Talk:Cyprus internment camps

Untitled

'Thanks to British willingness to allow British and American Jewish communities to aid the inmates and limited press access, inmates did not face the kind of viciousness or deprivation associated with Nazi or Soviet concentration camps'

I.e. Thanks to Jewish intervention which occurred thanks to British willingness to be assisted, the British did not behave like Nazis or Stalinists in Auschwitz and the gulag.

Does no one control these articles, with their total lack of citational form, ridiculous logic and POV-rigging?Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence was corrected.

Telaviv1 (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is much better. There are three sources in the refs section but the article would be much improved if page numbers relevant to all major conclusions were added throughout the article.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

==

I would like to see someone with more knowledge than me add the names of the camps that existed on cyprus. Or at least discuss their location in reference to nearest town.Trucker11 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article reads like a Zionist childrens' book. It is full of opinions masquerading as facts. Like "In spite of repeated requests to lift restrictions to save lives otherwise lost in the Holocaust, and later the plight of thousands of displaced Holocaust survivors, the British still enforced the quotas set in the White Paper of 1939." - this is the standard ploy that equates admission to Palestine with escape from the Nazis. It is not good enough for Wikipedia. In fact no point of view other than the Zionist one is mentioned at all. The article is remarkably light on facts too, for example there is almost nothing about the use of Cyprus for refugees during the war. Many important sentences carry no citations. I'm tagging the article as a whole since classifying individual sentences according to their problems would need a tag on about 2/3 of them. Zero^talk 14:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I worked on it myself. Zero^talk 02:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To explain more, the previous text gave the false impression that people fleeing the Holocaust were imprisoned in the camps, but in fact they didn't open until 1946. That makes much of the rhetoric about the war years irrelevant. Otherwise I only removed some newspaper references that were not much use, instead replacing them by many details from published academic sources. I removed almost no factual information but added a great amount. Now the article is well sourced and dispassionate, whereas previously it was neither. Zero^talk 13:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And more explanation of deletions: "before and after WWII", no, they started in 1946; "the funds for the maintenance of the camps were drawn from taxes collected from the Jewish population of Palestine", makes little sense anyway no source; "1,000 Jews a month...half that quota, 500 Jews a month, were allowed in from Cyprus", is wrong and the correct figures are given with a good source; "The fact that the camps were constructed by, and partially housed, German POW...", undue weight over a trivial matter, and also doubt source supports all this. Zero^talk 23:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Documentation

I am writing from the JDC archives and have curated a collection that has some documents that deal directly with the Cyprus internment camps. It includes correspondence regarding the camps, lists of people in the camps, documents highlighting what life was like in the camps. I think this documentation would benefit and enrich the page, but I wanted to write to get opinions before I made any edits. Any and all thoughts are welcome. Archivist123 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Please read WP:PRIMARY carefully, as it is (part of) one of the core policies of Wikipedia. In a nutshell, you can't use Wikipedia as the first place of publication of archival material otherwise unpublished, and you can't provide your own interpretation of primary source materials (whether those materials are published or not). On the other hand, reporting of facts and analysis that is already published in a venue that meets the criterion of a reliable source is fine. Material already published on a JDC website is likely to be acceptable, except that anything that looks argumentative, self-serving, or contrary to published scholarly sources might have to be presented as JDC assertion rather than as plain fact. Cherry-picking of items in order to promote a particular view (for example to bolster a Jewish case against the UK or vice-versa) would be a violation of another core policy WP:NPOV. Zero^talk 14:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being so prompt in replying. I am new to editing on Wikipedia and appreciate any guidance. The documentation from the JDC is available on their archival website so I don't think any edits using this information would violate any policies in that way. The materials provide further support regarding the role the JDC played in providing aid for detainees as well as general information about detainees. For example, one document contains a list of infants in Xylotymbou Camps while another is a report on infants. These documents also support the notion that conditions within the camps were harsh and often unsanitary. Would it be best to include supporting documentation as references to what exists within the article or is it best to insert an explanatory or additional sentence and directly cite that? Archivist123 (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyprus internment camps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002133033/http://resources.ushmm.org/inquery/uia_doc.php/photos/6586?hr=null to http://resources.ushmm.org/inquery/uia_doc.php/photos/6586?hr=null

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"Partition was enacted?"

I am not sure how this can be accurate, no matter what side you are on. Leifern (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)