Talk:Alligator Alcatraz

CNN article

[1] Doug Weller talk 17:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Alligator Alcatraz

How about calling it “Alligator Alcatraz”! 99.65.39.99 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is what the article is called. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 15:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Concentration Camp

The literal definition of a concentration camp - that being "a prison...used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security" applies to Alligator Alcatraz. I recommend that this description be added to the introductory paragraph of the article. I understand that concentration camps are often associated with death camps used by Germany during World War II, but I believe correctly labeling Alligator Alcatraz as a concentration camp helps better contextualize the facility's prime use. BakedintheHole (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@BakedintheHole I conquer. The definition fits correctly as Alligator Alcatraz is explicitly being used for political reasons on its population. The article should be changed to say concentration camp. Jabaker88 (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

No. While some commentators are using this term, this facility is for detention of immigrants, thus the prasing "immigration detention facility" is accurate. This is especially the case since it isn't even in use yet and has no detainees. So we cannot make a determination that it only houses "political prisoners or politically targeted demographics". Do not keep inserting this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

"politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or ethnic minority groups, on the grounds of national security" - absolutely satisfies why this facility is being built.

It's been explicitly stated why this facility is being built by the current current US administration and it matches the definition. In the US president's own words: "But very soon this facility will have some of the most menacing migrants, some of the most vicious people on the planet.". Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/inside-alligator-alcatraz-new-migrant-detention-facility-erected-abandoned-everglades-airport

It being in use or not has nothing to do with its intended purpose. Jabaker88 (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not being targeted at an ethnic, national, or minority group, it's being targeted at migrants from any background. That's why immigration detention fits, but concentration camp doesn't. Knightlyvalor (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jabaker88 @Knightlyvalor You two are new, so you aren't expected to know thate go by what the sources say, and in the end if the majority of reliable sources use the word concentration camp we might use that in the WP:LEAD. We don't use our own opinions. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I didn't edit the page, I've only been involved with the talk page for this article. Jabaker88 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I know, not a problem but you need to start discussing sources, not how you interpret anything. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller gotcha! And that makes sense. Jabaker88 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. This is sensationalism at its finest and there's nothing about this detention center that separates it from other immigration detention centers which aren't labeled concentration camps. Is it really that impossible for wikipedia editors to set aside their bias for an article? It's pathetic seeing them try claiming they're not explicitly biased towards left-wing propaganda when the founders of wikipedia itself express concern about the same issues. Do better. 24.120.61.89 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact that administration has repeatedly said that conditions in the camp are going to be so bad that it will scare people into 'self-deporting' is one of the more obvious things that separates it from normal detention centers. Plus the fact that normally people don't sell fan merch for detention centers. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The name is a not-even-thinly-veiled suggestion that people who escape could be eaten by alligators. The cruelty of this kind of taunting is the point, and the only people claiming otherwise aren't even the ones responsible for establishing and operating this place. Indeed, those people are unabashedly touting the alligators and the other plans for deliberately inhumane treatment as features, not bugs.

You're still trying to pretend we live in a reality where these kinds of people aren't saying the quiet part loud, and I don't know why. There's no longer anyone who needs to be fooled. 2600:4040:3118:E800:E936:99F7:169B:245E (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Escaping from a prison in America can result in you being shot by tower guards. It was created by repurposing an abandoned airport building. Even in this case scenario, Alligators normally don't harm humans, in the last 80 or so years they've killed about 26 people in the 440 attacks in Florida.

Also, state officials have denied allegations of inhumane and unsanitary treatment at the detention center, stating that the facility meets all required standards. So, no, they're not "touting" deliberate inhumane treatment.

No independent oversight body has released findings related to the facility and officials have declined to confirm the total number of detainees.

I think we should keep an open mind and see if any evidence comes up. Knightlyvalor (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter whether they’re telling the truth about how dangerous the wildlife is, they lie constantly and their supporters don’t care.

What matters is that they’re gleefully talking about mostly non-white immigrants being gruesomely killed and that their supporters love hearing it. The “evidence” is already out there, they are doing this publicly. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Entirely possible that they're lying, I was just responding to the user claiming they were touting inhumane treatment, when they've declared it's not the case.

I gotta ask:

1. Why did you mention "mostly non-white?" If they were mostly white would it make a difference?
2. Who is gleefully talking about them being killed in gruesome ways?
3. What evidence? It can be added to the page if it's a secondary source with credibility. No matter how strongly you feel about this, you can't just post on instinct or passion alone.

Knightlyvalor (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If you think that happily talking about how people will be killed by wild animals has nothing to do with poor treatment, I’m not sure if we’ll ever be able to find a way to communicate.

