text:
Talk:Concentration camp/Archive 1

Jew misspelled
Jews is spelled "Jewws" on the bottom of the Germany section

Soviet Camps
why is it that Soviet camps are described in the first line of the article, but nothing else is stated after that? I have been trying to find out information on German WWII POWS and can find absolutely none on wikipedia. I know there is loads of information on the topic out there, but it is nowhere on wikipedia. I give one big WTF to wikipedia, so much for it being a source of knowledge. I dont know how such a huge website with information about everything on non-importance can miss such a huge section.

--Jadger 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * At the time you posted your comment, the article had been vandalised and the section on "Russia and the Soviet Union" deleted. It was reinstated shortly afterwards. Pol098 13:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Murder/Execution
From Concentration camp: "Although exact numbers will never be known, it is estimated that approximately six million Jews and 600,000 homosexuals were murdered in Nazi concentration camps."

"Murder" implies extrajudicial killing, which is exactly what the Endlosung was not. Suggest changing to "executed" or some term which recognizes this.

The correct term is clearly 'murder'. The reason is the actions would be considered as murder by every fair court of law on the planet.

Ok :-)  You the writer. You seem to know what you're doing.

Murder is correct, because even the Nazis haven't changed the law in a way, that would have maken the Endlösung legal.

Concentration/Internment
You really need to clarify your definition. you say 'concentration camp is any blah blah blah of people for political purpose, forced labor, extermination, ' and then you go on to say "interment is used to refer to american camps for japanese" .... so which is it, american japanese camps are concentration camps or not?

You also need to consider the American slavery/plantation system, which was essentially a massive forced labor system, predominately based on ethnicity, that ended after a Civil War.

Churchill in the Boer War
I am suprised to see Churchill cited as a member of the British military during the Boer War. It was always my understanding he was there purely in the capacity of a war correspondent. sjc Later: he left the army in 1899, and became a war correspondent. While reporting the Boer War he was taken prisoner by the Boers but made headline news when he escaped, and, on returning to England, he wrote a book about his experiences. sjc

 * While some POWs were kept at NAZI camps they were not the reason for the camps. POWs are kept at POW camps. The Germans had POW camps as well as concentration camps. Also were the British Boer War camps POW camps or concentration camps? --rmhermen

 * In the Boer war, most POW's were shipped off to St Helena or Ceylon. The camps in which the Boer women and children were kept were called "concentration camps" by the British themselves. Down here, Kitchener is reviled to this day for his initiative in setting up these camps. Although not consciously intended as extermination devices, meagre rations and bad hygiene killed of between a quarter and a third of the inmates -- clasqm

 * Not extermination devices? Interesting. And what about all the acts of brutality recorded; mass graves (from obvious mass executions)? The Scorched earth policy should be defined better. Burning down absolutely everything in sight. Farms, houses, livestock and even wildlife were killed. -Gron

 * I agree, the article states that the concentration camps were initially designed as a form of humanitarian aid to protect women and children whose homes had been lost during the fighting. Most of the women and children had been forcefully evicted by the British and their farms burnt down as part of the scorched earth policy used by Kitchener to win the war. To say that it was in some way an act of kindness on behalf of the british is a lie and I will change it in a week if there are no objections. - John

Rummel's estimates
See this graphic for Rummel's estimates: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.TAB1.1.GIF

China
I made a number of changes to the China entry to make it more NPOV. I removed the statement that China currently has hundreds of concentration camps which isn't factual unless you want to define any prison as a concentration camp. Also, the statement that prison goods make up an insignificant part (i.e. less than 1%) of China's exports also needed to be in there. -- Chenyu

United States (WWII)
What about US camps for Americans of Japanese origin during WW2 ? --Taw

 * It's in there: "The term [Internment Camp]? is often used as an equivalent in other historical contexts, such as the imprisonment by the United States of [Japanese American]? citizens during World War II. However American internment camps did not involve forced labor or extermination, merely confinement."

Canada (WWI)
WRT the claims of Canadian concentration camps during WWI, could somebody provide some evidence please? --Robert Merkel
 * I was just thinkgin that, I'm putting the Totally disputed tag. And Ukraine was not part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire but the Czarist Russia. Falphin 7 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

Ukraine was never part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During WW1 it was part of the Russian Empire until 1917, when it seceded, although its independence was not recognised. You will have to find some other reason why the Canadians put Ukrainians in camps. Adam 15:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Maybe whoever wrote that referred to Galicians? It's still a stretch, though, I agree. --Shallot 16:19, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * I doubt the Canadians of 1917 knew a Galician from a Cardassian. In any case most Galicians are Poles, not Ukrainians. Adam 00:08, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I owe you a beer if you can prove the latter statement. Halibutt 06:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * "The former Austrian-Hungarian Empire was spread over a large part of Central Europe, comprising the present countries of Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slowakia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia as well as parts of present Poland, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, Moldova and Yugoslavia. Therefore most territorial arms within the empire no longer correspond to present states or provinces, and are discussed in this section. Parts that do correspond with present territories are dealt with in their respective modern countries, such as the present Austrian States, or are dealt with both in this section and in the appropriate country section not included here. (http://www.istrianet.org/istria/heraldry/austria-hungary/)"
 * a very small part belonged to Austri-Hungary pre WWI, Ukrainians were stuck between a world war forced on them and the soviet empire. Those who wanted none moved to the Austrai-Hungary part of the country to have the ability to emigrate to Canada. Because USA was very much against the Eastern European imigration they cut almost all imimigration from E. Europe. Canada was the opposite, oppened more imigration to E. Europe then to W. Europe. Ukraininas were of the majority. The concentration camps were not really concentration camps that Canada had for Japanese and Germans during the second world war, they were ungaurded and well thought of, more like cheap labor then slave labor, they were fed, cleaned etc.
 * Sergei Candell
 * Sergei Candell

I putting a few of my reasons here for the tag. I have other objections but this is a start. Falphin 7 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
 * 1) Ukraine was not part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire(at best some of the Western portion was.
 * 2) The article does not distinguish about the U.S. intermnent camps for Germans and Japanese compeltely different.
 * 3) Unsourced
 * 4) It states that the Canadians put them in Ukrainians for cheap labor, definetly needs a source.
 * 5) The article does not distinguish the difference between a Concentration camp, and an Internment camp.

I'm moving the offending paragraph here:

 * During World War I, thousands of Ukrainians were put into internment camps as "enemy aliens" to perform forced labor in steel mills, forestry, etc. This is partly because Ukraine was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, partly because capitalists wanted to exploit them for cheap labor, partly because of racism in Canada. Other Slavic citizens of Austria-Hungary were also interned, such as Serbs, Czechs and Slovaks.

There. No ugly template on top of the *whole article* is needed. --Joy [shallot]   7 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)

 * Thanks for fixing 2 of my objections. The rest of the article is very subjective still and doesn't have sources.  There is already an article on  Internment camps so a link would be better anyhow and a merge of the information to that article. I will give up the dispute tag so as not to get into a edit war. But I do believe this article could use a clean-up tag. Falphin 7 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

 * Oh, we won't get into any edit war if you simply explain why the whole article warrants the tag. Heck, I'd welcome it - it does look messy. --Joy [shallot]   8 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)

 * Here's a source, in case we want to put it back in.

Japan (WWII)
And could someone write about the internment by the Japanese of American, Canadian and European civilians during World War II? A Japanese woman I met in 1988 showed me a book describing the conditions in the Japaneses-run internment camps, and if I recall correctly they were much worse than Manzanar -- not that this excuses or justifies anything. I would just like to see things put in perspective. Ed Poor

Theresienstadt
AFAIK Theresienstadt was not a concentration camp, but a ghetto, and the Nazis put mainly old people there.

Should we correct this for accuracy's sake or should we leave it as it is a rather pedantic discrimination for most people??

--Korpo

I've seen Theresienstadt defined as a "ghetto" (not sure about correct term, I'm translating directly from spanish here, "gueto de tránsito") by some scholars, like Christopher R. Browning on his book "Ordinary men".

But on the Wiki entry for Theresienstadt, it states that it really was a concentration camp disguised as a normal town, or ghetto. So, I wouldn't change it until we find a normative definition.

--Richy

Theresienstadt was a ghetto and a transit camp (presumably what is meant by "collective point" -- must reword that). There were actually two seperate camps, the small fortress, which was used as a prison camp, and the large fortress which contained the town, and appeared more as a ghetto, though it was mostly a collection point for prisoners who had been transported from other ghettoes in the Reich, before they could be sent to other concentration or extermination camps.

