Talk:List of concentration and internment camps/Archive 6

Mexico-U.S. border centers: 1996?
With the much discussed "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border" section, shouldn't it begin with 1996 instead of 2018? Wikipedia's article on Immigration detention in the United States begins with that, as the detention centers seem to have begun at that time. Is there a cited source that differentiates between detention center, internment camp, and concentration camp, noting that the U.S. centers shifted away from the former name and into the two latter names in 2018? -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some on Social Media shifted to the false term because AOC used that term, and as I pointed out, her Chief of Staff is pushing that term, and her Chief of Staff also wore a T-Shirt with a Nazi collabarator so that might be a reason why that it's being pushed, , , ,. That is the source for why the new term is being used in the US. It's all BS. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have read the most recent discussions and understand this page covers a wide range of centers that have been called internment or concentration camps. Right now I'm asking if there's a source that the U.S. camps began in 2018, or shifted into this page's definition in 2018. BaronGrackle (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The current sources from subjects experts apply the "concentration camp" label to current U.S. camps at the Mexico-U.S. border, and in the process discuss those camps within the context of the current U.S. administration. I do not know of any sources that apply the label prior to the current administration's drastic changes in how they run/manage the camps. These subjects experts are above and beyond any single politician, though that politician specifically stated that they are relying on experts when using the label. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That also proves it's a biased and POV label since they claim that the label is not pov, but the detention centers have been at the border for years. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I just clicked on one of the sources in the article: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/ "The government of the United States would never call the sprawling network of facilities now in use across many states "concentration camps," of course. [. . .] 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." I think that's something. Because right now, the article sounds like the camps started in 2018. BaronGrackle (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Does this passage resolve the question of whether or not the camps we're discussing here show a significant change such that they 'became' concentration camps? I don't think it does, even though it notes that the current U.S. administration "brought [them] into extreme and perilous new territory." I also don't think it answers the question of whether or not these concentration camps were, from their inception, concentration camps.
 * It's obvious to me that things can change and evolve over time. We have plenty of reliable sources that state, the camps are currently concentration camps. You've also highlighted a passage from one source specifically describing changes in these camps (an aside: the passage in question is the journalist's description, not a quotation from Pitzer, and that historical description is sourced via URLs to two news articles, [1 ][2 ], neither of which uses the terms "concentration" or "internment"). It reads to me like additional historical context and not meant to be attributed to either Pitzer, Beorn, or Hyslop.
 * What I don't know is if that statement about changing conditions is enough to temporally separate the current camps from their earlier iterations, or whether their whole period of existence should be called concentration camps. My inclination is to limit the label temporally, since the sources we have seem to do so, until other sources become available that broaden the time period during which the label applies.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

But this article is for "concentration and internment camps", whether you believe those terms are distinct or synonymous. The second paragraph specifies that the article doesn't include refugee camps or POW camps, but it says nothing about excluding "detention centers". We don't have an article listing detention centers in history. BaronGrackle (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

- I invite you to read Trump administration migrant detentions for the background. The paragraph by Julie Hirschfeld Davis states that the Bush Jr and Obama administrations allowed exemptions to detaining migrants, while the Trump administration made it mandatory to detain all migrants. In Trump administration migrant detentions, it is detailed that before Trump, the common practice is catch and release of migrants into the country instead of detaining them. As such, from these statements, it is to be expected that migrants were more concentrated under the Trump administration versus the previous administrations. Indeed, in Trump administration migrant detentions, Mónica Verea states that the Trump administration "considerably" increased the numbers of "non-criminal undocumented migrants" detained.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What I'm getting hung up on: is there such a thing as a civilian detention center that is not an internment camp? Every source I've seen says that the camps existed before Trump but were not as terrible. Some sources (like the one I just quoted) link the camps, while specifying that conditions have escalated recently. But I have not yet seen a source tell us: "No, the detention centers under Clinton, Bush, and Obama were not concentration camps." Not even Ocasio-Cortez said that, when asked. BaronGrackle (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps they were indeed concentration camps under all the presidents. But, we need a reliable source saying that, instead of pointing out no sources deny that.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

What of the Esquire quote already cited in the article, which refers to "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"? BaronGrackle (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - excellent find. So yes, it started under Clinton, but exactly which year is not stated. Just write “By [last year of Clinton’s term]...”  starship .paint  (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The full sentence being used, with the included hyperlinking, is,
 * "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."
 * As I commented before about this specific sentence, I take it to be the journalist providing succinct descriptive paraphrase of the historical roots of the locations, providing sources for the description and crucially, describing a process of change. It's the description of change aspect that I think deserves attention here, because to me the statement is saying, 'these places existed under past presidents, but have gotten so much worse under the current administration that they're now concentration camps.' Here is Pitzer explaining this change in more detail in an interview with Salon (italics are my emphasis):


