Talk:Internment

Concentration Camp should not be a redirect page
The page for concentration camp should be at least a discussion of the term itself. There was presumably some discussion about the change, which I don't know how to find. Regardless, it should be reconsidered. Mackerm (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * A concentration camp and an internment camp are too different concepts. A concentration camp is the combination between an extermination camp and a labour camp while an internment camp on the other hand is a detention center where enemy aliens or citizens deemed as security risk are arrested and confined. I don't think it should be a redirect page. 95.151.194.20 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This essay by Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga presents a very strong argument for using concentration camp over internment camp. Concentration camp is the term used repeatedly as early as the 1860s (Ten Years War between Cubans and Spain) to describe locations to which civilians are forcibly relocated. That the term is now most strongly associated with Nazi concentration camps does not justify applying a neutralizing and self-justifying euphemism like internment camp. Catercorn (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

What about Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian internment of Serbs during the First World War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.27.22 (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Didn't U.S. migration detentions pre-date the Trump administration?
It is only rabid political bias that states that U.S. Government migrant detention facilities where initiated by the Trump administration. It also implies that these facilities were "liberated" or shut down by subsequent administrations.

This bias is not welcome in Wikipedia. Please consider changing the text to read "U.S. Government migrant detentions". Cubsvices (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Especially because it would seem that, at least based on the wikipedia page regarding Trump's changes to the migrant detentions, it was only a matter of scale in increasing the categories of who would be detained + decreasing the exceptions, but not a change in conditions. It seems the amount of criticism increased over existing conditions due to heightened fixation on the issue, but if they were considered concentration camps during the Trump era, they should likewise have been considered as such much earlier, since at least the Bush junior era. And likewise there hasn't really been any significant change since then either, which the current wording seems to agree with, while there has been plenty of time as of the current date to change things, it's inaccurate to keep it as "Trump administration migrant detentions". We can even keep all of the existing citations to maintain that the immigrant detention in general constitutes internment camps since the first doesn't even reference Trump; the second specifically points out that the tactics were pioneered by the Obama administration in 2014 and that the difference was a matter of scale, as I pointed out; the third I'll admit I can't read due to a paywall; and the fourth again has no reference to Trump in the article and merely refers to the internment in general. So in the absence of proper sourcing suggesting it's a Trump era issue and not one spanning multiple administrations (at least two, almost certainly 3-4, and probably more), it should be changed to "Immigration detention in the United States ([YEAR]–present)" with discussion on what year should be included. I currently think 2004 could be a good one to consider if only because of the second citation which specifies that as the year with the peak detainment deaths, but really that could have been multiple factors and really it should begin with either the first year detainment occurred or the most first very significant change in the conditions of detainment to the point they could be called internment/concentration camps. In the case of the latter, 2014 is an option, again based on the second source, due to beginning (as far as I'm currently aware) the use of military forts for the internments as well as constructing many of the facilities currently in use. There's certainly other options, but, at least with the current citations, one of those would be best. Kensai97 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good news, now that I've had a little more time recently. I was able to more carefully pore through all four involved sources. The first and last are short, so no new information there: They clearly make no mention of Trump, or even to anything vague like 'recent changes' and simply call the detention centers concentration camps, but never state how long they've been that way. Thankfully, the second source does. In pretty much every mention of Trump policies, it states the change began in a previous administration. Not, was done in a previous administration, reverted later, and reinstated. The most clear quote in the whole article actually states they should be called 'concentration camps' since the Clinton era and have simply worsened since then, particularly in the Obama administration mentioned in other parts of the article as well as here.
 * "But by Pitzer's measure, the system at the southern border first set up by the Bill Clinton administration, built on by Barack Obama's government, and brought into extreme and perilous new territory by Donald Trump and his allies does qualify. Two historians who specialize in the area largely agree."
 * Finally, the third source I learned happens to be from PostEverything which is essentially an op-ed/opinion page of the Washington Post. So I'd be open if somebody can quote a specific line from there that suggests this is specifically a Trump era situation, but even if so, additional sources are probably needed in order to get an opinion piece to match the Esquire piece. Again, a more specific year would be good, but it now seems like one in the 90s would be most in line with the sourcing rather than the 2014 I had initially put down and certainly the claim that it's a Trump era issue remains not just unsourced, but contradicted by the current sources. Kensai97 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The archives of this page contain several discussions about this same entry, including about the very same sentence you've quoted from the Esquire article; this is an old discussion with no new information or sourcing added. The sentence describes how circumstances changed, such that a location with buildings built by an older administration and used for certain kinds of detention in the past transformed into concentration camps when the Trump administration "brought [the situation] into extreme and perilous new territory".