--Paul

Theresienstadt was a garrison town, along with a fort, before the fort became a prison and the town became a ghetto/ concentration camp. Rickyrab 16:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Theresienstadt was the model concentration camp where Hitler allowed the press and media to visit to report to the public what went on in the concentration camps, but it was a sham. Most of the people who were taken to Theresienstadt were moved months later to the death camps.

Guantanamo Bay
I would greatly appreciate, just by the matter of definition that Guantanamo Bay as a camp were people due to their fighting for what they consider to be freedom are kept under let us say unfortunate circumstances (iron cages, soldiers with german shepherds, interrogations under let us say not really legal circumstances) was mentioned on this page

I don't believe Guantanamo Bay fits the definition even closely -- a concentration camp concentrates a particular group of people in camps. This is measured in thousands, not in dozens or even hundreds, and generally is noted for indiscriminately rounding people up (a la the Japanese internment during WW2), not for arresting suspected criminals. Guantanamo Bay is more along the lines of a POW camp in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which is a separate issue. --Delirium 07:53, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * From a dictionary: "concentration camp n. 1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions." I don't think the number of inmates matters. --Wik 07:59, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * I think that definition is a bit too broad. For example, one often hears of US soldiers held under harsh conditions in North Vietnamese POW camps, but I haven't heard these described as concentration camps.  The latter term seems very much limited to situations where you're basically herding a group of people into camps based on some identifying characteristic, whether they've done anything or not.  If we do expand the definition to include Guantanamo, we also need to include all the POW camps of WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and so on, none of which I think belong in this article. --Delirium 08:02, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * The key word is "soldiers". The Guantamo concentration camp holds civilians. // Liftarn

 * Looking at the first paragraph of this article, stating that:

 * "A 'concentration camp' is a large detention center created for political opponents, aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, often during a war. The term refers to situations where the internees are persons selected for their conformance to broad criteria without judicial process, rather than having been judged as individuals. Camps for prisoners of war are usually considered separately from this category, although informally (and in some other languages) they may also be called concentration camps."

 * I think that Guantanamo Bay can be counted as a concentration camp (unless you want to call it a torture camp), because the center is designated for political opponents, as stated in the definition. Osama bin Laden's driver cannot be considered a prisoner of war, because no war has been declared against his country. Still, he is in Guantanamo Bay. I think that the first three definitions fit most of the estimated 500 inmates (I remember reading this from Amnesty International), who are political opponents of the current govenment of the United States (not of Cuba though...), are aliens in the country where the camp is located and all belong to, with very few exceptions, to a specific ethnic or religious group. I repeat, the inmates of this camp are not prisoners of war, as they have not been granted the status of a POW.

 * "arresting suspected criminals"

 * Criminals, as in "driving the wrong guy's car" or as in "trying to delay an invasion force". Would you also count the world war two partisans as criminals? Their activity is very similar when compared to the activity of "terrorists" (well except that jumbo jets did not exist in those times).

 * "The key word is "soldiers". The Guantamo concentration camp holds civilians."

 * Were the Japanese in American concentration camps soldiers? Were the jews, gays, gypsies, gay jews and gay gypsies in Nazi camps soldiers? No.

 * Were the partisans in some nazi camps soldiers? No. Were they terrorists, as the word is interpreted today? Yes. Were they in comncentration camps? Yes. Why shouldn't then the modern "terrorists" be classified as concentration camp inmates? You tell me. --HJV 22:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because the vast majority of the concentration camps that these partisans fighting the Reich were herded into were already considered concentration camps due to the Reich's policies regardings jews, gypsies, etc who were already herded (concentrated) into the camps. Dachau was a concentration camp not because of the nacht und nebels decree but because of the wannsee conference -> It is remembered as a concentration camp for concentrating and (what is ultimately more important to the definition) anihilating a jews, gypsies, and other enemies of the Reich based on immutable characteristics (such as ethnicity). Although we remember them for their cruelty toward partisan fighters (as well as allied fighters) we do not remember them as concentration camps for that reason.

Guantanamo does not hold "civilians" nor does it hold "political prisoners" it holds "criminals" who specifically threaten the security of the United States in a direct manner. Basically - you do not get into Guantanamo by being an "islamist" that would be a political crime -> adhering to a dangerous/unorthodox/unacceptable political ideology. They are charged, rather, with violating actual crimes mala in se. Whether or not they or others believe they are "freedom fighters" is completely irrelevant as they are charged with violating international and national laws. Since international law that the United States is party to is unclear as to their rights, it would appear (at present) that their detainment is lawful. Although that is a tertiary point in light of the real issue - whether there is a link in the crimes they have been accused with that indicates X-Ray is concentrating a group of people injuriously and based on an immutable characteristic or political ideology.

We cannot get carried away with the definition. The group being concentrated has to be a suspect classication - otherwise there is no real difference between regular prisons which "concentrate" criminal populations, or POW camps which "concentrate" foreign fighters. -> The lines are already being blurred especially on the latter due to the bad treatment which is nearly expected in POW camps. Unless you can somehow show Guantanamo is concentrating a group of people because of a suspect classification (their religion/race) I don't believe it belongs.

Besides that I don't like the way the article presently deals with camp X-ray: Especially this part: ''Critics have labeled the incarceration facilities for al-Qaida and Taliban fighters at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay a concentration camp. No government, and few organizations, seem willing to characterize it as such; for instance, Amnesty International has criticized U.S. mistreatment of detainees, but does not refer to Camp X-Ray as a concentration camp.'' Basically all that is saying is that some "critics" who judging from the word are not an objective source consider the camp a concentration camp - and then it goes on to note that Amnesty International, All governments, and the majority of NGOs do not embrace the classification. I leave that part of the article thinking "so what the hell did they put it in the article for?!" It seems to me that the article is stressing this is more of a rhetorical device (dare I say an insult?) rather than a classification to be taken seriously. If that be the case it is probably more appropriate to move that section to the Camp X-Ray page rather than keeping it on the Concentration Camp page. -> For purposes of organization and clarity.

I thought Wikipedia is politically neutral till I read this piece on concentration camps and another one on capitalism. The line "Stalin's gulags were used to work and starve millions to death" could have fitted anywhere in a propaganda piece. The figures quoted are either imagined, or from dubious tertiary sources. Its not surprising Guatanamo concentration camp does not feature here, nor is it surprising that South American,  Spanish etc camps are not mentioned.

Rheinwiesenlager
How many people died in the Rheinwiesenlager?

 * To the person who wrote the comment above: I don't know, but Rummell has some estimates at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP13.HTM Perhaps you could write an article on the Rheinwiesenlager? (Rhine meadow camps?) -- The Anome 13:25, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Amnesty International's phrasing
... for instance, Amnesty International has criticized the US over allegations of mistreatment, but does not call Guantanamo a concentration camp. Amnesty is very carefully with its words and on the other site, the word they use can seen as proven facts. They avoid using a hard to define word like Concentration camp and wouldn't have used it for the Camps in Nazi Germany.

As so often, words acquire a meaning over time that conflicts with the original meaning - then that meaning is itself applied retrospectively.

Concentration camps were meant to "concentrate" the civilian population. They were not meant to be used to kill the inmates of the camps, or to punish them (they were not accused of any crime), though conditions in the camps were appalling and thousands died.

The Nazis applied the same term to camps that were in fact prison camps, or slave labor camps - a different thing entirely. The "death camps" are now synonymous with "concentration camps" - so we now have to coin a new phrase "internment camps" to describe what the concentration camps actually were - whilst giving Nazi apologists the chance to claim the British invented concentration camps - which while strictly true is extremely misleading.

Example - detention centres for Asylum seekers are "concentration camps" in the original meaning - but are clearly not "concentration camps" in the Nazi sense.

Exile 15:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gulag
I am not sure that the section about Soviet syslem of camps belong here at all, besides a summary and reference. Gulags *never* were considered as "concentration" camps. Their tradition is in the penal system of the Imperial Russia called katorga. It perfectly fit the idea of the "leading role of the working class", and the Soviet labor camps were claimed to serve the goal of "reeducation by labor", with a special term "reforging"("perekovka" in Russian). That they actually served as death camps by the virtue of extremely hard labor in extremal conditions is another issue, similar to the deadly irony of Nazi's "Arbeit macht frei" of Dachau, Sachsenhausen and Auschwitz. Mikkalai 17:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * While Soviet Camps, indeed, at no point in time were intended to serve as extermination camps, note that the term "concentration camps" was used to denote the camps set up and managed by the Cheka/GPU/OGPU in official documents until 1929, when the term "corrective labor camps" was introduced and used henceforth.