 * This to me pretty clearly describes a definitive change, showing a distinct escalation to conditions that before were bad, but now are concentration-camp-bad. If someone can find unambiguous sources stating that these camps should be considered concentration camps for the entirety of their existence, then it would become appropriate to describe them this way. But right now, at least with what is in front of us, this description doesn't match the sources.
 * (To be clear, I am not arguing we should include the Salon article as an additional source; in it Pitzer directly states "What is happening on the United States' southern border fits the definition of concentration camps," but we already have this opinion from her so it isn't anything new. Instead, I am using it to provide more depth to Pitzer's position on the subject, to show that Holmes' paraphrase of historical description in the Esquire piece is meant to reflect change.)
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You're referring to a certain threshold as "concentration-camp bad". But what about "internment-camp bad"? We don't need a source to use the words "concentration camp" specifically, not per this article's title. We can cite your Pitzer source right here: "The conditions in those detention centers are horrible. They were awful under Obama. They were awful under Bush. They were also awful under [Bill] Clinton before him. We have a long, unbroken history of having border detention facilities in which human rights are at best a secondary thought and in which there's often actual abuse happening." And then: "What you saw with Trump is that these terrible conditions were already in place and he is willing to make them much worse." Every single source says that these camps were already terrible human rights violations, and Trump made them worse. If all the other sources say this, shouldn't Wikipedia? BaronGrackle (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * - "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." can be shortened to Therefore it started with the Clinton administration. The sentence cannot be fragmented to look at only the Trump administration, because this does not make sense:   starship  .paint  (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your characterization that the sentence "cannot be fragmented to look only at the Trump administration." The first fragmentation you provide,, would apply only to the present tense, and thus only to the Trump administration. But I also don't think it's appropriate to remove content from a sentence, which is its context, in order to parse its meaning absent that context. The statement from the article clearly paraphrases a description of worsening change through time, with the "extreme and perilous" iteration falling only under the most recent administration.
 * So, if Pitzer's own words - from the Salon interview - had said something to the effect of, 'these have always been concentration camps, only now they've gotten worse' then this would be settled. But they don't, and I can't find an example of her or any other expert making that determination. Instead, Pitzer's longer description reaffirms the above characterization of worsening change, asserting that Trump was "willing to make [camp conditions] much worse."
 * Therefore, I think this kind of framing shouldn't be based on a single sentence, from a single source, where its meaning isn't entirely clear. Should other sources arise where experts are quoted or paraphrased as saying that the label should apply to camps under any past administrations, then there would be enough reliable sourcing to alter the description in this way.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - I agree that Pitzer is arguing a worsening over time. That does not mean Trump is the one who crossed the line. She already said it was awful under Clinton. I stand by my reading.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying conditions were awful is not the same as saying they were concentration camps, and her consistent application of the label to current conditions without specifically applying it to the past strongly implies the current administration is the one to have crossed the line. So I stand by mine. I'm absolutely willing to reevaluate this position should other sources come to light, but as of right now, there aren't enough RS in the mix to do so. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The title of this article is not "List of concentration camps". BaronGrackle (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

We can also look to other, more benign examples on the this page. The first I came across was Ruhleben internment camp, a WWI civilian detention center in Germany that adhered to the Geneva Convention and allowed its detainees to manage most of their own affairs. Examples like this indicate that the article is not merely for the most atrocious human rights violations. BaronGrackle (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this wiki entry is an article for listing camps and camp systems that are considered by reliable sources to be either concentration or internment camps (even with some experts disagreeing as to the degree of the overlap between those two terms), not whether or not Wikipedia editors doing WP:OR determine them to be. Contentious entries should be included and described in a fashion that adheres to the consensus of multiple reliable sources. If you would like to dramatically change the description of the Trump Administration-era border immigrant concentration camps, broadening their description to include the camp system's past iterations under previous administrations, I don't think it is at all inappropriate to expect such a drastic change be supported by more than one ambiguous line in one news source, given the potential contentious nature of such a change.
 * I spent three hours yesterday searching for examples of a border immigrant detention system under Obama, Bush, or Clinton being described as either "concentration camps" or "internment camps," searching as broadly as possible to find any facility that interned immigrants (not necessarily those who had recently crossed the U.S.-Mexico border) being labeled as such. I only found heavily unreliable and partisan sources when searching the open web. I only found one academic source from an expert to use the phrase "internment camps" in this context, which was criticized by other sources for having done so.
 * Maybe my research skills are sub-par. Which is why, as I have already said, I am fully willing to reevaluate my position in the event someone can provide multiple reliable sources for this description change.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