 * The second source is written by a content expert and therefore well-qualifies as a reliable source. Per WP:NEWSORG (first bullet point): "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Beorn states plainly, "We can call today’s U.S. border detention centers 'concentration camps' and be within the realm of historical accuracy." (emphasis added). This was published in 2018 and thus lines up with Pitzer's reported expert opinion from the Esquire article that these locations became concentration camps under the Trump administration.
 * The other two sources show content experts and news outlets specifically using the phrase "concentration camp" to refer to the facilities at the border under the Trump administration.
 * Unless you can provide additional new sources that specifically stretch the concentration label further back in history, the long-established consensus of the list entry linking to the Trump Administration article and 2018–Present date range should remain.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read the discussions in the archives, and so far they've amounted to very little actual 'discussion'. A few couple of people just complaining about Wikipedia without actually providing an argument and getting shot down (and rightly so) and then the one instance you mentioned regarding the quote which, while rebutted, the discussion simply stopped with a single point and counterpoint followed by a lack of any response at all. Neither of those is quite the same as long-standing consensus so much as long-standing wording. Clearly the quote in question can be interpreted in different ways otherwise I wouldn't have included it in full in my argument for removal while you used the exact same entire quote for maintaining the status quo. There are, for better or worse, certain vagaries in the English language. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say it's an unreasonable interpretation to say that reading between the lines and adding the notion that Trump "brought [the situation] into extreme and perilous new territory (which makes them internment camps now, but not before)" *Parenthesis added to demonstrate the addition necessary to state the conclusion. However, I also genuinely don't think it's unreasonable at all to consider the phrases in that sentence to be giving additional clarification, but not entirely necessary information. That is to say, "But by Pitzer's measure, the system at the southern border first set up by the Bill Clinton administration... does qualify. Two historians who specialize in the area largely agree." with the two phrases simply giving additional information about the history of the centers.
 * As for the quote, "We can call today's U.S. border detention centers 'concentration camps' and be within the realm of historical accuracy" this, too, certainly requires a specific interpretation. The use of "today's" certainly definitively mean that the detention centers of 'yesterday' were not. That the timing of the article lines up with the Trump era doesn't automatically mean that they became 'concentration camps' as a result of Trump era policies. That's not even necessarily the case even in an article ABOUT his policies which describes them as concentration camps. It's entirely possible that, just as a random hypothetical example, somebody famous tweeted a claim that they were concentration camps (and who herself didn't even specify, at least in the original tweet of this completely hypothetical example, that it was due to any recent changes, but rather just 'that is how it is') and that created buzz which then led to people deciding to actually talk about it right then with no regard to how long it had actually been the case. Another issue I just noticed after finishing the rest of this post is his pointing out that it's "within the realm of historical accuracy" which still makes, maybe not the whole column, but at least that particular line kind of a wishy-washy statement on the matter. It doesn't even give a very strong support with that kind of language that the camps either now or ever were concentration camps. The other sources obviously still do though, so I wouldn't fight to remove the rest, it's just that source seems less and less relevant even hearing more about it now.