1) Are you at all familiar with US politics? The answer to that should be obvious.

2) Have you ever heard of someone named Donald Trump?

3) The evidence I referred to in the post you replied to? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Where did I say that?

1. I am. Feel free to answer my question.
2. Yes, though this doesn't answer my question. Though I suppose I should rephrase. What gleeful comment did he make? Also, if you don't change your tone to be less hostile I'll just stop trying to argue in good faith.
3. Yes, I'm looking for that evidence. Do you have a secondary source you think would meaningfully contribute?

Knightlyvalor (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The first paragraph of your reply to me.

Then you know the answer is obvious and are just asking to waste time. Please don’t do that, this is not Twitter.

Asked and answered.

If I make a suggestion for an edit to the article, or course I will. In the meantime, I was referring to the public discussion, which you say you are familiar with.

Again, not Twitter, don’t pretend you don’t know what people are talking about just to waste time. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

It's clear your answers are emotionally charged, when you cool off, feel free to answer my questions when you're ready. Also, where'd i say i was familiar with the public discussion? Knightlyvalor (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I’m sorry, I assumed you were informed about the topic of the article you’re discussing. My apologies. I shouldn’t have done that.

As I said at first, if you have to ask why someone would mention race in connection with American politics there isn’t any way that we will be able to usefully communicate.

And again, with regard to your claims about being emotional… This is not Twitter. We do not act like that here. Please stop. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:OR and clear WP:POV. — Czello ^(music) 06:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I was responding to the claim that there is nothing different between this place and other immigration detention center, not editing the article.

And quoting the administration's own words is hardly a POV problem. They said it proudly. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

My reply wasn't to you, it was to OP. — Czello ^(music) 06:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

TNR calls it a concentration camp

{https://newrepublic.com/article/197508/alligator-alcatraz-trump-concentration-camp?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tnr_daily The Grand Opening of an American Concentration Camp} " “‘Alligator Alcatraz’ is a concentration camp,” Andrea Pitzer, author of One Long Night, a history of concentration camps, said on Tuesday." Doug Weller talk 16:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I literally just made a post on the talk page about this, I completely agree with you. I believe the intro paragraph should be updated. Thank you for posting! BakedintheHole (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

(copied my reply above) No. While some commentators are using this term, this facility is for detention of immigrants, thus the prasing "immigration detention facility" is accurate. This is especially the case since it isn't even in use yet and has no detainees. So we cannot make a determination that it only houses "political prisoners or politically targeted demographics". Do not keep inserting this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

And to be clear, the New Republic link is a column piece (uneder the heading "Bear Witness", not news reporting. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I have added this commentator's description in the Responses section. That's where it belongs, if anywhere. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@ZimZalaBim I think that's a fair compromise since this is a pretty contested topic Jabaker88 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

With attribution, perhaps. It's clearly an opinion piece. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I must disagree. The page for every Internment Camp during WWII clearly states it as a concentration camp. This is no different. It is not a matter of opinion, regardless of political stance. It is a fact of logic. BakedintheHole (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

No, it is a matter of opinion and interpretation. It is wildly POV to describe it as a concentration camp in Wikivoice. — Czello ^(music) 11:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

this portion calling it a concentration camp is purely opinion and not factual. This should be cited as opinion and made clear it is opinion. If information is being posted on a place, it has to be correct, fact based information that's true. Not some biased opinion ranting because they hate the place and dont care for it.If it doesnt get changed, it should be reported or the entire page just erased and redone. Again further proof why Teaxhers hate Wikipedia being used in their classroom for reports. Demowolf83 (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That is a fair point, but would you please explain how the classification is incorrect in this context? I urge you to seperate the literal definition of a concentration camp from what we all think of related to WWII Nazi death camps. Those, too, were concentration camps…but the fact that Alligator Alcatraz does not have an express purpose of slaughter does not negate the fact it is a concentration camp. It is a camp deliberately designed to imprison large numbers of people, specifically members of a persecuted minority. BakedintheHole (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't engage in WP:OR. — Czello ^(music) 11:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

One source is not sufficient to say that this is a concentration camp. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Alligator Alcatraz is a guarded encampment for detaining criminal illegal immigrants prior to them choosing to self-deport from the United States or be evicted and deported to their country of origin. The housing quarters have individual beds for each detainee, plumbing, electric lights, air conditioning, security cameras, an outdoor exercise yard, provide three square meals a day, medical services, legal counsel for due process hearing and clergy on site. Hardly a concentration camp.24.194.32.135 (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.32.135 (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