So civilian detention centers that violated the human rights of their detainees don't qualify for this article unless the word "concentration" or "internment" is frequently used to describe them, while locations that maintained their occupants' human rights and gave a comfortable quality of life do qualify for the article because they use the word "internment"? If my question is strawmanning your argument, then please correct me. But if that IS what you're saying, and consensus is in agreement with you, then I suppose that's that. Short version, please tell me if this is accurate: "There have been civilian detention centers that have had terrible living conditions and violated human rights, which do not belong in this article." If that statement is correct, then I relent. BaronGrackle (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so rather than getting bogged down in discussing the framing you've used in the first sentence, I will say this instead: entries on this list, and how those entries are titled/described, should all be derived from labeling and descriptions by reliable sources. It isn't about whether or not Wikipedia editors - you and me, or any others - think any particular camp or camp system meets the definition of what concentration camps or internment camps are, because that would be WP:Original research. I can't say definitively whether or not "there have been civilian detention centers... which do not belong on this article," but my strong inclination is to say yes there are. For instance, there are plenty of prison systems where conditions are absolutely horrendous, including human rights violations, that are not labeled as concentration or internment camps by reliable sources. Does that make sense? --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's because we have morons in Congress who cater to their Twitter army. That's why you don't see the term before a year or so ago. That you don't see those prison camps where conditions are absolutely horrendous, should tell you something, especially since the detention centers are not prison camps since again, people in them are not prisoners, they are detainees and are not held indefinitely, they are held until adjudicated. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If the detention centers are concentration camps, then they were concentration camps before Trump came into office. And there seems to be consensus here to put that on the page that the camps were not just built by Trump, as it currently implies right now. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You've previously mentioned "morons" on Twitter; now you seem to be alluding to your past comments about a specific U.S. politician, who you're using that label for as well. None of which is relevant to the discussion at hand. You've been repeatedly given reliable sources, which use multiple experts, to support this label. And now there's the results of an RfC telling us that the inclusion in this article is appropriate.
 * Now, to your argument. "If the detention centers are concentration camps, then they were concentration camps before Trump came into office." This logic does not track, as things obviously change over time.
 * This has been discussed here above, where the only source provided in support of linking the current concentration camps in the U.S. immigration system was difficult to parse and unsupported by others. Further, quotations by content experts - also discussed above - specifically describe a change over time, seemingly indicating a transition into the "concentration camp" label under the current U.S. administration, which did not previously apply.
 * If you'd like to find consensus - which does not yet exist, despite you asserting that it does - please feel free to provide reliable sources to support this assertion, for evaluation.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In this section alone, it's just you who doesn't want any mention of prior presidents. Also, when were the detention centers built? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to start up another RfC to expand the "concentration camp" label to previous time periods and administrations, be my guest. But at this point there's no clear RS provided here in support of such expansion, with only one confusing statement in one source referenced. --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Sir Joseph I am also wanting more sources ~mitch~ (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * More to come ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These are just a few that do not call it a "concentration camp" ( Jews (Jewish People) I might add {they probably know what a "concentration camp" is {go figure}): Republican Jewish Coalition, Anti-Defamation League, Simon Wiesenthal Center, National Council of Young Israel, The Coalition for Jewish Values, Deborah Lipstadt, Emory University professor and Holocaust scholar, David Wolpe, leading Conservative rabbi ~ where I get my sources from is up to you ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * personally I think the whole article should be re~written ~ there were no "concentration camps" after WWII ~mitch~ (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, having the detention centers in this article makes a mockery of Wikipedia's claim of neutrality. But what I am talking about is that the article supposedly claims that these detention centers started with Trump and in this section, only Pinchme123 is of the opinion that no mention of other presidents should be in the article, as if Trump started the detention centers. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * only Pinchme123 is of the opinion that no mention of other presidents should be in the article, as if Trump started the detention centers. This is not at all an accurate description of my position. As I have repeatedly stated, I do not dispute that the facilities physically existed prior to the current U.S. administration. Things are allowed to change over time. For instance, Fort Sill was an internment camp, until it wasn't anymore, until it became one again recently. I do not however think that one confusing sentence in one single source is enough to justify expanding the time period in which experts apply the "concentration camp" label to the current concentration camps. Provide clear reliable sources showing the label "concentration camp" (or "internment camp," I'm not picky) to the facilities prior to the current U.S. administration, and the discussion can be had. But without those sources, there's no support for this change. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) ~ Ok ~ Sir Joseph~ give me a few days ~ before you make a decision ~ let me work on the sources ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope your source list is in reference to specifically whether or not the "concentration camp" label applies to facilities prior to their changes under the current administration. Because, as the RfC above makes clear, there is already consensus that the label applies to the current facilities and that they are appropriately included in this article. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think that labeling these detention centers as concentration camps does your side any good? I ask that honestly? And I ask that as an independent voter in a swing state and as someone who doesn't like Trump. Finally, you can't have a section on a detention center that just says "We separated families and housed them in detention centers..." without saying that the detention centers were in existence prior to Trump. That you continue to evade and not allow any edits that say that these detention centers were there for years just shows the bias and POV that we all know exists with calling these detention centers concentration camps. Sir Joseph (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) same thing Pinchme123, I will find what both of you need ~ to properly edit this article ~ (give me a couple of days) ~ I don't just use the web to substantiate a source ~ I have to hit the road and talk to a few reporters I know ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the whole question here ~ which administration ~ calls a detention center/concentration camp ~ a center or concentration camp? ~mitch~ (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "There were definitely parts of the Obama program that did similar—and, in fact, some of the same—things," I am not sure why there is resistance to saying these centers were not from Trump but pre-date him. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is resistance because that quote continues, "But this all-encompassing skepticism of asylum seekers fleeing violence—justifying cruel treatment, justifying changes in the law, and justifying overcrowding to the point of unsafe and deadly conditions—[is] of a scale and a type that we haven’t seen before." The person being quoted does not claim the system prior to the current U.S. admin "concentration camps." --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear that you're bending over backwards to avoid any inclusion of any mention that these camps were terrible during any presidency prior to Trump. As this source mentioned, "some of the same-things." The fact that all these articles are being owned by an SPA is atrocious and just shows the inherent bias in Wikipedia. I'm so glad the world is only three years old. Maybe after Trump finishes his second term we can all get back to normal and experts will stop being political. But I am taking this page off my watchlist, you can have it, it's not worth my blood pressure. Congratulations Wikipedia, you lost another one. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not ping me for anything on this page. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality
, you re-added the POV tag to the article, writing that. Will you not respect the RfC closure decision by, which states that among votes based in Wikipedia policy there is currently a consensus to keep this material, albeit alongside some changes to the article?  starship .paint  (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete the section the RFC is talking about. closed the RFC as keep, (incorrectly IMO) and I listen to the RFC. That doesn't mean I can't add a tag. I'm not sure where you are getting that fact that just because an RFC is closed means you can't add a tag, an RFC just means someone weighs the opinion of people who participated. Sir Joseph (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - you expressly re-added the tag  citing that the inclusion of the (American) detention centers in this article violates neutrality. The inclusion of the detention centers in this article is mandated by the RfC result. You're directly going against the community's consensus because you didn't like the result of the discussion. Please fully explain how the article is not neutral, and what changes need to happen to make it neutral.  starship  .paint  (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding neutral language, I am hoping you will take a look at my proposal below and give your thoughts. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Starship here - the article shouldn't be tagged unless there's another substantial discussion starting here about neutrality. If one person adds the tag it seems reasonable to me that another single user can just remove it again. Please remember that 1RR is in effect here. Sam Walton (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * closing an RFC does not mean that you can't add a tag. If you think it does, then you should not be closing RFC's. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - closing an RFC does not mean that you can't add a tag - this is true in the general sense. However, when that RFC specifically mandates the inclusion of a topic, and then you argue that the mere inclusion of the topic violates NPOV, then you are either going against community consensus (if it was a correct close) or going against the closer (that it was an incorrect close). I suppose there are means to challenge a closure. Adding a tag should not be one of them.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2019
Kindly incorporate opposition perspective for neutral balance. 68.231.190.185 (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not clear what opposition perspective is expected to be included. Please provide WP:Reliable sources. Please note that Neutral point of view.  starship .paint  (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