I am not sure that we should say that "at least 10 million died in the Gulag" without giving a reference. I presume this is an estimate in the Conquest-Pipes tradition. Recent scholarship disputes this. See

J. Arch Getty, Rittersporn, Zemskov, "Victims of the Soviet Penal System In the Pre-War Years, " American Historical Review, Vol. 98, no. 4 (1993), 1017-1050

Perhaps we should state how many deaths are backed by documentary proof, and then go over different people's estimates?

Harald

 * I didn't write that bit, but the 2004 Encyclopedia Brittannica has an entry for "Gulag" which says, "Western scholarly estimates of the total number of deaths in the Gulag in the period from 1918 to 1956 range from 15 to 30 million." Mackerm 05:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are referring to a tertiary source. We ought to read what "Western scholars" are currently estimating. "At least 10 million" does not match with the figures provided by the main anti-Stalinist Russian human-rights organization, for that matter.

Cyprus?
Should the camps for Jews who fleed Europe but were unable to reach Eretz Israel under the British mandate of Palestine because of the immigration quota and therefore were being "concentrated" in Cyprus be also included here? ---Humus sapiens Talk 00:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Concentration camp definition in Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed.
This is the definition from the OED, printed in 1989:

 * 7. attrib.: concentration camp, a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45

Note that Konzentrationslager (abbreviated KZ) is a literal translation from the English term. Mackerm 15:26, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

deathcamps.org/websites/jupeng.htm seems up-to-date (List of German KZ camps for future reference). Mackerm 15:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This definition was removed form text by kwertii, but the info about Lord Kitchener is nowhere else. Must be restored. Mikkalai 15:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

UK
'Irish nationals' were not interned in the UK. At least not as described here. There was 'selective internment' in Northern Ireland. This did not lead directly to Home Rule as stated here. It could be considered to have contributed to the imposition of direct rule of NI from London.

Listing order of the countries...
is there any rhyme or reason in the order in which the countries are listed? why is Cuba first, the Netherlands last? ✈ James C. 21:08, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

 * Looks like it started out in chronological order (cribbed from the Encyclopedia Britannica), and people added more countries where they pleased. Mackerm 21:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * okay... seeing that, does anyone have any objections regarding an alphabetization of the country listing? also,  feel free to do it yourself if you want. ✈ James C. 07:28, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

 * I think chronological makes the most sense. Mackerm 08:25, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Chronological seems sensible to me too - I'll pause for comments (though it seems unlikely since the last one was in August), and then rearrange the sections by earliest date, unless someone beats me to it. The current order is a mess. Paul 4 October 2004

 * Chronological is not doable because for some countries the page describes various periods - which do you choose for the US, the date of the first camps (Indian removal), or the date of the last ones (Guantanamo)? --Joy [shallot]   09:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I see two options - either split up entries per chronological periods (meaning some countries would be mentioned more times), or sort countries alphabetically. The former option sounds better to me, because it makes sense to bind all the WWII camps together etc. --Joy [shallot]   09:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * As Joy suggests, it makes some sense to refactor the article into time periods: perhaps before 20th century, WW1, WW2, post WW2. The price - that you have to read several places to see what any one country did - seems a small one.
 * More simply (or as an interim measure) the countries could be ordered chronologically. Pragmatically, I would suggest earliest use of concentration camps - if only because "latest use" is theoretically subject to change and could see countries jumping around the article. And countries change their names (The Congo -> Zaire -> Demoratic Republic of Congo; Russia -> USSR -> Russian Federation, etc), so that's less stable too. - Paul 12:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

German concentration camps
I can't find an article on German concentration camps during WWII. There are separate entries for Holocaust, Final solution, different camps listed separately, there is even a list of Camps in Poland during World War II. However, I can't find a list of all German camps during WWII wherever they were. Is there such a list? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I found this a while ago: deathcamps.org/websites/jupeng.htm
 * Mackerm 00:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me - I pasted this below in error - I guess my comment goes in this section:

I also can't find a listing of German concentration camps during the second world war. I was particularly looking for a listing of camps (and information about those camps) in Romania - I found web information, but some of it, through the Wiesenthal Center, is being updated at present, and therefore unavailable.

Ropers' Sept 11 edit
I disagree with the changed definition. I plan to replace it with the Oxford English Dictionary'd def. because it is a touchy subject.

The entries should also be kept in chronological order, rather than alphabetical. That's the way the page was originally, and it gradually got mixed up. Mackerm 05:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also can't find a listing of German concentration camps during the second world war. I was particularly looking for a listing of camps (and information about those camps) in Romania - I found web information, but some of it, through the Wiesenthal Center, is being updated at present, and therefore unavailable.

Israel/ Sabra and Shatila Massacre
Has Israel ever put Palestinians in concentration camps? The Gaza Strip looks suspiciously like a very big concentration camp to me, who's never been there, but reads about it. Rickyrab 05:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did the Sabra and Shatila Massacre involve concentration camps? If so, who the heck ran them? Rickyrab 06:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think refugee camps can count as Concentration Camps if the refugees are not imprisoned, and are allowed by whoever runs the camp to leave (to go home, say) - Paul 4 October 2004

Saipan Internment Camp 1944

But now the wall is being built, is it still not a concentration camp?

>>The wall isn't to keep anybody in. It's to keep terrorists out. The refugee camps certainly can't count, as they aren't even prisons, let alone concentration camps. The residents of the Palestinian refugee camps, allegedly "run off their ancient homeland" by Israel, have numerous Muslim nations to immigrate to, and have had over half a century to do so. The reason they continue to avoid moving to a more stable community (Are there such things in the Middle East?)is that their leaders continue to tell them that by sacrificing their lives to disgrace Israel, they will assure their passage into heaven. And calling ANYTHING a concentration camp besides Hitler's camps, or Stalin's gulags, is demeaning to the tortures endured by the suffering inmates there. Imprisoned for no reason but the insanity of their leaders, with no imaginable justification, and forced to undergo the most horrendous, nightmarish torments in all of History.

"This article should include material from ESMA"
This article has been prefixed "This article should include material from ESMA". I have the opinion that it should not, and that this comment should be deleted, and the separate article on ESMA (which I had expanded) should also be deleted, but will leave it to others to decide.

There was originally a short section on camps in Argentina; and a separate article on ESMA, which was just one among many camps. I expanded the section on camps in Argentina, and included a link to a paper which, amongst other things, lists all known camps. Either no details of any camps should be included (as they are well documented in the link given); or a list of all camps should be included (possibly as a separate article). Singling out ESMA, alone, seems an aberration. 213.208.107.91 23:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

early French colonization in North Africa

 * During the early part of the colonial period, such camps were used mostly to forcably remove Arabs, Berbers and Turks from the fertile areas of land and settle primarlily French, Spanish and Maltese settlers. It has been estimated that between 1830 and 1900 between 15 and 25% of the Algerian population died in such camps.

Do we have references for that? I must say that this is the first time I have heard of any such camps in the early French colonization in Algeria. David.Monniaux 09:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

anybody here who understands German well?
Please have a short look. I didn't know these US-details. ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konzentrationslager )

[quote] USA

Zu Beginn des 2. Weltkrieges richteten die USA Concentration-Camps für alle potentiell gefährlich werden könnenden Bürger japanischer oder deutscher Abstammung ein. Bekannt wurden insbesondere die kalifornischen Camps, weil sich dort die meisten japanstämmischen Familien aufhielten. Gerichtsbeschluss war weder damals noch heute nötig für die Zwangseinweisungen.

