news report and the Newsweek article, both report the signatures as coming from genocide experts; 2) Reliable sources CNN, JNS, The Hill, and the Business Insider source provided by you all support the assertion that these two sources are correct to label those who signed as experts, since none of these news organizations even hint at a claim that they aren't experts; and 3) the entire purpose of the letter - not my claim, this is reported by all the aforementioned news outlets - is to defend others' labeling of U.S.-Mexico border camps as concentration camps from statements of rebuke by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

As for your provided sources, both come from before the letter was released, so neither speaks to the expertise of the those who signed. The WaPo article inappropriately conflates "concentration camps" with "Holocaust concentration camps," which is not only refuted by the letter in question here, but also the article this talk page is about, which is full of non-Holocaust concentration camps. If we follow that article's position, the vast majority of this Wikipedia article needs to be deleted.

The PolitiFact article reports a full three experts who disagree with using the label "concentration camp," and the article itself only claims they are different from concentration camps that existed before, up to, and including the Holocaust, but nothing about camps following the 1940s. Of the three scholars, two do not base their objection on using the term for the Holocaust. So we can reliably state that two scholars disagree with labeling the U.S.-Mexico border camps "concentration camps," and they're only found in a single source, which Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources only shows is seen as reliable for statements by politicians. Further, this article crucially did not make an evaluation of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's statement, "This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying. This is not hyperbole. It is the conclusion of expert analysis." Despite two scholars disagreeing with the label, PolitiFact reported that the reason they couldn't dispute Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's statement is in-part because "[h]istorians we contacted said it was possible to make a case that the term 'concentration camp' is a more general term than just referring to camps in Nazi Germany." The other reason is because, they note, some scholars claim a "strong, longstanding association of the term 'concentration camps' with Nazi Germany," which again, is the improper conflation of "concentration camps" with "Holocaust concentration camps."

So, two experts from one source. Are there any other reliable sources that you'd like to provide?

--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• You keep repeating the same nonsense for the most part. Saying that many of the 140-150 initial signatories teach/study about the Holocaust (like CNN, BI, etc do) is not the same as saying that ALL of the signatories (about 580 now) are domain experts. You're attempt to conflate the two is logically flawed and dishonest. If a news source does not say "you are not an expert" it does not mean you are an expert. If a source says "many" are experts (out of a group of more than 150 people) it does not mean all are experts (in fact, you don't really know how many in your group are experts when presented with such vague claims). If the source says a number of academics signed the letter you, again, don't know how many of them are experts on the subjects and how many are not. The umaine.edu article is not even signed and is a just a blog-post. You're purposely trying to be misleading here and back your assumption not on what data/sources say but on the bogus interpretations you try to sell. Mcrt007 (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You write, "If a news source does not say 'you are not an expert' it does not mean you are an expert." Good thing I provided two reliable sources that do, in fact, explicitly say that those who signed are experts. Without reliable sources making the alternative claim that some, many, or most of those who signed are not experts, then the two reliable sources are the prevailing evaluations here, despite your claims to the contrary. Those prevailing evaluations are bolstered by strong, but imperfect, supporting reliable sources provided by both of us. Feel free to provide any reliable sources that say those who signed are not experts, should any exist.

I look forward to constructively discussing any reliable sources you are able to find.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: you appear to be editing your comments after I have responded. An example of such a post-response change. Please ensure you are properly tagging your additions with proper insert and delete tags and that you are noting your updates with an appropriate update signature. The example diff I've linked to is of one such addition, a claim about Newsweek's reliability that uses Wikipedia as the source. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Further, Newsweek is reported as a reliable source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'll look up the tags you've mentioned. Also, the most recent discussions on the reliability of Newsweek depicts it as generally unreliable; and the wikipedia-article discussing Newsweek ditching fact-checkers is backed with proper links. Mcrt007 (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Per the linked discussion, IBT is currently rated as unreliable, but Newsweek is independent of IBT since 2018 and that nearly every entry in the linked discussion distinguishes between IBT and post-independent Newsweek in order to state that Newsweek separate from IBT is reliable. Again, this is well-represented on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where IBT and Newsweek's listings contain links back to this same discussion you've posted, and where Newsweek is listed as reliable.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• There are about 7 votes on that last discussion thread: 2 editors say its bad/unreliable (wumbolo, Snooganssnoogans); one editor recommends applying extra caution (Abecedare) when citing recent Newsweek articles (which I did and found its story making claims that are not confirmed by other RS and, especially, are contradicted by the contents of very petition it quoted); another editor says "we don't know how it'll fare as a once again independent org so I wouldn't say that it continues to be reliable now simply because it's once again independent" (Barkeep49); and another editor says "Newsweek currently engages in poor editorial practices. I am split between "generally reliable" and "no consensus" "marginally reliable" for Newsweek" (Newslinger) ... Ohh, and those votes are from April-2019 :) Mcrt007 (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just another comment because people seem to miss this, a detention center is for housing detainees, not prisoners. A concentration camps is for prisoners, as per the definition. I know that under Obama it was perfect so that we didn't need this definition and suddenly Jan 20, 2017 this all changed, but we should still read this and note that we should still try to be neutral. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are also Jewsih group that takes the "Never again" seriously.[8] // Liftarn (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm actually wondering if I need to set a calendar item for next year's vote. This was voted on last year, nothing has changed magically over the year and the Japanese - American citizen concentration camps were labeled by the US government as such, right until the Nazi death camps were discovered and there was a mad rush for white out and sign paint.Wzrd1 (talk)

