Talk:Detention centres in Assam

"Detention Centers in India" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Detention Centers in India. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Zerach (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Detention centres in Assam. Participants are in agreement that the title should be plural. Whether to include "Immigration" in the title is contentious. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC) — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Assam Detention Centre → Immigration detention centres in Assam – This page is no more about a single detention centre and the current title is a misnomer. Putting "immigration" in the title is also useful for clarifying the purpose. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I think this should be moved without too much of a discussion. Seems like an accurate uncontroversial move to me. DTM (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Wait Kautilya3, I think the news is only covering Goalpara. I only heard it recently that 10 were being constructed. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom - the rationale seems to make sense. It isn't just one any more, and recent sources don't mention the "Assam Detention Centre" title at all, seemingly.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if there are more than one locations, this article can cover them all. The only type of detention centre in Assam are the ones for immigrants, so adding Immigration is redundant. The lead clarifies this any way. I note that the reliable media are using Assam Detention centre, or LOCATION Detention centre. Immigration word is almost never used to name the detention centre by the reliable sources, although the content does mention it. ping Amakuru, Kautilya3, DTM --DBigXrayᗙ 11:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  @DBigXray: the current title, with its capital letters, make this look like a single institution, whose proper name is the "Assam Detention Centre". That may have been the case at one time, when there was only one site, but looking at the links you've provided here, none of them seem to use the name. This article does have it in the headline, but only because the entire headline is written with capital letters. The body says that it's "a detention centre in Assam's Goalpara", not the "Assam Detention Centre". At the very least this needs to be lowercased, so that it's a descriptive title rather than a proper name. And there is indisputably more than one. We could conceivably call it Assam detention centres or Detention centres in Assam, those would be better titles than the present one. On your second point, the dictionary lists two meanings for "detention centre". The first is an immigration facility, as you say, but the second meaning simply refers to prisons or jails in general. Perhaps usage in India is more specific, but globally, and for me personally, if I heard that term I wouldn't automatically assume it meant immigration. So I still concur with the nom that adding immigration is helpful. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, Thanks for the detailed reply. I do agree that we should change "Centre" to "centres" in the title to take into consideration the expanded scope of the article that now covers more than one location. Regarding the last part of the reply. There is only one type of detention centres in India so IMHO it will be a redundant disambiguation. Prison is the name used for all other cases in India, so that is the reason why the reliable sources are dropping the word "immigration" when naming these locations. The lead clarifies the immigration so I am strongly objecting adding "immigration" in the title. DBigXrayᗙ 12:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If and when the "Assam Detention Centre" is built and starts housing people, please feel free to create an article for it. At the moment, the place doesn't even exist, while you are ignoring the detention centres that exist and with significant coverage of how they are operating, e.g., [1]. I can't make any sense of your objection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I have given examples of reliable sources using "Assam Detention Centre/s", you have not shared any example for your proposed name. This is the name with which the RS are referring to the centres (6 existing) and 10 more being constructed. So this page will cover all 16 of them. DBigXrayᗙ 21:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? "Assam's detention centres for foreigners" has the same meaning as "immigration detention centres of Assam". All the other citations you give also have similar wording in the text if not in the titles. Press often uses misleading titles for various reasons. We don't need to duplicate them. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is written for world readership, not just for Indians. So, we can't just replicate the Indian lingo here. Even in Indian law, when somebody is arrested they are put in "detention". They go to "prison" only after getting convicted. We recently had the former happen to P. Chidambaram. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, FYI the detention centre where undertrial Indians goto is always the "Prison". P Chidambaram went to Tihar Jail that is also a prison and not a detention centre, even though Delhi had a detention centre. I don't agree with your claim on not following the title used by reliable media, and I will note that it flies in the face of community supported WP:COMMONNAME.  DBigXrayᗙ