Heute betreiben die USA Konzentrationslager auf Kuba (US-Stützpunkt Guantanamo Bay) und auf einigen weniger bekannten Inseln im Pazifik. Es genügt der Vorwurf, einer bestimmten Gruppe anzugehören. Neben diesen Offshore-Konzentrationslagern betreiben die USA auch Konzentrationslager auf US-Territorium. (vgl. [8] (http://www.bunkahle.com/Forum/YaBB.cgi?board=neues;action=display;num=1097833121))

'''Eine besondere Form neuzeitiger US-KZs stellen die Tiefbunker-KZs dar, die in vielen US-Bundesstaaten neuerdings entstanden sind, bei denen an der Oberfläche ein freundliches, überschaubares Verwaltungsgebäude hinter Stacheldraht steht, und die Insassen mehrere Stockwerke tief niemals das Tageslicht zu sehen bekommen. Meist sitzen dort Lebenslängliche, Mörder und sonstige nie wieder die Freiheit bekommen sollende Personen dort in hochmodernen Kaninchenställen bis zu ihrem Ende. Einen Aufruhr oder Protest dort ist noch nie bekannt geworden.'''

Die US-Konzentrationslager dienen nicht der gezielten Vernichtung. Unzweifelhaft ist jedoch, dass die "Haltungsbedingungen" der Internierten, welche von Menschenrechtsorganisationen scharf gerügt werden, geeignet sind, um die Insassen der Konzentrationslager physisch und psychisch zugrunde zu richten. [9]

[quote/]

If this bold-marked information should be correct ... --217.64.171.188 10:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a crock. It's calling maximum security prisons concentration camps, which they are not. (They're horrible dreadful things, but they aren't concentration camps.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)    Why not? --172.177.188.17 23:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

rachel & wanda was here 2005 holla @ cha gurlz<3

France
The text that says France only had one Nazi camp is misleading. There were several concentration camps in France before and during World War II. For example, Jews from Baden and surrounding areas were deported to Camp De Gurs and others in the Pyrennes in October of 1940. Gurs was originally for refugees from the Spanish Civil War, but was adapted as one of the first concentration camp for German Jews. More information at this link.

deathcamps.org/reinhard/drancy.html

The entry (and the list of German concentration camps) should be updated.

Aliens?
Who wrote that alien thing in this definition?:

A concentration camp is a large detention center created for political opponents, aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, often during a war.

I hope nobody gets confused and thinks you mean extraterristrial life!

cuba deleted
The following section deleted. This article about very specific term: "concentration camp", and there is no reason to have a section about some similarly sounding word, not to say with incorrect explanation.
 * --Cuba--
 * The word "concentration" in the context of forcible internment was first used during the Third Cuban War of Independence (1895-1898) by the then Spanish military governor, Valeriano Weyler. Weyler's policy of "reconcentración" resulted in the mass movement of rural populations to suburban areas of large cities, in an effort to cut off the widespread support the Cuban rebel government then enjoyed. The measure was a product of Spanish desperation at its army's mounting losses in men and territory to the rebels, and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths (largely of women, children and the elderly) to disease, overcrowding, and exposure. The policy left a bitter legacy in the Cuban political consciousness, felt even to this day, and the worldwide horror that such an atrocity inspired (fomented by the yellow journalism of the Hearst newspapers) rallied support in the United States for a war against Spain.

mikka (t) 16:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It was ''reconcentraion", not concentration
 * It was "resettlement" or population transfer, not "internment"
 * Such movement of population is not Cuban/Spanish invention
 * We are not going to explain who first used the word "camp", do we?
 * If it was a notable phenomenon, why not write a separate article about it?

--Sweden-- I have taken the liberty of editing this page so that the wartime Swedish government is not calles a "pro-Nazi regimé" are there any resonable objections? Pelegius 15:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
Roma people has been nominated to be improved on the Improvement Drive. Support this article with your vote and help us improve it to featured status!--Fenice 10:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Argentina
The entire section on Argentina was deleted, without explanation:

16:54, 16 February 2006 207.232.162.3 (→Argentina)

I have reinstated it. If anybody notices a repetition, perhaps they would care to re-reinstate. The content is here (comment updated 1Mar06):

08:30, 1 March 2006 Gbinal

Pol098 23:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spain / Franco
Hey... the concentration camps in spain under franco are missing... someone should add them.

Origin of "concentration"
In the introduction to the article, it states that "The word 'concentration' indicates a regional concentration, or to collect the group desired, but it also implies the crowded, and often unhealthy, state of the facilities" - a somewhat confusing description in and of itself. However, the history and usage section says that "The term 'concentration camp' was coined at this time [the Boer War] to signify the 'concentration' of a large number of people in one place." The second statement seems to imply that in fact, the "crowded, and often unhealthy, state of the facilities" is in fact the primary reason for the use of the term "concentration" to describe a camp. Perhaps the first statement should be changed to reflect this? [Oops, forgot to sign my comment. SeaworthyViolin 00:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)]

Donnog's changes
User:Donnog has made some pretty dramatic changes to the article; let's discuss them here. To me, they seem strongly POV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The dramatic and strongly POV change was rather that the anon deleted the section dealing with concentration camps in Poland. I've translated the text from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konzentrationslager#Polen Donnog 12:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed your entry again. You're putting in propaganda as fact. See Bromberg Bloody Sunday. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

The text is a direct translation of the German article. If you have a problem with anything, discuss it first at the discussion page here. Donnog 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

German article on concentration camps states:

"Nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg wurde in Polen in den vorher - bis 1918 - zu Deutschland gehörenden Gebieten das ehemalige deutsche Kriegsgefangenenlager Szczypiorno vom polnischen Staat als Internierungslager für die in ihrer Heimat verbliebene deutsche Zivilbevölkerung weitergenutzt, ebenso das Lager Stralkowo. Es kam dort zu schwersten Menschenrechtsverletzungen und unmenschlichen Quälereien (Folter) wie sie für Konzentrationslager kennzeichnend sind. Nach 1926 wurden weitere KZ eingerichtet, nicht nur für Deutsche, sondern auch für Ukrainer und andere Minderheiten in Polen sowie für polnische Oppositionelle, die Lager Bereza-Kartuska und Brest-Litowsk. Über die Zahl der dort Inhaftierten und Ermordeten wurden offizielle Zahlen nicht bekanntgegeben. Von Anfang bis September des Jahres 1939 kamen weitere Lager für Deutsche hinzu, u.a. in Chodzen. Es kam in diesem Zeitraum zu einer gesteigerten Anzahl von Massenverhaftungen und Pogromen an der deutschen Bevölkerung, die zur Flucht von Zehntausenden führte. Aus 1131 Ortschaften in Posen und Pommerellen kam es zu Verschleppungsmärschen in Lager. Nach dem Einmarsch der deutschen Wehrmacht am 1. September 1939 kam es zum Pogrom des sogenannten Bromberger Blutsonntag vom 3. September 1939."