All disagreement for categorizing this as a concentration camp is predicated on avoiding the term due to presumption that "concentration camp" refers to Nazi Germany and is somehow "worse" than "Immigrant Detention Facility". This belies objectivity and is a clear attempt to distort the true meaning of "concentration camp". Calling Alligator Alcatraz an "immigrant detention facility" is propaganda, at best. Soundslikewill (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand the policy on Wikipedia regarding verifiability, sourcing and the proper use of Wikivoice. I would recommend not editing this article, or any controversial article, until you have a better grasp of policy. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary, concentration camp is the clear POV description. — Czello ^(music) 11:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

TNR is not a credible source which should be cited 24.120.61.89 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2025

Per WP:REFPUNCT:

−

Up to 5,000<br>(projected) <ref name="AP28Jun">

+

Up to 5,000<br>(projected)<ref name="AP28Jun">

2A00:807:D5:B58B:E10F:3B9:87CE:9C41 (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 21:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2025

It's a concentration camp 2601:445:683:6980:5121:69B5:BC03:8B04 (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Czello ^(music) 11:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: unsupported quote about hurricane deterrent

The wikipedia article states "State officials have also argued that the facility's location and its susceptibility to hurricanes will encourage illegal immigrants to self-deport." However, if you follow through and click on the source of that, in the ABC news article it does not mention anything about hurricanes. Not in the text or in the video. While I agree hurricanes are obviously a concern, and behind closed doors this is part of the strategy, which is cruel, and will likely result in detainee deaths, we have to be accurate. Otherwise it discredits the article's credibility.

Instead, perhaps there should be a section that mentions the threat of hurricanes as more of a speculatory statement rather than a factual quote, which doesn't seem to be supported? If there is an accurate source however, I support just changing the citation. 99.242.232.189 (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

concentration camp

guys, come on.

really, I'm speechless. This is beneath wikipedia. This should be removed. At least the Auschwitz comparison. Name dropping that is just... yeah I have no words. The entire paragraph is stupid and has no place in an encyclopedia. How is what some dipshit says in an editorial relevant here? We already have the facts. I propose that any mention of death camps from the Holocaust, especially by name, be cut from this article. It's just not healthy to include. Binglederry (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Since when is "healthy to include" a content policy? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't operate off of your feelings. God help this website the day that the No Notoriety people start removing perpetrator's names from murder and tragedy articles. StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Calling it a "concentration camp" is an abysmal insult to people that actually went through those camps. The cited "articles" are HEAVILY biased. Both of them are rated as biased/less-than-credible sources by independent fact checkers. 24.120.61.89 (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

No it’s not an insult actually. Alligator Alcatraz may not be as bad as the Nazi death camps but it is still a concentration camp meant to hold any and all latinos and people of colour. Trump claims it’s for illegal immigrants but it’s for way more than just illegal immigrants. Coughers (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Concentration camps weren't invented in WW2. They were a thing before and after and they don't need to involve gas chambers or jews. The US built their own to intern Japanese as well, and recognizing that is not any kind of insult to the ones in Nazi Germany either. Dustz (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

(discussing the "concentration camp" subject, not the TNR article above) The narrative that Alligator Alcatraz is a concentration camp is false. Here is why. "It is also crucial to note that a “concentration camp” is defined broadly as a place where people are imprisoned not because they are guilty of any crimes, but simply because of who they are." This tends to be true with the Alligator Alcatraz, as the facility's purpose is to house illegal immigrants who have committed the crime of crossing the American border illegally, hence they are illegal, regardless of color, race, religious background, or social status/class. Citing this piece (WARNING THIRD PARTY PDF LINK; WIKI DOES NOT LINK PDF PAGES: "https://www.janm.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/janm-education-resources-enduring-communities-terminology.pdf" an official one-page PDF produced by JANM, an AAM-accredited museum and Smithsonian affiliate, founded in 1985 to preserve and share Japanese American history. Extra resources: (THIS IS THE SOURCE OF THE LINKED ABOVE PDF PAGE OFFICAL WEBPAGE LINK/NOT PDF): https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/terminology-and-the-mass-incarceration-of-japanese-americans-during-world-war-ii.htm 2600:6C5E:4B3F:5585:10D6:9EA7:DE1B:AB4E (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The real question is, why is it just a throwaway line with attribution? The comparison is important enough to belong in the lede, and enough critics have used the term to justify using it in wikivoice. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

====This page is for discussing the article, not the subject ===

Discuss sources, policies, wording etc. Not a place to pointlessly rsnt about Wikipedia. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Flooding and human rights threats

I attempted to add links to current opposition and also raise the fact that the facility flooded within its first week, but someone removed it all. This article seems to be biased against adding anything critical of this criminally laughable project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olamina (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

