# Talk:Stanley Internment Camp

As you can see from the current state of the article, most of the information was taken from two very informative sources.  These two were the best free sources I could find online.  All the others I found online only make short mention of this camp.  It would be great if a more diverse collection of sources is used.  I've found two books that would probably be great sources:  The Internment of Western Civilians Under the Japanese 1941-1945 by Bernice Archer and Footprints, the autobiography of Selwyn Selwyn-Clarke.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, some more great sources had been found.  The Imperial War Museum Collection hosts several photos of the camp, with informative descriptions of them.  I've uploaded some of the photos to Commons, made a gallery of it, and put a link to it at the "See also" section of the article.  I also found this great article, and I'll be using the information in it to update and add to the article shortly.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have failed this article GA nomination but it was a fairly close-run thing. generally the article is of high quality, with good prose, and covering the core facts very well, and with excellent use of images given the obscurity of the topic. However, I felt it necessary to fail the article on grounds of completeness and citation in particular. That is, I thought the citation was insufficient and that the article failed to cover the topic sufficiently broadly. I will explain these comments in more detail below:

Needs a "Background" section giving both a brief summary of previous use/history of St. Stephen's College and Stanley Prison and also a greater run-in to the position of civilians in that theatre of war, which forces held what territory. For someone not familiar with the positio the article jumps in making assumptions of a lot of knowledge a reader might not have.
Added a bit more about St. Stephen's before and during Japanese occupation; added more on why the evacuees criticised the evacuations; specified that Hong Kong was a British colony at the time; pointed out that the Battle of Hong Kong was part of WW2.  I didn't think we need to insert too much information about the war itself, how people felt about it, etc, because that's really for the article Battle of Hong Kong.  Still need to insert more info about Stanley Prison as requested.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
"It angered the local Chinese population as well, which charged that the plans were racist because it did not include Chinese people for evacuation" Is this really true or is the racist tag a modern label applied now to their anger at being left behind? Is racism a modern label being applied to this action or was that the actual charge levelled at the time? I think it is important to be accurate on such things. Were chinese in hong kong in danger of internment from japanese occupation? If not, the action seems reasonable and not racially motivated. This aspect is not addressed. Surely the fate of the chinese in hong kong should at least be mentioned in contrast tot he fate of the british
I did not find any analysis in depth of the racism charge from the source that made mention of this.  I did expand upon why British civilians might have been specifically targetted for evacuation, and I inserted an attribution in the body of the article specifically to the researchers that claimed that the evacuation angered the local Chinese population.[1]  Although my sources do not confirm this, I personally suspect the reasons for the racism charge were two-fold - 1) At the time, there was probably pre-existing resentment that the local Chinese population were treated as colonial subjects, whereas the British in Hong Kong were given more privileges, and 2) the local Chinese population had probably received news from mainland China that the Japanese forces had been committing atrocities to the people in mainland China.  Hopefully this somewhat addresses your concerns.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
From the article, up to 500 of the internees were Dutch and American. Did the Dutch and American government arrange for evacuation of their nationals as the British had? If not, why not?
As far as I can tell, the number of Dutch internees were very small, and the sources did not give details specific to repatriation of the Dutch.  However, the Repatriation section has been expanded to include details about repatriations of the Americans and the Canadians, these were two groups that the sources specifically gave details to, in addition to the fact that the British were not repatriated until the end of the war.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did some British and other European nationals elect to stay when they were warned Hong Kong was going to fall to the Japanese? There doesn't seem to be any mention of this
Don't remember if this was a newer addition or if it was in the article before the review, but this issue is addressed in the same place as why they criticised the mandatory evacuation plans, in the "Evacuation and arrival at camp" section - basically they felt that evacuation was premature and unnecessary.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
"frequently contained dust, mud, rat and cockroach excreta, cigarette ends, and sometimes even dead rats" - I think such an exceptional fact needs a citation
Done.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of the camp after the war. Was it torn down? Did it revert to its earlier use? Is there a memmorial?
The camp was basically made up of St. Stephen's College and the grounds of Stanley Prison.  St. Stephen's College reopened in 1945, a fact which I just added.  I couldn't find any source on when Stanley Prison was reopened for operation, but obviously it did sometime after the war because it is still in operation today.  I've found one source saying that a "memorial window" at a church at St. Stephen's College is dedicated to the camp, and I've just added that to the article also.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no analysis. Was the internment of civilians legal under international treaties? Were they any complains to or apologies by the Japanese government?
I can find no source that discusses the legality of Japan's internment camps.  The topic of complaints to and apologies by the Japanese government over its actions in WW2 is really a much bigger context than this one particular internment camp, but I have found no such complaints or apologies specific to the Stanley camp.  However, I did expand upon the Compensation section.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The citation list is poor, essentially single-source - this needs to be addressed.
I think this is unfortunately unavoidable.  The sources given in the article were the only freely available online sources that went into as much details as they did.  All the other freely available online sources made very little mention of the camp, and did not offer any information that the few detailed sources already offer.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hope this helps in bringing the article forward and gaining a successful good article status on future renomination. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