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



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

In May 2018, the administration under president Donald Trump instituted a "zero tolerance" policy mandating the criminal prosecution of all adults who were referred by immigration authorities for violating immigration laws. This policy directly led to the large-scale, forcible separation of children and parents arriving at the United States-Mexico border, including those seeking asylum from violence in their home countries. Parents were arrested and put into criminal detention, while their children were taken away, classified as unaccompanied alien minors, to be put into child immigrant detention centers. Though in June 2018 Trump signed an executive order ostensibly ending the family separation component of his administration's migrant detentions, it continued under alternative justifications into 2019. By the end of 2018 the number of children being held had swelled to a high of nearly 15,000, which by August 2019 had been reduced to less than 9,000. Many experts, including Andrea Pitzer, the author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, have acknowledged the designation of the detention centers as "concentration camps" particularly given that the centers, previously cited by Texas officials for more than 150 health violations and reported deaths in custody, reflect a record typical of the history of deliberate substandard healthcare and nutrition in concentration camps. Though some organizations have tried to resist the "concentration camp" label for these facilities, hundreds of Holocaust and genocide scholars rejected this resistance via an open letter addressed to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

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

--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all right off the bad you are misrepresenting the open letter. The open letter did not say the detention centers are concentration camps, they merely responded to the USHMM's statement that you can't call it a concentration camp. Sir Joseph (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You also can't say "Historians" you need to say "some" because saying "historians" implies that it is across the board and that is deceitful, which I'm assuming you wouldn't want to be. Further, if you're trying to streamline, this sentence is not needed and does absolutely nothing "at places like Fort Sill, a former site of the Internment of Japanese Americans." Sir Joseph (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say the open letter called them concentration camps. This is exactly what I wrote: Though some organizations have tried to resist the "concentration camp" label for these facilities, hundreds of Holocaust and genocide scholars rejected this resistance via an open letter addressed to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
 * Did the Museum and Yad Vashem "tr[y] to resist the 'concentration camp' label for these facilities"? Yes. Did the open letter "[reject] this resistance"? Also yes. Was that letter addressed to the Museum? Again, yes.
 * Sure, let's delete the entire reference to Fort Sill. I'm fine with that. That sentence can end after "12,000 children." In fact, I'll go do that right now.
 * Finally, as I noted in my description below the proposed text, saying "Historians and social scientists" does not say "all" of the experts in those fields, nor does it even say "many" (though, if you're insistent, I'd be more than happy to describe them as "many"). It does however acknowledge the apparent majority opinion of those with expertise on the subject.
 * But, given that you've outright stated you don't really care about the sources on this subject,[diff ] it's a little hard to productively discuss the language for this section with you. I am really hoping someone else will contribute as well so productive change can occur.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to hold off on deleting the Fort Sill reference and let either you do it, or see if there's anyone who raises an objection. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