 * Don't get me wrong, reading between the lines is sometimes necessary, even on Wikipedia, but should probably be avoided in general. However, in this case, as you yourself have pointed out, this is a contentious topic and so, while still trying to maintain accuracy, we should be extra cautious about making sure we say what the sources say, and not our own exegesis. If there's a source that more clearly says something along the lines of 'Trumps changes led to them becoming concentration camps' or 'recent changes led to...' and was dated accordingly. Right now though, I think the wording is too vague for inclusion on such a contentious topic. Kensai97 (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At present moment, consensus is that the entry on this list is to refer to the Trump admin's detention policies and to list the date range as 2018 to present. This consensus was established via edits to the article and discussion here, using these sources and agreeing upon this conclusion about them. In every discussion of this subject, there has not been a reliable source provided that demonstrates these concentration camps as being called concentration (or internment) camps prior to the Trump administration: neither a source that existed prior to the Trump admin's changes in 2018 that called them concentration camps, nor a source that, after the 2018 changes, declared after-the-fact that these locations were concentration (or internment) camps already. Every source here (and, tbh, on other related WP Talk pages) that goes into detail describes a process of change (such as the Spitzer description) such that the label applies after the change. If you can bring provide reliable sources that describe them instead as having been concentration (or internment) camps prior to the 2018 change, this would be new information and would justify such an update to this article. But without new sources, I maintain my objection. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm completely wrong about how consensus works, but when it comes to the point of what the sources allegedly say, there has been no consensus. It's only occasionally come up only for you to say, essentially, 'we have reliable sources'. The trouble is, the sources are from reliable publications, yes, but they don't actually say what you're claiming they say. Further, it seems that although you've gotten some consensus from one other party on some related matters, you've been solo on your claims that the article states what I've just attested to them not saying. Does consensus instead come about just because nobody questioned it for some period of time? Genuine question, as I'm inexperienced, but that seems to be an odd system if so. We seem to be at an impasse here because you're not actually countering my assertion that the citations don't say what you apparently think they say, but rather just saying essentially 'that's how it is' and only alternate citations will impact it. It's also incorrect to say that the sources currently describe a change that led to the label, but simply that they describe past changes and also the label. One might just as well claim that because the Roman Republic went through several changes over about 500 years that it wasn't a 'true' republic until it reached it's final form prior to the permanent dictatorships and empire, which is of course nonsense. Please give some indication I'm maybe missing that the sources currently given say what you claim, which I'm maybe completely missing, which don't rely entirely on personal exegesis. Kensai97 (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My position isn't 'that's how it is', my position is that the current entry was reached both via discussion on Talk and as an implicit result of mutual editing. You may wish to read WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS (or the whole policy page on which those sections are found).
 * I'm not the end-all be-all decider of what stays and what goes; I'm merely one editor expressing my opinion: the entry as it is written now should not be changed without additional reliable sources brought forward to support changing it. I hold this position because, when the entry was added sometime in 2019, there was a consensus-building process—which incorporated the included sources, constructive edits, and on-Talk discussion—to determine what would be a reasonable entry. And since that time, there have been no reliable sources produced that would reasonably support altering the entry to include earlier periods of time or otherwise broaden the scope beyond the facilities at the US southern border.
 * Other editors may agree with you that the entry should be changed, however I think it's a weak position to argue that the long-established consensus about the entry (looks like 4 years to me) should be changed without new sources being introduced. The crucial part here is, "without new sources being introduced." Bring new reliable sources that unambiguously support your proposed change and editors will agree with it, me included.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking through the second source, it looks like the expert and two unnamed historians agree that it started during the Clinton administration, sometime in the 90's like you said: "But by Pitzer's measure, the system at the southern border first set up by the Bill Clinton administration, built on by Barack Obama's government, and brought into extreme and perilous new territory by Donald Trump and his allies does qualify. Two historians who specialize in the area largely agree." The first link gives 1994 as the start of Clinton's new "Prevention Through Deterrence" border strategy, which appears to be what the expert is referring to. I've added this as a source and updated the year. Yoav Rafalin (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The sentence describing "Pitzer's measure" describes how things changed such that they became concentration camps. Speculating about what a source (the Hill source) might refer to, which isn't stated, is WP:OR and thus not acceptable for the article. That Hill source about the Clinton administration does not mention "concentration" or "internment". --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. However, I can't find a source that says 2018 is the start date either. Sources 1, 2, and 4 on this line were written in 2019 and don't mention 2018 at all, and the third source, which was written in 2018, only speaks of "today's" detention centers as "concentration camps". The author doesn't specify when they began to be that way. It seems to me like a [citation needed] would be fitting for "2018-today," or maybe I'm missing something? Yoav Rafalin (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a list page, where prominent entries are provided and link to other parts of Wikipedia with hopefully a ton more sources. And in the case of this specific entry, the page it leads to does indeed contain sources about when the conditions changed such that they became concentration camps. So I don't know why you personally couldn't find a source that says 2018, because those sources are all over the place. But to satisfy this one point, I've changed one source on this specific list – which was largely duplicating the other sources – to another that specifically describes 1) the policy change as happening in April 2018; and 2) the label of "concentration camp" being a response to that policy change. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I was trying to get at awhile back, no, the articles really do not say anything about your point number 2. They only say point number one and they say that they can be considered as "concentration camps", but does not explicitly say that the change in policy led to the descriptor being appropriate. It's pure SYNTH to come to that conclusion, at least with the current sources. Not one source currently used says that the label applies because of the change nor even that it applied after, but not before; just that "a change happened" and, oh also "they're concretion camps". Instead I just got redirected to pages which, at least based on how they were presented to me, seem to suggest that SYNTH is fine is people agree to overlook it and aren't called out at the time. Which if that is indeed just the way Wikipedia works for the sake of stability or something then fine However, not that my feelings on the issue matter, but I'd just have more peace of mind leaving it if I actually saw something in any of the sources say "because of x, y happened" as is claimed and not just "here's x and also here's y." Kensai97 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The two points I numbered are about the specific source I added to the page. That source (published in 2018) says, "The effort to relabel the detention centers picked up steam on Tuesday after McClatchy reported that the Trump administration was looking to build 'tent cities' around Texas in order to house migrant children separated from their parents.", and then later, The practice of separating migrant families began in April when Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new "zero-tolerance" policy prosecuting 100 percent of illegal border crossings." It takes an intentionally-obtuse reading of this source to say that it isn't explicitly stating that the concentration camp label is in response to the April 2018 policy change, because the first quote explicitly states that the policy spurred the label change, and the second quote states the plain fact that the policy changed in April of the year of publication, and both are presented in the same context: a short news piece.