### Reasons for the assessment
 Christmas Day of 1941, which came to be known as "Black Christmas"
 Came to be known by whom? Where is the reference? Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 Although medical facilities was inadequate, the internees counted amongst them about 40 doctors, two dentists, six pharmacists, 100 trained nurses, and a large number of volunteer auxiliary nurses. Because of this, no major epidemic occurred.
 Just because there were medical personel, it would not mean there will be no epidemics (a doctor without medicine can be helpless when confronted with an infected case, hygiene and frequency of contacts are key to transmission, etc). A citation is needed to verify this claim which I failed to find in the references. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 The women organised Christmas and birthday celebrations,[19] and other diversions such as musicals, plays, recitals, and variety shows were also staged.
 If the women were only largely responsible for Xmas and birthdays, then the sentence should be "The women organised Christmas and birthday celebrations.[19] Other diversions such as musicals, plays, recitals, and variety shows were also staged.", otherwise, "The women organised Christmas and birthday celebrations,[19] and other diversions such as musicals, plays, recitals, and variety shows." would be appropriate. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 Additionally, there was also extensive adult education for the adults at camp.
 It would be best to indicate what form of "adult education" is available to avoid people coming up with the wrong ideas... Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 Despite indications to the British internees that the British government was negotiating for their release, and that they may be repatriated, they were not repatriated until the end of the war.
 Who indicated this to the internees? The references state it as a Japanese official's assurances to the British internees. Failing to state this would make the British Government being the ones assuring the internees of this. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 The Allies determined that it was possible the Japanese might attempt an invasion of Australia, and so did not want to release the Japanese nationals they held there.
 The reference states these Japanese nationals might be valuable to the Japanese military for their knowledge of the Australian coastline. This should be the reason for their captivity, instead of them being held as a deterrent against the Australian invasion. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
There are several prose and misplaced formality issues (excessive and redundant "that"s, "also"s, and other phrases), so I am going to be bold here as per WP:GAC and do a major copyedit of the article. If there are objections to the edits, please state them here so we can address them. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If the primary contributor HongQiGong is satisfied with the copyedit and have addressed the issues stated, I will pass the GA. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


### Suggestions
These are suggestions which have no bearing on the GA assessment above unless their implementation contravenes WP:WIAGA. They are meant to help improve the article further, and can be implemented after the GA assessment if they are taken up on.

The reference, "The Women of Stanley" mentions atrocities committed at St Stephen’s College before it was turned into part of Stanley Internment Camp. This can be mentioned as part of the history of the Camp. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The same reference also mentioned the behaviour of the Japanese wardens (a change in attitude when a changeover in administration took place). This can be worked into Life at camp or other appropriate sections. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The black market could be expanded a bit since it was mentioned as an outstanding part of life at Stanley Camp in "Behind Japanese Barbed Wire" Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Camp security measures and rules as mentioned in the thesis reference can be worked into the article Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Japanese interaction with the internees can be worked in from the three references Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finally reviewing the article.  I'll work on the issues you raised, but please give me a few days.  I may or may not be able to spend much time online this week.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. In view of this, the hold can be extended to 2 weeks instead of the standard 1. Jappalang (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, that'll help tremendously.  Happy holidays!  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