- In May 2018, under the direction of Attorney General Jeff Sessions put in office by president Donald J. Trump, US officials began forcibly separating children and parents arriving at the US border. - this, above, is inaccurate. Note that  You have to explain that large-scale family separations is due to the "zero-tolerance" policy which mandated the.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's just treat the green block of text as editable so we don't need to reproduce it every time.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I've changed the beginning and added appropriate sources. I've gotta step away but I'll pick this back up later tomorrow. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The language large scale, forcible separation is not in the cited source, which doesn't appear to talk about the scale of the action. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've updated with two new sources, one that specifically says "large-scale," and another that specifically says "forcibly separated." --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Better, but still not a fix. The NBC News story says that President Donald Trump has for months urged his administration to reinstate large-scale separation of migrant families crossing the border. This is not the same as reporting that it has indeed happened on a large scale. Trump urges many things that do not happen. I'm not saying it didn't happen, either. I'm just saying that this source doesn't say it happened. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, for something to be reinstated, it has to have happened before. It isn't just an implication, the use of that term requires it. Additionally, the article is describing large-scale separations of the past, which is more than enough to satisfy the description without using a direct quote. However, to appease, I've added a second source that says, The president saw Nielsen as soft on immigration, even as she was under fire from the media and Democrats for her role in the Trump administration's large-scale practice of family separations.. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This source says they were criticized for large-scale separation. But you can be criticized for doing something you didn't do. Sorry if this is frustrating; if you disagree with me, I will relent. But wouldn't it be better to just say how many separations we're talking about here? I think we have sourcing for 3000, or "several thousand" if that sounds better. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the provided sources more than adequately justify this paragraph describing the separations as "large-scale," particularly because the direct quote I noted from that Newsweek article explicitly describes it as, "the Trump administration's large-scale practice of family separations." That isn't a criticism itself, that's a direct description of the thing that was being criticized. As for the number, the sentence following that notes that the number had grown to nearly 15,000 by the end of 2018 (I just added "nearly" to head-off criticism, though I would assume that the real number - which isn't provided - is close enough to 15,000 to warrant rounding up, as NPR did).
 * However, if someone else agrees with you that the current sources do not justify "large-scale" in this paragraph, we can continue discussing how to change it.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC) BTW, here is a ref from the ACLU that states, "There were definitely parts of the Obama program that did similar—and, in fact, some of the same—things," so we should most definitely include that these detention centers predate Trump. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The paragraph itself is unbalanced, it quotes Pitzer pushing for a POV that it is a concentration camp but doesn't quote anyone that it isn't. The USHMM letter doesn't address the detention center, that letter just says you shouldn't use any comparison, so there is no balance to Pitzer. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted. Others can weigh in about whether or not the proposed paragraph is balanced and whether or not a content expert's expertise is POV. I was fine leaving it as "Many historians and social scientists" or "Many experts," but another editor raised an objection on the main page that this wasn't specific enough, so The Anome added it. Anyone other than Sir Joseph have an opinion?
 * There's no RS labeling anything prior to the system as its run by the current U.S. admin as concentration camps. The quote in the source you've provided only notes partial similarity, including some same things but crucially not calling them identical, and does not say anything close to 'Obama had concentration camps too.' In fact, that exact quote continues, "But this all-encompassing skepticism of asylum seekers fleeing violence—justifying cruel treatment, justifying changes in the law, and justifying overcrowding to the point of unsafe and deadly conditions—[is] of a scale and a type that we haven’t seen before." Definitely not the same at all and definitely describing a drastic worsening of conditions under the current admin. Provide actual RS and this can be included.
 * If USHMM statement isn't about this specific concentration camps in the U.S., then why does it say, quote, situation on the United States southern border? No, the statement is obviously about them, so the retraction request from hundreds of experts stays as well. Unless you'd like to do away with all the content about the label criticisms? This would mean removing the reference to the Yad Vashem statement as well.
 * Sir Joseph, I see you're continuing to edit the main page, despite knowing of this collaborative process here. You even previously said you think the part about Fort Sill should be deleted. Care to take care of that deletion on its own, right now? For the part you did delete, I'm leaving it in the proposed language here with a supporting citation (because it is in fact accurate).
 * Finally, if something requires citation, please tag it as needing citation rather than outright deleting it.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

- (1) Clinical Law Review The Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” policy and implementation of wide-scale family separation in 2018, (2) Associated Press  When the Trump administration stopped large-scale family separations in June, (3) The Atlantic  His Walmart facility had become a symbol of Trump’s industrial-scale separation policy.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Starship.paint. The Clinical Law Review article is the most authoritative of all those available here, however it is behind a paywall, so I think I'll supplement with the Newsweek piece already there. And the Associated Press article has an exact number of children detained at the end of 2018, so I think I should use that one for that sentence. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - the quote from the Clinical Law Review article is in the article's abstract, which is not behind the paywall.  starship  .paint  (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, what I meant was, I'll use that one plus another, so that the full version of something is available for readers to access. Do you see any other issues with the proposed language? At this point, is it fine to update the main article with what's been done so far (while also keeping this here for more discussion, should anything else major arise)? --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These sources are sufficient for that language. My opinion is that the actual number is still preferable as it is more informative and less vague. But I defer. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

- I feel that this element (the bolded part) is missing, basically, it's the link of how a zero tolerance policy causes family separation. New York Times Technically, there is no Trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children. But the “zero tolerance policy” results in unlawful immigrants being taken into federal criminal custody, at which point their children are considered unaccompanied alien minors and taken away. Unlike Mr. Obama’s administration, Mr. Trump’s is treating all people who have crossed the border without authorization as subject to criminal prosecution, even if they tell the officer apprehending them that they are seeking asylum based on fear of returning to their home country, and whether or not they have their children in tow.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How about this: This policy directly led to the large-scale,[3][4] forcible separation of children and parents arriving at the United States-Mexico border,[5] including those seeking asylum from violence in their home countries.[6] Thousands of children, taken from their parents as "unaccompanied minors" after those parents were arrested,[7] were placed in "detention centers" [8] which at the end of 2018 had swelled to hold nearly 15,000 children. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - there seems to be some issues. Officially, separations were supposed to have ended in June 2018, although there have been various reports that separation has continued in 2019    . Also, children are officially supposed to be released from CBP detention/custody within 72 hours to be passed to HHS (however some children have been detained for longer) . It seems to me that the parents being detained (presumably for an indefinite time until their trial) is a concern (more related to the concentration camp label) that is not as emphasized in the current text.  starship  .paint  (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok here's where I'm at. I want to add a sentence explaining that, though the separation policy ostensibly ended in June 2018 with an executive order, it has continued into 2019 (and presumably this will mean reordering the 150,000 15,000 children part, because that figure come from the end of 2018). For the adult component, while I personally agree that holding adults for long and indefinite periods of time, using low-level misdemeanor charges (not even convictions) for reasoning is not adequate justification, I am less sure how to go about adding it while still retaining brevity (writing about uncharged children being held is a no-brainer). I worry about this section expanding too much, given that one concern noted in the RfC closure was that it was too long compared to others in the article. This is also why I made sure to add the "Main" link at the top.
 * Also, I am now at a point in the year where more of my attention needs to be turned elsewhere. I'd like to write the sentence I mentioned above and then put my work on the main article (because I think it is better than what is there currently). After that, I'd like someone else to take the lead.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed, the "main" link I included is to Trump administration family separation policy and Starship.paint posted in a conversation elsewhere a link to Trump administration migrant detentions. I think a case could be made for linking to either (or both) and wanted to put that into the conversation. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's how I dealt with the executive order and ongoing separations: Thousands of children, taken from their parents as "unaccompanied minors" after those parents were arrested,[7] were placed in "detention centers."[8] Though in June 2018 U.S. president Donald Trump signed an executive order ostensibly ending the family separation component of his administration's migrant detention policy, it continued under alternative justifications into 2019.[9] By the end of 2018 the number of children being held had swelled to a high of nearly 15,000,[10][11] which by August 2019 had been reduced to less than 9,000.[12] --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