 * As I already pointed out in the previous part of this discussion (above), a content expert plainly states in the Washington Post article (also used as a source on this page), "We can call today’s U.S. border detention centers 'concentration camps' and be within the realm of historical accuracy." (emphasis added, published in 2018). It would take a SYNTH WP:OR interpretation of this sentence to extend its meaning into the past (i.e., pointing at the Pitzer sentence noting mere existence of the facilities as automatic confirmation of their being labeled concentration camps in the past, all because the Washington Post article says they're concentration camps today).
 * And finally, the Pitzer sentence that restarted this discussion (quoted in full above) specifically describes a change, towards the conditions of a concentration camp. It may be the most ambiguous of all the statements here (perhaps only ambiguous to those who dislike what it says), but that only means that it might take additional sources to verify it. As of now, no one has provided a source to support an interpretation that the sentence applies the label to the past, prior to 2018 (i.e. no sources provided here that say, "these were concentration camps under Obama (or Bush, or Clinton)"). But there are at least two sources here that verify that the label applies starting in 2018 (the Chron and Washington Post articles), and one source verifying that it describes a change of conditions (the Chron article). So, the Pitzer sentence alone supports the notion of the policy change, and more specifically, the label of these facilities as concentration camps from 2018 onward. The additional sources confirm that the label is applied by a diversity of reliable sources (not just Pitzer), and the newest one specifically confirms that the label change was happening in 2018. This isn't WP:OR, this is verification.
 * What's crucial about all this isn't that us Wikipedians are applying the concentration camp label, we're noting when reliable sources (e.g. news and content experts) applied the label. So far sources only show that the label has been applied from 2018 onwards. All it would take to garner support for changing the year here would be some quality reliable sources applying the label earlier.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that a reading of that takes an intentionally obtuse reading to not come to the conclusion you're suggesting, especially because of the claim that it's specifically 'intentional' by your fellow Wikipedians. You claim that the source "explicitly states that the policy spurred the label change" but what it says, as you quoted, is that it spurred "an EFFORT" (emphasis mine) to make a label change, which can certainly be read as "politics happened and so people care about it now". The fact that they are labeled as as such in the same breath is still SYNTH to say the change led to it without somebody actually saying the change led to it.
 * As for the Washington Post piece, the quote is, as you emphasized, "today's" U.S. border detention centers. That does NOT automatically mean that it began with the most recent policy change anymore than it means they were as of the specific day of the interview 'only' and even a day or more before, it wasn't, and days after are for future commentators. The only thing the "today's" means is that they MAY not have always been that way, but doesn't exclude that possibility, and still doesn't point to any one specific turning point regardless of when the article was written. Again, it's SYNTH to say that "people are heavily talking about it right now because of a policy change whereas they didn't before" and "during that increased discussion, people are currently legitimately calling them concentration camps" therefor "they're concentration camps because of the policy change".
 * And finally, Pitzer. It stands that while it's true another source would be needed to point to a different date, it's still not a point in favor of the current date used. As you said, I do agree that it's SYNTH/OR to use that quote to say the label should be from the Clinton era onward. But that doesn't mean it's NOT still just as much SYNTH/OR with how the quote is worded to say it must be the 2018 change. So regarding your claim that "there are at least two sources here that verify that the label applies starting in 2018 (the Chron and Washington Post articles), and one source verifying that it describes a change of conditions (the Chron article)", the first two sources don't say the label applies "starting" in 2018. The say it applies in the year 2018, but no statement at all of if that's a change compared to before 2018 and, as I said before, the statement that there was a change in 2018 when the comments were made, it still is SYNTH to say the sources are claiming one is because of the other. Concentration camps can still be concentration camps even before somebody labels them as such. And a change from no label given besides their official name to 'concentration camp' is still a change in label used, but not necessarily a change in status.
