Talk:Bad Nenndorf

Please note that I've moved the internment camp discussion over to the talk page of a new article - see Talk:Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre. -- ChrisO 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Objection Sir! I realley can't appreciate you provoked a second article without even trying to find an consensus how to handle the main-lemma. Must be regarded as a cheap trick for not to call the torture camp what it is. I like Burke's Peerage 09:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thus I decided to remove the discussion (sorry for the resulting fork) See below

Internment Camp (removed)

Some contributors of the German and English page do not read the sources adequately. In no one of the sources (Guardien nor Die Zeit) the internment camp of Bad Nenndorf was named concentration camp. This is absolutely wrong and POV. --KarlV 14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We would like you to discuss first. Violating the 3rr-rule is an abslolutly no-go here. I like Burke's Peerage 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

KarlV, I am not sure what your particular concerns are. You have claimed inaccuracy and POV, and have chosen to frame your concern in terms that could be interpreted as a personal attack on fellow editors, but you have given no justification for your claims. This and your 3RR violation make you less likely to be taken seriously.

As for the content of your edit, I can only emphasise once again that the prison at Bad Nenndorf meets all the formal criteria of a concentration camp, even if the sources do not use that particular word: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Concentration_camp

Kind regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all I think that I am complying with the formal criteria of the article Internment camp. And your mentioned article is, instead of that I have mentioned without good sources (see e.g. definition). Secondly, what is that, there are good sources, no one of them is talking about concentration camps but because of a definition, which IMHO seems to be POV, you want to tell me, that, even the sources do not use that particular word, it meets formal criterias? Criterias which are not proved? So, you want to tell me, that we do not need sources? Third - no, I do not want to bring in an error in this article, but, there was a German User (who was now suspended because of vandalism, plese be so kind an inform yourself), who wants that the British Internment camp is called concentration camp, which is simply wrong (see the sources and the formal criteria of the article internment camp). See what happened with the German article and the User. So I want to bring an error out of this artcle and nothing else. And you?--KarlV 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

From the very article you referenced: "The term concentration camp lost its original relatively innocent meaning after Nazi concentration camps were discovered, and has ever since been understood to refer to a place of mistreatment, starvation, forced labour, and murder. The expression since then has only been used in this extremely pejorative sense; no government or organization has used it to describe its own facilities, using instead terms such as internment camp, resettlement camp, detention facility, etc." As mistreatment, starvation etc. took place at this location, it very well fits the definition of concentration camp. Also, it gives the reason that official sources would not use that term, (no government will use it, even if it is correct). This is quite clear. pschemp | talk 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you believe that Wiktionary has POV issues, you should bring that up there, not here. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use the most common term the sources use, and I only see "internment" in the sources listed. Does anyone have a source that calls Bad Nenndorf a "concentration" camp? HGB 21:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, no government calls anything a concentration camp, even when it fits the definition. Its too much a charged word. Should we bow to their cowardice and POV? What I'm saying here, is that we shouldn't be replicating the bias of sources. That does no good for Wikipedia. pschemp | talk 21:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"As one minister of the day wrote, as few people as possible should be aware that British authorities had treated prisoners "in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps"". Now that is a direct quote from one of the sources, and although the facts are hedged upon, calling it a concentration camp is exactly what that minister did. pschemp | talk 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of camps explicitly called "concentration camps" but no one, so far as I can find in any reliable source, actually calls Bad Nenndorf a "concentration" camp. This link you mention which only says Bad Nenndorf is "reminiscent of the German concentration camps", it's really pushing WP:NOR to try to label it as such, and it's not in Wikipedia's scope to engage in novel research to rename things other than what they're commonly called. I suggest this quote you mention (if it qualifies as a reliable source) be quoted in the text, but the heading should be what everyone commonly calls it, "internment" camp. HGB 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

that's from one of the sources already listed, not anything I just made up or is unreliable. It isn't OR to call something what it is. matching something with its definition is not OR either. How does this not fit the definition of concentration camp?pschemp | talk 22:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this, and I was trying to find a compromise way of even using this quote calling it "reminiscent" of German concentrations camps, it's just unusable. The only person even making a comparison is some vague unnamed "minister of the day". And yes, it is OR to rename something from it's common usage to something no one else explicitly calls it. I'm changing it back to "internment" unless someone can find something better to back up the "concentration" camp label. And since you're an admin who stepped in to block another editor on this very issue, you probably shouldn't be involving yourself in the debate and making reverts yourself like you did to me. I don't mind working with you for a solution, but you're mixing roles here. HGB 22:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to get your facts straight about my actions. pschemp | talk 04:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, it was Samsara not you. I had the two of you confused, I apologize. Admins are discouraged from blocking other editors on pages in which they are editing so it would have been better had s/he found a neutral admin who hadn't been involved here to block the editor violating 3rr. Samsara may want to take note of that for future reference. HGB 05:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In such clear cut cases of 3RR such as that it is perfectly acceptable for any admin to block. Stopping an edit war is a completely different thing than actually edit warring, and while the difference can be subtle, there is a difference. Just because one is a previous contributor, doesn't mean one can't stop an edit war. That block was not controversial in the least and the wording being reverted was not originally inserted by Samsara, rather it was the choice of another editor. If the call on #3RR had been dicey or the page protected, that would be a different story. However, this is not the place to discuss blocking policy. pschemp | talk 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's more a matter of good form than anything else, not policy per se. I see a lot of admins make themselves vulnerable to accusations of admin abuse if they habitually block editors who might be considered their "opponent" on a page they are editing. At any rate, it's free advice for Samsara (and you as well since you're an admin) to take it or leave it, no need to further discuss. HGB 06:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