What are you objecting to? Donnog 14:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your translation is flawed, hopefully not deliberately. In particular: You've entered, "Infamous is the pogrom against Germans in Bydgoszcz/Bromberg, known to Germans as Bromberger Blutsonntag." Besides the fact that it's not literate English, the German actually reads Nach dem Einmarsch der deutschen Wehrmacht am 1. September 1939 kam es zum Pogrom des sogenannten Bromberger Blutsonntag vom 3. September 1939: "After the invasion of the Wehrmact..was the so-called Bromberger Bloody Sunday". There's also some other inaccuracies -- that's the problem with automated translations. A comical one: "In 1,131 places in Poznan/Posen and Pomerania German civilians were sent into marshs to concentration camps." A "verschleppungsmarsch" is a "forced march", not a "marsh". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Except for misspelling of march and a wording that may well be better, I see no serious problems with the translation with regard to its content. Donnog 00:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope not -- I don't think you'd knowingly introduce bad translations. Maybe it's nuance that you're missing -- you're not a native English speaker, so you might not understand the subtle but vital difference between "sogenannte" and "known to the Germans as". "Sogenannte" carries the same sneer in German as "so-called" does in English -- the implication is that it might be called that, but calling it that is somehow suspect. In this particular case, the so-called Bloody Sunday is highly controversial (as the German article points out); whether it actually happened or not is very much at issue. Thing is, you've been making subtle and less subtle changes in other articles that hint at POV. For example, in ODESSA, you changed the truthful "anti-Nazi activists Serge and Beate Klarsfeld" to "Zionist activists Serge and Beate Klarsfeld"; but what they are known as to the world is Nazi hunters, as the article about them makes clear. In the same article, you changed "war crime charges" (the truth) to "political persecution" (it's a POV to say something is political persecution). And for some reason, you've changed "Nazis" to "national socialists"; I'm not sure why, other than to soften the impact of who ODESSA was protecting; I mean, ODESSA means "organization of former SS members", and it's hard to get more Nazi than that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * In the ODESSA page you are describing people as "rats" which is nothing but POV as well as racist. I've changed some obviously POV wordings into wordings in accordance with the NPOV policy. Nazis was changed to national socialist because that is the proper term, not the slang term. The Klarsfelds are well-known Zionist activists, using the word "hunter" in regard to human beings may be considered POV. Anyway, this is not the discussion page for the ODESSA article. As for the word "so-called", I seriously doubt it was meant as "suspect", it may also be used in a total neutral sense. Donnog 19:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of Internment; Proposed Split of Concentration Camp
Internment meets the definition of Concentration camp in this article. The fact that Internment offers only Anglophone countries, suggests a POV fork, for people who don't want to think of Concentration camps happening in their countries. If there's a difference, it needs to be way more clear.-- TheMightyQuill 12:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This page has been seriously bugging me for a long time. I think the ultimate solution is to split it. This page should be about the history of the term "concentration camp", and the split page should be a "list of places described as concentration camps". (And do likewise for "internment"). Mackerm 16:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The term "concentration camp" brings to mind mass murder, which doesn't apply to many of these things. The average reader probably won't take the time to look up the official definition. -Unknownwarrior33 22:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * That's really why I suggested it. When I hear "Concentration Camp", I think Nazi KZ camps. I realize that the term has historically meant something closer to "detention center", but I believe that when people claim that usage today, they're probably doing it for shock value. Mackerm 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that the general population might think concentration camp = death camp, but that doesn't make that definition correct or NPOV. I totally splitting into two sections, 1) an NPOV definition of Concentration and Internment and 2) a List of Concentration and Internment Camps. A link at the top to Nazi extermination camp would be a good idea, but there were plenty of Nazi concentration camps that weren't death camps. -- TheMightyQuill 10:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose merger of Internment into this article on Concentration camps. The two terms are not synonomous in the English language.  If we haven't made that clear to date then we need to work on it.--A Y Arktos\talk 09:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess not every case of internment involves a concentration camp, so I don't think a merge would be a good idea. -- 790 09:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The words are not synonymous in that one has bad connotations, and the other does not. But that's a POV definition, not a legitimate one. Someone cite an example of internment that does not concentrate "political opponents, enemy aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people" into "one place, where they can be watched by those who incarcerated them." This article clearly states that internment is just PC newspeak. If concentration camp really only refers to Nazi camps & Soviet gulags, then the historical origin of the word is being rewritten. -- TheMightyQuill 12:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * But what's with dissidents in, say, China? Or with that Russian                                                                                Chodorowsky millionaire? I think there are enough examples of internment without concentration camps. And what's with Camp X-Ray? Clearly there are people interned there, but I don't think it would be consensual to call it a concentration camp. -- 790 14:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would camps for dissidents in Communist Russia be placed in "concentration" camps, but dissidents in China placed in "internment" camps? What's the difference? I don't know which Russian millionaire you're talking about. You could argue that camp x-ray is more like a POW camp, even if they aren't treated as POW's. That's a little tricky, but I would say language surrounding the inmates is uhh... cloudy at best. A better example might be child soldiers, who are not treated as POWs, but I don't think concentration camp (or internment camp for that matter) would accurately describe their detainment centres, since concentration is not the intention, but (hopefully) rehabilitation. -- TheMightyQuill 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * In Australia in WW1 we interned German people - that is the verb used and was used at the time - into internment camps.  They were enemy aliens at the time, it was a practice not unique to Australia, for example enemy aliens were interned in Canada and the US as well.  To use the word concentration camp for the link, even a pipe link and thus equate those camps with Nazi camps would be very very wrong.  Dealing with enemy aliens during war time is one thing, imprisoning people because of race or ethnicity (gypsies), sexuality, religion (Jews) is quite another.  The words concentration camp and internment camp have different connotations and it is not NPOV to use them synonomously.  I don't disagree that we don't need to watch our NPOV, particularly as per the Chinese and Russian example as above.  If we merge, I  would prefer to merge under the term Internment camp and say all camps are internment camps.  Some of those camps are descibed as concentration camps; infamous examples of internment camps to which the term concentration camp has been used to describe are ....

 * Meriam-Webster defines internment as a noun associated with the verb intern: to confine or impound especially during a war . The dictionary's definition for concentration camp is a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined. Enemy aliens are not the same as "prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees".--A Y Arktos\talk 21:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Wait, by your definition, there's a difference between dealing with enemy aliens and imprisoning people because of ethniticy? The wording you are using is so clearly POV: by "dealing" you are avoiding the word imprisoning, and germans are an ethnic group. Canadian Japanese weren't interned based on their support for Japan, but based on their ethnicity. Full stop. Neither were they necessarily "aliens" since full citizens with Japanese heritage could also be interned. Whether it was justified is POV. Please note that not ethnic Iraqis in Australia/Canada/USA were all interned during the gulf wars. Draw your own conclusions.
 * If you want to merge everyhting under "internment camp" that's fine for me, but seems a little strange since "concentration camp" is obviously a more well known word. I realise you feel there is a difference, but the fact that you are unable to clearly define the difference suggests to me a POV. -- TheMightyQuill 10:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The difference is that enemy aliens are defined by nationality and being at war with that nationality. Ethnicity includes the gypsies, with whom the Third Reich were not at war with but did place in concentration camps - ref Porajmos.  If a nation decides to ignore allegiance (eg acquired citizenship) and go back further in time to determine who is and is not an enemy alien, that is presumably either lawful or otherwise.  The government is chosing to ignore any naturalization process or even birth in a country to parents not also born in that country, and determining that such people are "a citizen of a country which is in a state of war with the land in which he or she is located."  'Dealing with" may or may not include imprisonment.  It may require reporting to a central authority for example.  In WW1 and WW2 "dealing with" enemy aliens often involved internment.  As User:Themightyquill points out, in more recent times Iraqis have not been interned by countries at war with Iraq, nor I believe were Argentinians interned when Britain was at war in the Falklands.  Many things have moved on - some countries no longer have the death penalty either (Australia for example).  I am able to distinguish between the two, but if you don't wish to distinguish then the common term is internment camp, concentration camp as a term has a very heavy overlay of meaning and is generally associated with the Nazi regime and other regimes that have been viewed with disfavour (and yes that is POV but the term is POV and read by The man on the Clapham omnibus that way).  The term is also a translation from Konzentrationslager, perhaps this article on concentration camps should focus on Konzentrationslager.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're getting closer to agreement.

Please, see the article we are discussing Concentration_camp. It says:

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. defines concentration camp as: a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by    Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45

"In the English-speaking world, the term 'concentration camp' was first used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa during the 1899-1902 Second Boer War. Originally conceived as a form of humanitarian aid to the families whose farms had been destroyed in the fighting, the camps were later used to confine and control large numbers of civilians in areas of Boer guerilla activity."

a) I doubt Concentration Camp is a translation of Konzentrationslager if it was used in 1899. b) it doesn't exclude the interment of enemy nationals during wartime.

I suggest we have one page under Internment, but using the current definition of Concentration Camp which does mention: "Over the course of the twentieth century, the arbitrary internment of civilians by the authority of the state became more common and reached a climax with the practice of genocide in the death camps of the Nazi regime in Germany, and with the Gulag system of forced labor camps of the Soviet Union. As a result of this trend, the term "concentration camp" carries many of the connotations of "extermination camp" and is sometimes used synonymously. A concentration camp, however, is not by definition a death-camp."

Then we have a separate list of Internment and Concentration Camps. People can make up their own minds which is which. Of course, Nazi extermination camp should be kept separate, but linked to from the other two pages.

What do you say? -- TheMightyQuill 12:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to Prison Planet?
Is it just me, or is having a link to the Prison Planet (anti-NWO website) article out of place here? Just because the authors of that site believe "that there are concentration camps being constructed in the U.S. to house anyone that is considered a threat" doesn't make on par with links to articles of actual concentration camps. --mtz206 12:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust template
Do we really need the Holocaust template in the Germany section? And if we do, could someone maybe fix it so it doesn't generate so much whitespace? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed New Page
I think this page, and Internment should be replaced with something like Sandbox/Internment. The country by country listing on this page should move to List of concentration and internment camps.