WP:COMMONNAME for what? To call something a "name", the thing named should exist! "Assam's detention centres" is how good sources describe them.[2][3] Since we prefer not to put special characters in titles, it would need to be "Detention centres of Assam", even if we drop the "Immigration" bit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The current title looks like the name of something, and it isn't actually a name at all. As such, the original proposed move (which I supported above) should go ahead, the objection doesn't seem valid. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, User:Kautilya3 I have provided the links of reliable sources using the term "Assam Detention Centre". Even the link above by Kautilya says "Assam's detention centres". No diffs have been provided for another title. I will prefer we leave the title as it is for now. I will not oppose a rename to "Assam's detention centres" but not the title proposed above. DBigXrayᗙ 13:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

References

---

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

Naive question

How does a detention centre differ from a jail? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

According to International laws, Detention center is supposed to be less cruel and more free than a prison. Assam didnt had any DC, so the existing prison premises (6 of them) were also used as DC until the DCs were built. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To add the political party or not

@Kautilya3: @DBigXray: Which set of lines should be used (the first lines are already in the article, and the second are the replacements):

1. The first detention centre in Assam had come up in 2008 during the Tarun Gogoi government, when Indian National Congress (INC) was in power in the state.
2. The first detention centre in Assam had come up in 2008.

1. The first detention centre in Assam had come up in 2008 during the Tarun Gogoi government, when Indian National Congress was in power in the state.
2. The first detention centre in Assam had come up in 2008.

1. In 2011 the Assam government, when Congress was in power both at the Centre and in the state, had set up three detention camps with hundreds of illegal immigrants.
2. In 2011 the Assam government had set up three detention camps with hundreds of illegal immigrants.

This extends to National Register of Citizens#Detention Centres and Immigration_detention#India and accordingly any mention of any other political party. DTM (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be misleading to say that. The party should be mentioned in the history subsection. which should state the entire process. WHich Govt. conceived. which govt planned, and finally which govt. completed.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 10:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Mention all the parties are involved. All of them are gaming the country. And all of them should take the "blame", whatever it may be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 the Q is about the lead. the lead will turn into history section if we include everything in the lead. By all means include all but in the History section. The lead should only state when it began construction and when it completed. That is major milestones. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 11:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that is fine. But I want to make it clear that I won't stand for whitewashing the Congress Party games. Here is an example from a scholarly source:

On 27 January 1990, the Union home secretary and the chief secretary of Assam signed a document setting a time frame for the implementation of the Assam Accord. The document mentioned explicitly that a decision on the repeal of the IMDT Act would be taken by 28 February 1991. In a meeting on 20 September 1990, between the Union home minister, the chief minister of Assam, and representatives of AASU, the AASU called again for repeal of the IMDT Act. The Central government gave assurance that it would initiate discussion on the issue of repeal with other political parties. The Act remained on the statute books, however, even as the central government continued to assure the AASU that repeal of the Act was under consideration. In a meeting on 11 August 1997 with the AASU, the Union home minister admitted that the Act’s results were indeed extremely poor and he announced that he had decided to visit the state to take stock of the situation regarding illegal immigration and the inadequacy of the measures taken to prevent it. In the following year, in April and September 1998, the central government assured the AASU that it was actively considering repeal of the Act. This assurance was affirmed in the president of India’s address to the Parliament in February 1999. In another meeting held on 18 March 1999 between the representatives of the central government, the government of Assam, and the AASU, assurances regarding repeal were given again.

Gaming, gaming and gaming. And absolutely nothing was done. Finally, the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in 2005. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 how is mentioning everything, and that includes Congress, in the History amounts to whitewashing ? please clarify. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 12:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't we all know that the "first time" is important? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, your last comment is not clear. please elaborate what you mean. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The lead is not mentioning the parties for the entire history, only for the first time. I think it is important to mention it because there is extensive disinformation to the effect that the detention centres are a BJP thing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you have written it came up under Congress govt. But you have not mentioned which Govt, conceived planned and approved this Central government project, where the state hardly has any say. Now that is what I would call blatant misinformation. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I just copy-edited the wording. But if it is clear that the High Court order made it happen, that is fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If ther is any difference between the two parties, it is only in the go-slow policy of the Congress. The Modi government, on the other hand, is "run fast". -- Kautilya3 (talk)

I have since changed my mind about this. After looking at several sources, it is becoming clear that Congress was an active participant in the illegal immigration project and deliberately subverted the law for the sake of votes. There is no comparison between the Congress and the BJP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

References