We are WP:NOTNEWS and don't need to report on every daily weather condition at the site. And you mention that "Florida state senator Shevrin Jones has attempted to call attention to the fact that the facility is in a swamp with extreme heat, and the government has shared no plans to provide humane living conditions" is also not encyclopedic. And similarly, just beause someone has attempted to "call attention" to something and that the government has "shared no plans" isn't inherently encylopedic. At best, this is trivial WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE focus; at worst, it is trying to paint a certain WP:POV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what is meant by "encyclopedic" or why that is an important standard. I will look into it at some point. I am more and more seeing why more people don't contribute here. Sigh. Olamina (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

What I mean is we can't include all WP:INDISCRIMINATE info about a topic per WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

"Noncitizen" is the correct neutral term.

The use of "illegal immigrant" is highly politically charged towards a conservative viewpoint, which is not consistant with Wikipedia's objectivity, see: WP:COMMONNAME. "Illegal" can correctly refer to an action, but not a person. A person having commited a crime is a "criminal", not an "illegal". Supreme Court Justices from both sides of the political arena use the term "noncitizen", as many inmmigrants are also citizens. Ellis Island was an "immigrant inspection and processing station", because it processed people arriving in the USA. It did not mean rounding up or housing noncitizens who may have been living in the USA for years. The exessive use of "illegal immigrant" and the complete absence of "noncitizen" is highly problematic.

Please see my research on this topic, confirming this at: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110789157-004/html

Hartwell, L. M. (2023) Once an alien has passed through our gates: noncitizens in three US Supreme Court oral arguments. Dans V. Nieto, D. Stein & A. Doval, From Fear to Hate: Legal-Linguistic Perspectives on Migration, p. 63-84. Berlin : deGruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110789157-004 LauraHartwell UT1 (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

See also today's article in Reuters, which uses the term "noncitizen" and does not use the term "illegal" : https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/judge-weigh-blocking-trump-birthright-citizenship-despite-supreme-court-ruling-2025-07-10/ LauraHartwell UT1 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

See also Illegal immigration on Wikipedia that refers to the action of immigration, which may or may not be illegal, but not the person. LauraHartwell UT1 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It is possible to be a noncitizen and legally enter a country, so this won't work. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Noncitizens may legally enter the country, such as asylum seekers or persons who overstay a visa. However, this detention center is only to target "detainable noncitizens", which is a correct objective term. "Illegal immigrant"is a grammatically and political error 2A0D:E487:16F:11E5:A1D8:9A8:C065:4D79 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It includes asylum seekers and illegal immigrants both, so noncitizens is probably the best term. Having said that: How is it a "grammatically" and political error? Better yet, can you define "political error?" Knightlyvalor (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2025

2601:40F:500:DED0:6814:3C6A:B14C:F57F (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t care what anything say but call it what it is.. it’s a concentration camp:

 Not done: See extensive discussions on this previously. — Czello ^(music) 06:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Stating only holding "illegal immigrants"

Several people in Alligator Alcatraz are either legal immigrants with papers to prove or born American citizens. It is not just "illegal immigrants" being held in this concentration camp. There are also 55+ confirmed Canadian citizens (I'm Canadian so these are the only ones I know about) who have been detained by ICE and are being held in Alligator Alcatraz. 2001:569:FCF9:B100:9561:3E3:1AAD:4F5A (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

can you site your sources please 2600:6C5E:4B3F:5585:10D6:9EA7:DE1B:AB4E (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Official name

What is the official name of the facility? I can't find it anywhere, but we should mention it in the article. "Alligator Alcatraz" might be the WP:COMMONNAME but surely it can't be the official name. Varavour (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Alligator Alcatraz actually is the official name, believe it or not. The citation after the name confirms this. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 16:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2025

I would like in the title and opening line to have “(Alligator Aushwitz)” after the word “Alligator Alcatraz”. The term alligator auschwitz is catching on and the term alligator Alcatraz is being marketed by Republicans and the term Alligator Auschwitz is being suppressed.

99.174.210.202 (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

For now, I think we can't, but I welcome any strong source for that usage that you'd like to post here for people to discuss. Or for 'concentration camp'. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Quid Pro Quo Scandal Involving Contractor to Operate the Facility

News sources including the Miami Herald (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article310522645.html) have reported that IRG Global Emergency Management Inc., a Texas-based company contracted to support operations at the facility donated $10,000 to the Florida GOP before winning the $1.1 Million contract. The article states another $5.1 Million in contracts were later awarded to the company.

The $1.1 Million contract awarded on can be verified on 25 Jun 2025 149.126.12.131 (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)