Any discussion? -- TheMightyQuill 16:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I essentially agree. At this heading I suggested making the article "concentration camp" a discussion of the term. If kids want to put their after-school detention in a seperate list of concentration camps, it'll do less damage. Mackerm 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Concentration camp/Archive 1


text:
Cleveland Browns

The Cleveland Browns are a professional American football team based in Cleveland. The Browns compete in the National Football League (NFL) as a member club of the American Football Conference (AFC) North division. The team is named after original coach and co-founder Paul Brown. They play their home games at Cleveland Browns Stadium, which opened in 1999, with administrative offices and training facilities in Berea, Ohio. The franchise's official club colors are brown, orange, and white. They are unique among the 32 member clubs of the NFL in that they do not have a logo on their helmets.

The franchise was founded in 1944 by Brown and businessman Arthur B. McBride as a charter member of the All-America Football Conference (AAFC), and began play in 1946. The Browns dominated the AAFC, compiling a 47–4–3 record in the league's four seasons and winning its championship in each. When the AAFC folded after the 1949 season, the Browns joined the NFL along with the San Francisco 49ers and the original Baltimore Colts. The Browns won a championship in their inaugural NFL season, as well as in the 1954, 1955, and 1964 seasons, and in a feat unequaled in any of the North American major professional sports, played in their league championship game in each of their first 10 years of existence, winning seven of those games. From 1965 to 1995, they qualified to play in the NFL playoffs 14 times, but did not win another championship or play in the Super Bowl during that period.

In 1995, owner Art Modell, who had purchased the Browns in 1961, announced plans to move the team to Baltimore. After threats of legal action from the city of Cleveland and fans, a compromise was reached in early 1996 that allowed Modell to establish the Baltimore Ravens as a new franchise while retaining the contracts of all Browns personnel. The Browns' intellectual property, including team name, logos, training facility, and history, were kept in trust and the franchise was regarded by the NFL as suspended, guaranteed to return no later than the 1999 season, either by relocation of an existing franchise or an expansion draft. While several of the existing franchises at the time considered relocating to Cleveland, in 1998 it was confirmed that the NFL would hold an expansion draft and field 31 teams when the Browns resumed play in 1999. And although the 1999 Browns were restocked via an expansion draft, the Browns are not considered to be an expansion franchise.

Since resuming operations in 1999, the Browns have struggled to find success, especially during the 2010s when they did not post one winning season throughout that decade. They have had only four winning seasons (2002, 2007, 2020, and 2023), three playoff appearances (2002, 2020, and 2023), and one playoff win (2020), winning less than one third of their games in total, and in 2017 were only the second team in NFL history to have a 0–16 season after the 2008 Detroit Lions. The franchise has also been noted for a lack of stability with head coaches (10 full time - including two who were fired after only one season - and two interim since 1999) and quarterbacks (38 different starters since 1999). From 2003 to 2019, the Browns had a 17-season playoff drought, which ended during the 2020 season. They are one of four teams to have never appeared in a Super Bowl.

History
The Cleveland Browns were founded in 1944 when taxi-cab magnate Arthur B. "Mickey" McBride secured a Cleveland franchise in the newly formed All-America Football Conference (AAFC). Paul Brown was the team's namesake and first coach. The Browns began play in 1946 in the AAFC. The Browns won each of the league's four championship games before the league dissolved in 1949. The team then moved to the more established National Football League (NFL), where it continued to dominate. Between 1950 and 1955, Cleveland reached the NFL championship game every year, winning three times.

McBride and his partners sold the team to a group of Cleveland businessmen in 1953 for a then-unheard-of $600,000. Eight years later, the team was sold again, this time to a group led by New York advertising executive Art Modell. Modell fired Brown before the 1963 season, but the team continued to win behind running back Jim Brown. The Browns won the championship in 1964 and reached the title game the following season, losing to the Green Bay Packers.

When the AFL and NFL merged before the 1970 season, Cleveland became part of the new American Football Conference (AFC). While the Browns made it back to the playoffs in 1971 and 1972, they fell into mediocrity through the mid-1970s. A revival of sorts took place in 1979 and 1980, when quarterback Brian Sipe engineered a series of last-minute wins and the Browns came to be called the "Kardiac Kids". Under Sipe, however, the Browns did not make it past the first round of the playoffs. Quarterback Bernie Kosar, whom the Browns drafted in 1985, led the team to three AFC Championship games in the late 1980s but lost each time to the Denver Broncos.

In 1995, Modell announced he was relocating the Browns to Baltimore, sowing a mix of outrage and bitterness among Cleveland's dedicated fan base. Negotiations and legal battles led to an agreement where Modell would be allowed to take his personnel to Baltimore as an expansion franchise, called the Baltimore Ravens, but would leave Cleveland the Browns' colors, logos and heritage for a reactivated Browns franchise that would take the field no later than 1999.

After three years of inactivity while Cleveland Stadium was demolished and Cleveland Browns Stadium was built on its site, the Browns were reactivated and started play again in 1999 under new owner Al Lerner. The Browns struggled throughout the 2000s and 2010s, posting a record of 101–234–1 (.300) since their 1999 return. The Browns have only posted four winning seasons and three playoff appearances (2002, 2020, 2023) since returning to the NFL. The team's struggles have been magnified since 2012, when the Lerner family sold the team to businessman Jimmy Haslam. In six seasons under Haslam's ownership, the Browns went through four head coaches and four general managers, none of whom had found success. In 2016 and 2017 under head coach Hue Jackson, the Browns went 1–31 (.30, including a winless 0–16 season in 2017), the worst two-year stretch in NFL history, and received the number one overall draft pick in both of those years. In 2020, the Browns secured their first playoff berth since 2002 by defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers in week 17 and finishing the season 11–5.

Logos
The Browns are the only National Football League team without a helmet logo. The logoless helmet serves as the Browns' official logo. The organization has used several promotional logos throughout the years; players' numbers were painted on the helmets from 1957 to 1960; and an unused "CB" logo was created in 1965. But for much of their history, the Browns' helmets have been an unadorned burnt orange color with a top stripe of dark brown (officially called "seal brown") divided by a white stripe.

The team has had various promotional logos throughout the years, such as the "Brownie Elf" mascot or a Brown "B" in a white football. While Art Modell did away with the elf in the mid-1960s (believing it to be too childish), its use has been revived since the team's return in 1999. The popularity of the Dawg Pound section at First Energy Stadium has led to a brown and orange dog being used for various Browns functions. But overall, the orange, logo-less helmet continues as the primary trademark of the Cleveland Browns. The Browns have used special commemorative logos during individual seasons, such as the 1999 logo to celebrate the team's return to the NFL, a 60th-anniversary logo for the 2006 season, and a 75th-anniversary logo in 2021.

The current logos and wordmarks were introduced on February 24, 2015, with the helmet design remaining largely as is, the only differences being minor color changes to the shade of orange used on the helmet and the facemask being changed from gray to brown. A new secondary "dawg" logo was introduced in 2023. The logo, featuring a bull mastiff dog, was created by graphic designer Houston Mark and was the winning entry of a fan vote. It features numerous small homages to the city of Cleveland, state of Ohio, and the team's history.

For the 2022 season, by virtue of a fan poll, a version of the Brownie elf logo was featured at midfield at FirstEnergy Stadium.

Uniforms
The original designs of the jerseys, pants, and socks remained mostly the same, but the helmets went through many significant revisions throughout the years. The Browns uniforms saw their first massive change prior to the 2015 season.

Jerseys:
 * 1) Brown – brown (officially "seal brown") with orange-colored numbers and writing, and an orange-white-orange stripe sequence on the sleeves.
 * 2) White (away) – white with orange numbers and writing, with a brown-orange-brown stripe sequence.
 * 3) Orange – orange with white numerals and writing, and a brown-white-brown stripe sequence.

Pants:
 * 1) Brown – brown pants with an orange-white-orange stripe sequence down two-thirds the length of the pants. The other third is the word "BROWNS," written in orange.
 * 2) White – white pants with a brown-orange-brown stripes. "BROWNS" is written in brown.
 * 3) Orange – orange pants with a brown-white-brown stripe sequence. "BROWNS" is written in brown.

Socks:
 * 1) Solid brown.
 * 2) Solid white.
 * 3) Solid orange.

Helmet: Solid white (1946–1949); solid white for day games and solid orange for night games (1950–1951); orange with a single white stripe (1952–1956); orange with a single white stripe and brown numerals on the sides (1957–1959); orange with a brown-white-brown stripe sequence and brown numerals on the sides (1960); orange with a brown-white-brown stripe sequence (1961–1995 and 1999–present).