United States of America; Afghan War and the Occupation of Iraq; Discretion and Imagery

I am the original author of the section for USA: Afghan War and the Occupation of Iraq. Recently that section was edited to add an image from Abu Ghraib in 2003. All contributors should be aware that Seymour Hersh, the man who broke the story about relevant torture and abuses at Abu Ghraib, concluded that photographs of the torture and abuses were integral parts of the torture and abuse of the captives. Therefore, we have to consider whether by including one of those photographic images as an example of relevant abuses, we might also be inadvertently participating in the torture of the victims.

Seymour Hersh wrote in his book Chain of Command: The Road From 9-11 to Abu Ghraib that captives at Abu Ghraib were systematically photographed in humiliating positions (in stages of nakedness or homosexuality) in attempts to coerce captives into saying desired information: The captors would threaten to send these photographs home to the photographed captive's family, knowing that in the local culture, to be publicly exposed in such a way would necessitate either that the captive's family would have to kill the captive should they ever be released or that that the captive would have to kill themselves to avoid that dishonor. Those positions of nakedness and homosexuality photographed were designed to be viewed by the victims as such disgraces and abominations that they might even necessitate suicide regardless of whether a photograph of such was ever sent home to family.

Therefore, we should be very careful. If you were the man in the photograph and you were reading this article and came across that picture, might you be worried that someone could recognize you? Or might that picture cause you to feel and remember the great shame of that predicament?

I did not originally include such photographs out of discretion and sensitivity for the victims. I believe the aforementioned picture of actual torture should be reviewed and possibly removed if decided inappropriate.

Hambb (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 11:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

---

List of concentration and internment camps → List of internment camps – The term "concentration" is redundant in the title, since "concentration camp" is just a synonym for "internment camp". The proposed title "List of internment camps" is also more neutral, the term "concentration camp" has develped a negative connotation since WW2, demonstrated by the fact that US politicians like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez use that term to bash the Trump administration over the internment of illegal immigrants, despite the fact that these internment camps also existed under Obama, making the term partisan. It is also clear from the fact that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions and a 1RR that including the term "concentration" makes the article a magnet for disruption. Nug (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nominator, obviously. --Nug (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

"Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Aikclaes (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per the article internment, "concentration camp" is often conflated with "death camp" by the general public, so both terms are used. There is a clear need to use both names to prevent confusion, and it is not some partisan idea to make illegal immigrant camps seem as bad as death camps. Anyone who writes a news article as such is, IMO, engaging in clickbait journalism._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per ZXC guy 👀 ——SerialNumber54129 08:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a peculiar argument. Concentration camps and internment camps are different things, as the RS show. Whether they should be grouped together is another thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• For the record, I think they should definitely be grouped together; both fall under things that violate human rights. It can easily be a slippery slope from one to the other, so there is no need to treat with kid gloves._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Peacemaker67: - they are in fact the same. See for instance Britannica where "internment camp" is the alt title for "Concentration camp". The concentration camp form underwent stigmatization prior to WWII and more so given the events of WWII - however they are the same. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The two classifications appear for the most part to be two different levels of a similar type of authoritarian maltreatment, with some overlap in definition, so the current title is not broken. Havradim (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite to a reliable source that claims an "concentration camp" is different from a "internment camp"? --Nug (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This piece is advocating for the usage of the term concentration camp in regards to the Japanese-American camps because the word internment is too mild. It also acknowledges that the Nazi camps (death camps) and Stalin's gulags are worse than what we call concentration camps, so we have at least 3 levels. Havradim (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there an example of an actual "internment camp", if it's not synonymous with "concentration camp"? -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Both need to be retained given the usage. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per ZXCVBNM, Peacemaker67, and MaskedSinger's arguments. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Havradim. PublicWorld (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all those who have written in opposition. The term "Internment camp" generally has pretty negative associations, like negative associations with the term "concentration camp." Those negative associations exist because of shared purposes and abuses. Hence, they belong together here. The suggestion to separate them from each other seems a rather transparent attempt to whitewash a specific, ongoing predicament and its related transgressions, as much as can be achieved, and to do so for purely partisan reasons. Hambb (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hambb (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, but I think a case could be made for splitting out one aspect of the list into a separate article and linking the two. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.