 * Your last paragraph, however, does hit the nail on the head, in a way. We have sources that say it's from "at least" (my words) 2018 onwards, but not specifically 2018 onwards as you stated nor as the result of a specific policy change. Therefor I have a proposal that I feel is more in line with the reliable sources and not what Wikipedians say, as you phrased it. Don't have a date. Suddenly it still says what the sources do without adding SYNTHed information which they don't. Maybe this was just an issue because every other listing does have specific years and so everyone feels it's a necessity? But I honestly think it's better to not have unsourced material just because it's better than other unsourced material. It's better for Wikipedia to have no information than dubious information. Another fine option would be "at least 2018-present", though would still need to remove the mention of Trump policies unless we get a source that truly does say it's the result of Trump policies. People who want to find out the timeline and decide for themselves when they became concentration camps with the "immigration detention in the United States" link. Obviously it would be better if we had reliable sources state when they became concentration camps, and not just ones stating "it may or may not have always been the case, but contemporarily to the interview it is" but we really don't. Kensai97 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to open an RfC if you wish to make the case to the community that we should alter longstanding consensus here, by relying on your entirely obtuse reading of multiple sources. But no, that proposal does not reflect the current sources and I oppose the proposed change. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If an RfC is opened, I support no date. Yoav Rafalin (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2024

 * 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) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Internment → Concentration camp – This page has a euphemistic and policy-violating title. I arrived here after being redirected from "concentration camp", and that should be the title for a number of very clear reasons. First, internment" is not a synonym for "concentration camp"; that would be "internment camp", so we do not even have the full euphemism here, but an incomplete euphemism: "internment" alone is in not a synonym for "concentration camp"; just a term for the condition of being interred, anywhere. As a standalone word, this cannot title a page about camps; it would only be appropriate for a broad concept article about the conditions of being interred, but that would overlap with imprisonment ... so "internment" has no place here, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Next, onto the fundamental issue of euphemism. This is readily demonstrated in sources. Concentration camps have had a great many different euphemisms attached to them throughout history, none of them tolerable or encyclopedic. It is worth noting that Wikipedia has lapsed relative to Britannica, which has not erred or minced its words. The presence of Britannica relative to the absence of Wikipedia on this topic is immediately noticeable upon a browser search. Meanwhile, in source such as this, "internment camps" and "internment" are terms that are specifically singled out as forming part of a system of euphemistic terms used in place of "concentration camps", with others being "assembly center" and "relocation center". MOS:EUPHEMISM must be applied, and this disreputable stain on the project addressed. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I would think that these would be two separate articles — that is, that we would have a general article on the concept of internment, and a more specific article on the history of concentration camps. BD2412  T 19:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Interment could potentially be its own broad concept article with enough teasing apart from the overlaps with imprisonment in general on the one hand and euphemisms for concentration camps on the other. However, this page is principally about explicit concentration camps with just a strange first paragraph largely at odds with the rest of the material. Given that the material is principally associated with the move target, the page should move, and then the internment redirect can be turned into a page if desired. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose you don't need a concentration camp for internment. Existing imprisonment facilities can be used without concentration of the internees. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The opening statement outlines that "internment" is a broad concept and could have a broad concept article, but this page is currently not it. This is a page about concentration camps with a one paragraph definition of "internment" strapped to the front. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You should have proposed to split the article instead. Internment still should exist as an article. Indeed being interred does not necessarily need imprisonment, as interred officers who have given their parole have traditionally been free to roam in society within a limited region (such as a city), like a criminal parolee, so "internment" is not the same as "imprisonment". Interned warships would be locked down by the host country during the time of war, with the sailors available to roam the docks. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clearly you don't need a concentration camp to intern someone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Necrothesp: That's not the point. Here, the material that is being discussed is 90% about either explicit concentration camps or the type of "internment camp" where the "internment" is a euphemism for it being a concentration camp. Now I can happily simply move that 90% of the material away from this page to the redirect leaving just the dictionary definition stub here, but renaming the appropriate page with the relevant page history is the better approach. I thought I'd laid this out quite clearly, but perhaps not. I assume you at least agree that these two terms are separate topics? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course it's the point. This is a generic article on internment. As to being a euphemism, that is purely a POV, is it not? If a camp is not commonly referred to as a concentration camp then we shouldn't use the term to refer to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, this is clearly an article on concentration camps with a thin veneer of material about internment, and I just wanted to preserve the page history, but I can also just start afresh. As for the euphemisms element, we avoid euphemisms by default, so if we have two POVs, one euphemistic and one not, we call the spade a spade, with prejudice – unless the euphemism is an overwhelming common name, in which case the euphemism would be explained on page. I provided sources illustrating the euphemism issue here, and there are plenty more out there. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have just illustrated the whole POV argument. That is your reading of it, but it is not mine. Which is why need to stick solely to reliable sources and not get into discussions on what is and what is not a euphemism, because that is eminently POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did provide RS stating the euphemism issue in the context, so no, it's not my reading; it's the reading of reliable sources. If RS describe something as a euphemism, it is not POV to treat it as such. That is the opposite of pushing a POV; it's being guided away from POV by the RS. It is also a style guide issue, because MOS:EUPHEMISM is a well-established part of the guidelines. But clearly there is little engagement to be had here. You don't even seem to want to admit that there are two topics here and that something needs to be done to resolve the content clash. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because some sources claim it is a euphemism does not mean all (or even most) do. Cherrypicking sources to fit one's own POV is never a good idea. Yes, I do accept there are two topics here. That's the whole point! It is you who wants to rename the article. An article on internment in general and an article on concentration (or internment) camps is fine. But that's not what you're proposing by trying to get this article renamed and claiming it has a euphemistic and policy-violating title. Take a look at the list of camps on this page; most of them do not have "concentration camp" in the title because that's not what they're known as. That's all that I'm saying. In general, only the Nazi camps are actually known as concentration camps. It's therefore not a euphemism to use other titles for other camps. What you're essentially doing is taking a term generally used only of one type of camp run by one country in one era and saying that using any other term for camps run by other countries in other eras is a euphemism. That's just not true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The example I specially provided in the opening statement is in of itself about another example, which is Japanese American concentration camps, which is very much what scholarly sources call these. The Britannica entry I cited meanwhile points to further examples in the South African war and Soviet Union, so examples galore really. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * you're correct. i asked for concentration camp, not for internment 88.233.99.246 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't buy that the term "internment" overlaps meaningfully with the subject of imprisonment. The article for imprisonment a.k.a "incarceration" falls under the subject of criminal procedure. In contrast, the first paragraph of internment states that the term refers to "imprisonment of people... without charges or intent to file charges... Thus, while it can simply mean imprisonment, it tends to refer to preventive confinement rather than confinement after having been convicted of some crime." The specific term for imprisoning people without charges, in large groups, seems distinct enough from the criminal procedure of imprisonment, especially given that this article is more so about the debate surrounding the debate between "internment" and "concentration camp."
 * I also don't buy that "internment" is a euphemism, or that MOS:EUPHEMISM is most applicable here. "Internment" is the precise and technical term for the phenomenon of internment camps and concentration camps (one doesn't refer to it as "concentration"), so it is not a roundabout or minimizing way of referring to the topic. This is not equivalent to calling sex "making love," which is definitely euphemistic and minimizing. I think the more applicable policy here is WP:NPOVTITLE.
 * What I find most concerning about renaming internment to concentration camp is that it would be violating that exact policy, WP:NPOVNAME. The term "concentration camp" is now most widely associated with Nazi concentration camps. If one searches "concentration camp" in Google, the definition given states, "The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz." While Google is not a perfect standard for this, it does show what the ordinary meaning of "concentration camp" is. Additionally, this article contains a list of "internment and concentration camps," and by renaming to "concentration camp" would be giving a Wikipedia POV that some of these camps are "concentration camps," conflating them with Nazi concentration camps, when that is not necessarily the case. This seems especially important given that the list is (intentionally?) ambiguous as to whether a certain place counts as a "concentration camp" or "internment camp." For example, it would seem to me to express a strong POV—which the vast majority of people disagree with—to list the US's migrant detention centers under an article titled concentration camp, rather than saying that concentration camps are where internment may occur, as the article currently does. This debate has been constantly ongoing since this page was originally moved from Concentration camp back in 2008-ish (iirc), and I think it would be wise to continue to err on the side of caution and look to WP:NPOVTITLE and precedent, and use the more neutral term of "internment." Lengua (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per the above. The two are different concepts. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose I believe that there are many euphamisms for concentration camp such as even "detention camp" and things like that and we want to be careful. However this does not negate the concept of internment being a real and distinct phenomonon. Jorahm (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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