### Clean-up
Reference has been added for "Black Christmas".[2]  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
...no major epidemic occurred. - The source for this is actually at the footnote that follows the next sentences, but I've added a footnote at the end of that sentence as well.[3]  (Spelling out the numbers in that edit was a mistake, I reverted it in the next edit.[4])  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the reference and found it was a historian who stated this. I think it would be best if it is written that it was a historian who came up with this statement (i.e. his or her opinion). The current article seem to be stating the correlation as fact. I would suggest changing "Because of this, no major epidemic occurred" to "The lack of major epidemics in the camp was attributed by <historians/insert name of historians> to them" or something similar. Jappalang (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've attributed this to the author of the source that the source (for this article) itself uses (Hong Kong Eclipse by G. B. Endacott).  I've also added an extra footnote to reference Hong Kong Eclipse.  I tried to find out if the quote was from Endacott himself or if he was actually quoting someone else, but I couldn't find a freely availabe version of the work online, and Google Books does not have a preview of this book.  But anyway, see if my edit looks good.[5]  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it looks fine. Jappalang (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The women organised Christmas... - Good catch.  That's a weird way for me to write that sentence and place the footnotes.  I've clarified that per your suggestion and added an extra footnote.[6]  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, there was also extensive adult education for the adults at camp. - I've expanded upon this and added exactly what kind of adult education was offered.[7]  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to get to the other issues a little later.  I think they may require some thought on how to address them.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite indications to the British internees that... - There were actually several indications from different sources that repatriation for the British internees was possible.  The source mentioned this in detail across several pages, and I tried to summarise the idea.  But I guess the way it was written was misleading.  I've expanded upon that and clarified exactly what the indications were.  Let me know what you think.[8]  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Well done (I did a copyedit to fit it with previous copyedits). That leaves only one obstruction (the Japanese held at Australia) to be addressed. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw your copyediting.  I really must stop over-using the word "that"!  Thanks.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The Allies determined that it was possible... - I read the passage in the source again (p. 74) and did not notice it mentioning the Japanese nationals' knowledge of the Australian coastline.  Although that may have been what the author was alluding to by first writing that they were pearl fishermen and then mentioning that they were "militarily important".  But he doesn't even go as far as to state that they were "militarily important" for having been pearl fishermen.  I'm not sure what I could add to that passage that would actually improve it.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok wait.  I see you are referring to the other Emerson source (BEHIND JAPANESE BARBED WIRE) and not the one used as a footnote for that passage.  Yes, in that other paper, Emerson does mention about the Japanese nationals' knowledge of the Australian coastline (p. 36).  I'll add that in now.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, done.  Let me know if it looks OK.[9]  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I have done a copyedit of your changes if that is okay with you. I have also moved the re-opening of St. Stephen's College into its own section since its mention in "Repatriation" is contextually out of place. Jappalang (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


### GA passed (01 Jan 2008)
The above concerns have been addressed, and this article is awarded a GA status for History (War and military). Congratulations! Jappalang (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  I'll see what I can do about your non-GA related suggestions before I bring this article to FAC.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

very interesting article. one question what does 'non-segregated' mean? were all races in together, or all sexes? ie were family groups allowed to stay together? this is different from some of the other camps where men seperated from women and children Batu Lintang camp is one. thanking you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.46.248 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 

The camp was specifically for non-Chinese civilian nationals of nations that were enemies with Japan.  It was "non-segregated" both in the sense of gender and races/ethnicities.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I found your article very interesting. Is it possible to link it to a transcription of the Day Joyce sheet or some other record of the prisoners? I think my grandfather and his mother and sisters may have been at this camp.
HongKongroots (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We can add an "External links" section for something like that.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone got details to add on about the Stanley Shield? That is a seven-a-side soccer tournament that they organised in the camp. The Shield ended up being one of the local soccer tournament. 14.2.121.76 (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)