Over the years, the Browns have had on-and-off periods of wearing white for their home games, particularly in the 1970s and 80s, as well as in the early 2000s after the team returned to the league. Until recently, when more NFL teams have started to wear white at home at least once a season, the Browns were the only non-subtropical team north of the Mason-Dixon line to wear white at home on a regular basis.

Secondary numerals (called "TV numbers") first appeared on the jersey sleeves in 1961. Over the years, there have been minor revisions to the sleeve stripes, the first occurring in 1968 (brown jerseys worn in early season) and 1969 (white and brown jerseys) when stripes began to be silkscreened onto the sleeves and separated from each other to prevent color bleeding. However, the basic five-stripe sequence has remained intact (with the exception of the 1984 season). A recent revision was the addition of the initials "AL" to honor team owner Al Lerner who died in 2002; this was removed in 2013 upon Jimmy Haslam assuming ownership of the team.

Orange pants with a brown-white-brown stripe sequence were worn from 1975 to 1983 and become symbolic of the "Kardiac Kids" era. The orange pants were worn again occasionally in 2003 and 2004.

Other than the helmet, the uniform was completely redesigned for the 1984 season. New striping patterns appeared on the white jerseys, brown jerseys and pants. Solid brown socks were worn with brown jerseys and solid orange socks were worn with white jerseys. Brown numerals on the white jerseys were outlined in orange. White numerals on the brown jerseys were double outlined in brown and orange. (Orange numerals double outlined in brown and white appeared briefly on the brown jerseys in one pre-season game. ) However, this particular uniform set was not popular with the fans, and in 1985 the uniform was returned to a look similar to the original design. It remained that way until 1995.

In 1999, the expansion Browns adopted the traditional design with two exceptions: first, the TV numbers, previously on the sleeves, were moved to the shoulders; and second, the orange-brown-orange pants stripes were significantly widened.

Experimentation with the uniform design began in 2002. An alternate orange jersey was introduced that season as the NFL encouraged teams to adopt a third jersey, and a major design change was made when solid brown socks appeared for the first time since 1984 and were used with white, brown and orange jerseys. Other than 1984, striped socks (matching the jersey stripes) had been a signature design element in the team's traditional uniform. The white striped socks appeared occasionally with the white jerseys in 2003–2005 and 2007.

Experimentation continued in 2003 and 2004 when the traditional orange-brown-orange stripes on the white pants were replaced by two variations of a brown-orange-brown sequence, one in which the stripes were joined (worn with white jerseys) and the other in which they were separated by white (worn with brown jerseys). The joined sequence was used exclusively with both jerseys in 2005. In 2006, the traditional orange-brown-orange sequence returned.

Additionally in 2006, the team reverted to an older uniform style, featuring gray face masks; the original stripe pattern on the brown jersey sleeves (The white jersey has had that sleeve stripe pattern on a consistent basis since the 1985 season.) and the older, darker shade of brown.

The Browns wore brown pants for the first time in team history on August 18, 2008, preseason game against the New York Giants. The pants contain no stripes or markings. The team had the brown pants created as an option for their away uniform when they integrated the gray facemask in 2006. They were not worn again until the Browns "family" scrimmage on August 9, 2009, with white-striped socks. The Browns have continued to wear the brown pants throughout the 2009 season. Browns quarterback Brady Quinn supported the team's move to wearing the brown pants full-time, claiming that the striped pattern on the white pants "prohibit[ed] mobility". However, the fans generally did not like the brown pants, and after being used for only one season, the team returned to their white shirt-on-white pants in 2010. Coach Eric Mangini told The Plain Dealer the Browns won't use the brown pants anymore. "It wasn't very well-received," Mangini said. "I hope we can get to the point where we can wear fruit on our heads and people wouldn't notice." At the time, the brown pants weren't officially dropped by the team, but simply not used.

The Browns chose to wear white at home for the 2011 season, and wound up wearing white for all 16 games as when they were on the road, the home team would wear their darker colored uniform.

The Browns brought back the brown pants in their home game against the Buffalo Bills on October 3, 2013, on Thursday Night Football, pairing them with the brown jerseys. It marked the first time the team wore an all-brown combination in team history.

On April 14, 2015, the Cleveland Browns unveiled their new uniform combinations, consisting of the team's colors of orange, brown and white, but with the slight altering of the orange color to a slightly darker, but more vibrant matte orange (noticeable on the helmet, which featured a seal brown facemask), and seal brown and white, with orange numerals which featured a dropshaw (brown on the white road and orange alternate and white on the home brown jerseys). Above the jersey numerals, the word "CLEVELAND" appeared emblazoned in brown (orange on the home brown and white on the orange alternate jerseys) in a custom sans-serif font type.

The Browns brought back the all-brown look for the NFL Color Rush program in 2016, minus the white elements. In 2018, despite the Color Rush program being discontinued, the uniform was worn at home three times. For the 2019 season, the Browns promoted this uniform to their primary home uniform and donned it for six home games as well as any away game in which the home team wore white.

The club unveiled a new uniform design for the 2020 season. The new uniform design pays homage to the Browns' classic uniform design from years past.

In 2023, the Browns introduced new "White Out" uniforms, an all-white uniform, featuring a white helmet, that will be worn during select home games. This will mark the first time since 1950 the Browns will have non-orange helmets. The white helmets, which will feature an orange stripe down the middle flanked by two brown stripes (basically inverting the regular helmet's colors), are an homage to the early years of the franchise.

Rivalries
The Browns have rivalries with all three of their AFC North opponents. In addition, the team has had historical rivalries with the Denver Broncos, Detroit Lions, San Francisco 49ers, and Houston Oilers/Tennessee Titans.

Pittsburgh Steelers
Often called the "Turnpike Rivalry", the Browns' biggest rival has long been the Pittsburgh Steelers. Former Browns owner Art Modell scheduled home games against the Steelers on Saturday nights from 1964 to 1970 to help fuel the rivalry. The rivalry has also been fueled by the proximity of the two teams, number of championships both teams have won, players and personnel having played and/or coached for both sides, and personal bitterness. The teams have played twice annually since 1950, making it the oldest rivalry in the AFC and the fifth-oldest rivalry in the NFL. Though the Browns dominated this rivalry early in the series (winning the first eight meetings and posting a 31–9 record in the 1950s and 1960s), the Steelers went 15–5 in the 1970s and 36–9–1 since the Browns returned to the league in 1999. The Steelers have been particularly dominant in Pittsburgh, posting a 44–7 record when hosting the Browns since 1970, including to winning streaks of 16 games (1970–85) and 17 games (2004–20).

The Steelers currently hold a 79–61–1 lead. The Browns and Steelers met in the playoffs in, , and 2020, with the Steelers holding a 2–1 lead in the postseason series. Though the rivalry has cooled in Pittsburgh due to the Modell move as well as the Browns' poor play since 1999, the Steelers still remain the top rival for Cleveland.

Cincinnati Bengals
Originally conceived due to the personal animosity between Paul Brown and Art Modell, the "Battle of Ohio" between the Browns and the Cincinnati Bengals has been fueled by the sociocultural differences between Cincinnati and Cleveland, a shared history between the two teams, and similar team colors, as Brown used the exact shade of orange for the Bengals that he used for the Browns. (Though this has changed since then, as the Bengals now use a brighter shade of orange.) Modell, in fact, moved the Browns to the AFC after the AFL–NFL merger in order to have a rivalry with the Bengals. The rivalry has also produced two of the eleven highest-scoring games in NFL history. Cincinnati has the all-time edge 52–48. While the Bengals have a 28–21 edge since the Browns returned to the NFL in 1999, this series has been more competitive than the Browns' series with their other division rivals, and the Browns have won 9 of the last 11 meetings.

Baltimore Ravens
Created as a result of the Browns' relocation controversy, the rivalry between the Browns and Baltimore Ravens was more directed at Art Modell than the team itself, and is simply considered a divisional game in Baltimore. This matchup is more bitter for Cleveland than the others due to the fact that the draft picks for 1995 to 1998 resulted in the rosters that won the Super Bowl for the Ravens in 2000. Had Modell not moved the team, these teams, drafted by general manager and former Browns tight end Ozzie Newsome, might have given the Browns a title after a 35-year drought. The Ravens lead the overall series 34–12. The two teams have not met in the playoffs.