- I've done some changes but the current version is by no means perfect, I think the experts weren't necessarily only restricting the "concentration camp" label to the child camps, but the adult camps as well.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the experts are probably using the label for adult camps too, but to switch over to looking for that material would take an inordinate amount of mental capacity and I now need to shift my focus to other things. I hope you will take the ball and run with it, so to speak. And I agree that no, of course what's been done isn't perfect, but it's far better than what had been there before!
 * I still disagree with presenting past immigration detention as being also labeled concentration camps, as I still do not think the one line in one source we previously discussed is enough to do so. I think adding context of the historical origins of detention facilities prior to them becoming concentration camps is possibly definitely appropriate, though much better suited to a main article about this and not necessarily this comparatively brief intro here . I see your change does include this historical context, but the source you've used does not in any way support labeling things prior to the current administration as concentration camps, so I think my one suggestion would be to somehow convey the drastic deterioration of conditions under the current administration, such that experts confidently label them concentration camps now, whereas they didn't before (or, it was unclear at the very least) (after re-reading, I take this part back; the first paragraph appropriately reads like background right now) . For this reason, I also think the "Main" article link should go to Trump administration migrant detentions if including adults, or Trump administration family separation policy if remaining focused on minors (I still think this, because the "concentration camp" label applies to the current administration, not the whole or even few-decade history of U.S. immigration detention).
 * I unfortunately don't have the time to keep working so much on this here, so please do carry on with the writing. I can peek back in to offer my two cents though, so don't feel like I shouldn't be pinged or anything like that.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC) (edited 03:48, 24 August 2019 UTC)
 * - I'm busy as well, so I just inserted the stuff into the article and let's see what others will chip in.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