By your reasoning, only the trolls would be allowed to edit. Admins don't resign from their privileges as editors.

My feeling is still that what the sources call it is irrelevant (in fact, you're onto a definite loser there as most of the sources are in German); more relevant is what was going on there, and what is the appropriate way to refer to the activities. As such, I propose to call it interrogation camp, since that was the original purpose of the facility, even if it was subsequently deviated from (in that known innocents were "interrogated" - what for, one cannot imagine). In fact, I would question calling it a "camp", since it has nothing camp-like. Camp sounds makeshift, but this was not even in a purpose-built building. More of an interrogation centre, perhaps. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here, The Guardian, the same source that also calls it an internment camp, calls it a "Torture camp." Why not use that, as that is what it was? This also shows that there is no one specific name, for even this source has used two. And again ABC news calls it a "Torture camp". And here again the Hindustan news calls it a torture camp. This would indicate that not everyone commonly calls it an "internment camp", not even the original source of the information. The purpose of this camp was not storage of people, it was torture. Therefore, let's speak what is true and call a spade a spade and use "Torture camp", as that is the essence of the project. pschemp | talk 05:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. That's all I was asking for is sources that actually back up the terms we use here. Well done, I completely support your edit. HGB 05:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just one problem: I've looked up the original coverage in The Times of 1948 and at no point does it call it a "torture camp". The term is extremely POV and purely the invention of the Guardian. The article itself is also very unsatisfactory. It's obvious that the Guardian didn't bother looking at the contemporary coverage - if it did, it's well disguised. The case wasn't some new scandal which nobody had ever heard about before the Guardian wrote its report, as there was extensive coverage in the press over a period of several months in 1948 (and probably 1947, when the scandal appears to have broken). Very little that the Guardian printed in 2005 seems to be new info; much of it came out in the 1948 courts martial and is in The Times reports, in a far less sensationalist form. Since my local library has access to The Times digital archives, I'll rewrite the article to reflect what was said at the time, rather that just relying on the Guardian's rather exaggerated account. -- ChrisO 07:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the Guardian didn't invent the torture, the evidince of that was found in the 1947 report. Therefore, calling it torture is not POV, its a fact. pschemp | talk 13:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article itself is also very unsatisfactory. - Well, great. You've clearly found a job that needs doing. Be bold! BTW, what about coverage in the German press of the time? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The pictures of starving and tortured prisoners don't look like exaggerations, do they? I like Burke's Peerage 10:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course not - as far as I can tell from the contemporary reports, the exaggeration appears to be in the Guardian's characterisation of the camp itself. The reports paint a picture of a badly supplied, badly organised camp in which prisoners were neglected and beaten up by enlisted soldiers, but nothing like the systematic torture that the Guardian article implies. -- ChrisO 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian article does claim to have had access to documents that were only recently released to the public. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Having read the Guardian report, it clearly refers to the investigation before the courts-martial. The Times reports show that a lot of the evidence was regarded as unreliable by the tribunals - notably, the tribunals didn't corroborate the claims of torture, though they did convict one of the officers on neglect charges. -- ChrisO 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What the tribunals found is irrelevant when the sources cite witnesses including named victims. There was torture. The sources agree on that. Read the NDR references. They are clearest on that point. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point. The investigation certainly found evidence of torture - I'm absolutely not denying this. The point is that we shouldn't take every allegation of torture as being confirmed, and the reports from the courts-martial do strongly suggest that many of the allegations weren't regarded as reliable. This isn't to say that abuse never happened, merely that not everything that was claimed to have happened was judged to have happened. -- ChrisO 22:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, then to be absolutely NPOV, you need to write it exactly like that: state what the witnesses and victims said, state what the tribunal found. But don't massage the article to convey the findings of the tribunal as fact. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In several minutes I will give up a statement concerning the whole issue on the German site (in English and German). Kind regards.--KarlV 10:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My reply is up there alongside it. Let me know if anyone needs a translation into English. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

@pschemp. "As mistreatment, starvation etc. took place at this location, it very well fits the definition of concentration camp." Wikipedians are not to infer ever, they are to cite assesments or inferences of authoritative sources exclusively. --tickle me 08:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

ChrisO has 2 well reasoned rvs for today. You have 3, reverting to a version where you distorted the source cited: that can't stand. Edit war is the most inappropriate answer. --tickle me 10:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)