The newest edits that are being reverted more closely match the reality of the situation. The current version is biased, and does not paint the reality that by definition, immigration detention facilities are not internment/concentration camps. The sourced materials do not even clearly support the claims made, and journalists and hyperbolic politicians making these claims do not make them true. The linked statements by the US Holocaust Museum support the opposite of the narrative being written. I suggest we either remove the section in it's entirety, or move to a more neutral language, like the one being reverted. I will tag this section as NPOV for the time being, until this is further discussed--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:AB (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please point to the specific sources that rely on "journalists and hyperbolic politicians" rather than content experts/scholars? The edits previously reverted (possibly by you? you may have also written the original edits?) didn't provide any new sources, but instead recharacterized the people who those sources relied upon as "politicians and members of the media" in the existing sources that weren't deleted outright [diff ].
 * As for your argument that the section should be removed outright, it should stay per, per the RfC about keeping this entry.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, your main source listed is a magazine: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/ This opinion piece was written by journalist Jack Holmes, and quotes the opinion of another journalist, Andrea Pitzer. This was tweeted out by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a politician known for hyperbole on Twitter. They are not experts/scholars in the field. The edits do not need additional sources, but they instead rechaterize these people to their factual job titles, in an unbiased fashion. As for removing the section outright, I propose a new RFC for its removal. I will keep the NPOV tag on since even if the section is kept, it needs to be reworded to align with facts, and use non-biased language. Immigration internment camps do not even meet Wikipedia's definition: "Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial." Those held in the immigration internment camps along the border are indeed being charged, or have charges incoming, and attend immigration court. So, by definition, these are not internment camps.--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:46 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no "main source" here; there are however 21 sources, many of which rely on content experts. The Esquire piece you've singled out has statements from not just "expert" (per the article title) Andrea Pitzer - who literally wrote an influential book on the subject of concentration camps throughout history - but also historian Waitman Wade Beorn from University of Virginia and sociologist Jonathan Hyslop from Colgate University. To be clear, Pitzer is held as a content expert on the subject of concentration camp history, so I think describing her as such and relying on her expert opinion is entirely appropriate. The piece itself is not opinion as you have stated, but rather a longform news article in a reputable news publication.
 * Next, this section doesn't rely on any politicians' beliefs for what's written about these concentration camps, Representative Ocasio-Cortez included, so I'm not sure why you're bringing her up. It does however include links to an open letter signed by hundreds of content experts, which shows support for labeling these concentration camps as concentration camps. Wikipedia is not a reputable source in these kinds of discussion by the way, which is why we rely on determinations by content experts about these things.
 * Since you do not think additional sourcing is needed, would you please point to other already-included sources that are mischaracterized, or otherwise explain why several sources should be deleted?
 * Finally, I doubt another RfC would be accepted at this time, without some evidence of a change in things from when the last one was concluded in August. You are however free to try an open one and see if it plays out, though my guess is that members of the editing community will close it quickly as inappropriate.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no "main source" here; there are however 21 sources, many of which rely on content experts.
 * Most of those do not rely on content experts, but are opinion pieces written by journalists.
 * The Esquire piece you've singled out has statements from not just "expert" (per the article title) Andrea Pitzer - who literally wrote an influential book on the subject of concentration camps throughout history
 * She is called an "expert" by a journalist, but she does not have an degree in history or a related subject; she is a journalist. She could have been called "literally Stalin" by a journalist, but that does not make her so. She wrote a book on concentration camps throughout history, but managed to not include/mention these immigration detention centers in her book even though they had been around for over a decade by the time she wrote her book.
 * but also historian Waitman Wade Beorn from University of Virginia and sociologist Jonathan Hyslop from Colgate University.
 * So now we have two people who have altered the definition of what constitutes an "internment camp" or "concentration camp" to conform to their views. Edna Friedberg, Ph.D., is a historian in the Museum’s William Levine Family Institute for Holocaust Education, says otherwise.
 * To be clear, Pitzer is held as a content expert on the subject of concentration camp history, so I think describing her as such and relying on her expert opinion is entirely appropriate. The piece itself is not opinion as you have stated, but rather a longform news article in a reputable news publication.
 * To be clear, Pitzer is not held as a content expert on the subject, she is a journalist. Does she have a Ph.D in a related field? Does she have peer reviewed publications in a history or related field's journal? No, she doesn't. The Esquire piece, though longform, is indeed an opinion piece from a politics editor.
 * Next, this section doesn't rely on any politicians' beliefs for what's written about these concentration camps, Representative Ocasio-Cortez included, so I'm not sure why you're bringing her up.
 * The genesis of calling immigration detainment facilities "concentration camps", and including them in this page starts with Representative Ocasio-Cortez calling them that, and a large percentage of your linked sources include her by name; that is why she is brought up.
 * It does however include links to an open letter signed by hundreds of content experts, which shows support for labeling these concentration camps as concentration camps.
 * The open letter is signed by hundreds of people, some with titles such as "Professor of Music" and "Lecturer in Drama and Performance". These are not content experts, and you claiming so is disingenuous at best, and outright lying at worst.
 * Wikipedia is not a reputable source in these kinds of discussion by the way, which is why we rely on determinations by content experts about these things.
 * Wikipedia is absolutely a reputable source for a derivative page by the way, because we're being consistent with the definition that Wikipedia uses: "The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term concentration camp as: "A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group which the government has identified as dangerous or undesirable."
 * Since you do not think additional sourcing is needed, would you please point to other already-included sources that are mischaracterized, or otherwise explain why several sources should be deleted?
 * You mischaracterized a mostly random group of academics, journalists, etc. as experts, and that their idea of what constitutes a "concentration camp" is absolute fact. While on the other hand, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum specifically outlines that these analogies to "concentration camps" are not to be made. They're not the only group listed in the already existing sources that say otherwise as well (The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, Holocaust commemoration group From the Depths, etc.).


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


 * I believe the consensus is to move towards neutral language, highlight that there are parties and "experts" on both sides of this argument, that it's become a hot political topic, and maybe also highlight that though there has been poor treatment, lack of funding, etc. that these facilities are by definition not internment/concentration camps. I will try to construct something later tonight or this week that hopefully paints the reality of this situation better. The current state of that section is a poor representation of what Wikipedia should be about; when I first read it, I lost some faith sadly.
 * --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:45 (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opinions are noted. I'm not going to go around on all these arguments again; you can see a long history of discussing all these arguments in this talk page's archives [Archive 4] and [Archive 5], including in the RfC discussion.
 * At this point, I say these arguments don't show a problem with POV. This section was completely rewritten following the aforementioned RfC via a multi-editor collaboration. may or may not agree, but I think they agree that there's no POV problem with the entry. As such, without other editors agreeing that there'a POV problem, I think it's appropriate to remove the tag.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Your opinions are noted. I'm not going to go around on all these arguments again; you can see a long history of discussing all these arguments in this talk page's archives ... including in the RfC discussion.
 * A lot of what I posted is not opinion; it's objective fact. You're not "going around the arguments" because you have no valid or factual response or retort. I saw the talk pages, and they pretty much sum up that it's a biased opinion not based in fact to call immigration detention facilities "internment/concentration" camps.
 * At this point, I say these arguments don't show a problem with POV. This section was completely rewritten following the aforementioned RfC via a multi-editor collaboration. Aquillion may or may not agree, but I think they agree that there's no POV problem with the entry.
 * If it's not a problem with POV, then it's a problem with them being factually incorrect, meaning they should be removed. and  will agree that there are problems. As such, with other editors agreeing that there is a NPOV problem, and a problem with facts about the definition of internment, I think it's appropriate to keep the tag, and rewrite the section to reflect objective facts and reality. Unless you can find a peer reviewed study that has been included in a journal or history publication of merit that designates immigration detention facilities as "internment/concentration" camps, we need to change or remove the section to reflect reality, and not opinion. I am calling for an RFC to remove the section until proper publications with peer reviewed studies say otherwise.
 * --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's reasonable to tag the section as NPOV based on an objection to its inclusion when that was just decided recently by an WP:RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not if the section is to be included or not, it has no bearing on it being a NPOV issue. Reverted.--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:46 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As a reminder, this article is under a WP:1RR restriction, which you violated with your most recent revert. --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:46, you also renamed the article section in question when reinstating the NPOV tag, which was challenged before, so you've also violated this article's WP:CRP restriction as well. Please, find consensus for these changes before reinstating any of them. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Unless there is definitive proof that all 400+ of these scholars are Holocaust and genocide experts (including the attorneys listed as "independent scholars"), then the change I made will stay. 172.58.46.144 (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * IP, your reinstatement of challenged material is a violation of this page's WP:CRP discretionary sanction and I suggest you self-revert to rectify this.
 * As for your personal interpretation of the "actual source" material, this is WP:OR. As has been exhaustively discussed before, the included reliable sources, including the Newsweek article, describe the signatories of the open letter in question as Holocaust and genocide scholars and/or experts. If you wish to challenge this specific assertion, please provide a reliable sources - not your personal interpretation - to do so. Until such sources are provided, I urge you to self-revert to keep from being out of step with this page's discretionary sanctions.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what is challenged? The source material (not the Newsweek article that is clearly wrong, and Newsweek has been known to not have fact checking) does not make the claim that all of the scholars listed are Holocaust/genocide experts. Here are additional reliable sources that state "scholars", not "Holocaust and genocide experts/scholars": https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/451268-hundreds-of-scholars-urge-dc-holocaust-museum-to-stop-rejecting and https://www.businessinsider.com/scholars-call-on-holocaust-museum-in-concentration-camp-controversy-2019-7?op=1
 * It clearly states on the aforementioned sources, and the original source that "the scholars, many of whom have studied the Nazi genocide of Jews and other minorities..." Maybe English is not your first language, in which case it may not make sense. It's not WP:OR to correctly read and understand English as it's printed on the original source material. The usage of "many of whom" there means that a proportion, though not ALL, of the scholars have studied/are experts in the subject. It does not give a proportion, but it's immaterial since the use of "many of whom" is logically opposed to "all of whom".
 * So now that we've definitively proved that not all of the listed scholars are Holocaust/genocide experts, the edits should stay. Unless you have a source material that states ALL of the scholars are genocide/Holocaust experts, all you're doing is WP:OR by trying to prove a negative.
 * 172.58.30.198 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again IP, your personal interpretation of source material is WP:OR. Newsweek is a reputable source that has appropriately reported the hundreds of scholars as Holocaust and genocide scholars. You'd also do better to not read the word "all" into what the sentence in question already states. A reasonable argument can be made that, as long as 200+ of the signatories are Holocaust or genocide scholars, the Newsweek interpretation is 100% factual.
 * Unless you can provide reputable sources that discount this interpretation by specifically asserting that enough of those who signed the letter were not Holocaust or genocide scholars/experts and so it wasn't "hundreds" of them, I don't see a strong case for making the requested language change. And since the language you're challenging here was reached via extended discussion (see Talk:List of concentration and internment camps), your proposed edit will need consensus to success.
 * Finally, suggesting that English is not someone's first language as an argument for why they don't agree with you is a personal attack. Please strike your personal attack against me immediately.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Correctly understanding English sentences is not personal interpretation, nor is it WP:OR. Newsweek is not a super reputable source, and has not appropriately reported the original source correctly, and has instead editorialized it. I did not read the word "all" into what the sentence in question states. The sentence in question specifically outlines "many of whom", which directly translates to NOT ALL members, but "many" (which could be 10%, 30%, or 5%). A reasonable argument can be made that as long as 200+ of the signatories are Holocaust or genocide scholars, then indeed the Newsweek editorialization is 100% factual. But you have yet to provide any source that states this! The burden of proof for that is on you, the original one making the claim.
 * Unless you can provide a reputable source that specifically states that enough of those signatories are Holocaust of genocide scholars, we cannot assume "hundreds" of them are.
 * Consider the sentence "100 million tax payers, many of whom are Muslims, protested the IRS". This does not mean tens of millions of tax payers are Muslim, it could be as small as five hundred thousand. Unless there's a specific source that states how "many" there are, we cannot make the claim "100 million Muslim tax payers protested the IRS". It is not properly understanding the semantics.
 * Finally, suggesting that English is not someone's first language isn't an argument nor a personal attack when it's clear that the semantics are not being understood. I will refuse to strike it, as it is not an "argument" or "personal attack", it's an observation.
 * 2607:FB90:4A34:9254:58E9:3552:CAC8:CAA5 (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouting and doubling-down on your personal attack against me isn't acceptable. I am, for the last time, noting my objection to this proposed change, but I'm done engaging with someone who can't be bothered to remain civil. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, it never was an insult, so you can't double down on something that never happened in the first place. It seems that instead of using sources, facts, logic, semantics, etc., you're resigned to inventing insults as "an argument". It appears that you're objecting due to the way you feel about the subject, not due to any logic or reason here. If you intend on commenting on this, please try to bring something new, since whatever points you've brought up have easily been torn down. Guess there's not much to gain from someone who can't be bothered to look at the logic and semantics behind the points being brought up. 2607:FB90:2840:F19C:58E9:3552:CAC8:CAA5 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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