Detroit Lions
The Browns' rivalry with the Detroit Lions began in the 1950s, when the Browns and Lions played each other in four NFL Championship Games. The Lions won three of those championships, while the Browns won one. This was arguably one of the NFL's best rivalries in the 1950s. Since the NFL-AFL merger of 1970, the teams have met much less frequently with the Browns' move to the AFC. From 2002 to 2014, the two teams played an annual preseason game known as the "Great Lakes Classic".

Denver Broncos
The Browns had a brief rivalry with the Denver Broncos that arose from three AFC Championship Games from 1986 to 1989. In the 1986 AFC Championship, quarterback John Elway led The Drive to secure a tie in the waning moments at Cleveland Municipal Stadium; the Broncos went on to win in 23–20 in overtime. One year later, the two teams met again in the 1987 AFC Championship game at Mile High Stadium. Denver took a 21–3 lead, but Browns' quarterback Bernie Kosar threw four touchdown passes to tie the game at 31–31 halfway through the 4th quarter. After a long drive, John Elway threw a 20-yard touchdown pass to running back Sammy Winder to give Denver a 38–31 lead. Cleveland advanced to Denver's 8-yard line with 1:12 left, but Broncos' safety Jeremiah Castille stripped Browns' running back Earnest Byner of the football at the 2-yard line—a play that has been called The Fumble by Browns' fans. The Broncos recovered it, gave Cleveland an intentional safety, and went on to win 38–33. The two teams met yet again in the 1989 AFC Championship at Mile High Stadium, which the Broncos easily won by a score of 37–21.

This short-lived rivalry also featured a controversial 16–13 Browns' win at Cleveland Municipal Stadium in the 1989 regular season. The game was decided by a Matt Bahr 48-yard field goal as time expired - a kick that barely cleared the crossbar. Bahr's field goal came after referee Tom Dooley ordered the teams to switch ends of the field midway through the 4th quarter, thanks to rowdy Dawg Pound fans who pelted the Broncos with dog biscuits, eggs and other debris. The switch gave the Browns a small, timely wind advantage to finish the game.

More recently, the rivalry has cooled off as the Broncos won 11 straight meetings from 1991 to 2015 before Cleveland broke that streak with a narrow 17–16 win in. Denver leads the overall series, 24–7.

San Francisco 49ers
The most competitive team in the AAFC era for the Browns was the San Francisco 49ers. San Francisco finished second to the Browns in each of the four seasons that the league played. Two of the Browns' four losses in that era were to the 49ers (including a loss that ended the Browns' 29-game unbeaten streak); the rivalry did not last into the NFL years, particularly after the teams were placed in opposite conferences in. The rivalry has turned into a friendly relationship as many 49ers personnel helped the Browns relaunch in 1999, specifically former 49ers president and CEO Carmen Policy and vice president/director of football operations Dwight Clark, who were hired by the expansion Browns in the same roles. In addition, 49ers owners John York and Denise DeBartolo York reside in Youngstown, 60 mi southeast of Cleveland. Long-time Browns placekicker and fan favorite Phil Dawson and backup quarterback Colt McCoy signed with the 49ers in 2014.

Houston Oilers/Tennessee Titans
The Browns' rivalry with the Houston Oilers/Tennessee Titans dates back to the Browns and then-Oilers being placed in the AFC Central after the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. As such, the teams played each other twice annually from 1970 until 2002 when divisional realignment placed the Browns in the AFC North and the now-Titans in the AFC South (excluding 1996-98 when the Browns were inactive). The teams have met much less frequently since 2002. The Browns lead the overall series 37–32, and the 69 meetings with the Oilers/Titans are the third-most of any Cleveland opponent, trailing only the Steelers and Bengals.

The height of this rivalry was during the 1980s. Oilers head coach Jerry Glanville and Marty Schottenheimer shared several bitter exchanges during the decade and the Browns and Oilers had their only playoff meeting in the 1988 Wild Card Round, in which the Oilers came away with a narrow 24–23 victory. There have been a few memorable games in recent years. In, the Browns erased a 28–3 deficit to come away with a 29–28 win. In a December contest with playoff implications for both teams, the Browns jumped to a 38–7 halftime lead, setting a franchise record for points in the first half. However, Tennessee rallied in the second half but came up just short as the Browns hung on for a 41–35 win.

Fan base
A 2006 study conducted by Bizjournal determined that Browns fans are the most loyal fans in the NFL. The study, while not scientific, was largely based on fan loyalty during winning and losing seasons, attendance at games, and challenges confronting fans (such as inclement weather or long-term poor performance of their team). The study noted that Browns fans filled 99.8% of the seats at Cleveland Browns Stadium during the last seven seasons, despite a combined record of 36–76 over that span.

Dawg Pound
Perhaps the most visible Browns fans are those that can be found in the Dawg Pound. Originally the name for the bleacher section located in the open (east) end of old Cleveland Municipal Stadium, the current incarnation is likewise located in the east end of FirstEnergy Stadium and still features hundreds of orange and brown clad fans sporting various canine-related paraphernalia. The fans adopted that name in 1984 after members of the Browns defense used it to describe the team's defense.

Retired cornerback Hanford Dixon, who played his entire career for the Browns (1981–1989), is credited with naming the Cleveland Browns defense 'The Dawgs' in the mid-1980s. Dixon and teammates Frank Minnifield and Eddie Johnson would bark at each other and to the fans in the bleachers at the Cleveland Stadium to fire them up. It was from Dixon's naming that the Dawg Pound subsequently took its title. The fans adopted that name in the years after. Due to this nickname, since the team's revival the Browns have used a bulldog as an alternate logo.

Browns Backers
The most prominent organization of Browns fans is the Browns Backers Worldwide (BBW). The organization has approximately 305,000 members and Browns Backers clubs can be found in every major city in the United States, and in a number of military bases throughout the world, with the largest club being in Phoenix, Arizona. In addition, the organization has a sizable foreign presence in places as far away as Egypt, Australia, Japan, Sri Lanka, and McMurdo Station in Antarctica. According to The Official Fan Club of the Cleveland Browns, the two largest international fan clubs are in Alon Shvut, West Bank and Niagara, Canada, with Alon Shvut having 129 members and Niagara having 310.

Following former Browns owner Randy Lerner's acquisition of English soccer club Aston Villa, official Villa outlets started selling Cleveland Browns goods such as jerseys and NFL footballs. This has raised interest in England and strengthened the link between the two sporting clubs. Aston Villa supporters have set up an organization known as the Aston (Villa) Browns Backers of Birmingham.

Players enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame
The Cleveland Browns have the fourth-largest number of players enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame with a total of 17 enshrined players elected based on their performance with the Browns, and nine more players or coaches elected who spent at least one year with the Browns franchise. No Browns players were inducted in the inaugural induction class of 1963. Otto Graham was the first Browns player to be enshrined as a member of the class of 1965, and the most recent Browns player to be included in the Pro Football Hall of Fame is Joe Thomas, who was a member of the class of 2023, who is the first member inducted that played in the 21st century.

Cleveland Browns legends
The Cleveland Browns legends program honors former Browns who made noteworthy contributions to the history of the franchise. In addition to all the Hall of Famers listed above, the Legends list includes:

Ring of Honor
Beginning in 2010, the Browns established a Ring of Honor, honoring the greats from the past by having their names displayed around the upper deck of FirstEnergy Stadium. The inaugural class in the Browns Ring of Honor was unveiled during the home opener on September 19, 2010, and featured the 16 Hall of Famers listed above who went into the Hall of Fame as Browns. In 2018, Joe Thomas was entered into the Ring of Honor with the number 10,363 – commemorating his NFL record of consecutive snaps played on offense. In 2019, four-time Pro Bowl linebacker Clay Matthews Jr. was entered into the Ring of Honor.

Statues
Numerous Browns players and staff have had statues made in their honor: In and around First Energy Stadium
 * 1964 NFL Champion and Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown – since 2016
 * Three-time NFL Champion and Hall of Fame quarterback Otto Graham – since 2019

In and around Cleveland
 * Late owner Alfred Lerner in front of the team's headquarters/practice facility in Berea, Ohio – since 2003
 * Browns Hall of Fame offensive tackle/kicker Lou Groza in front of a youth football field that bears his name, also in Berea – since 2016

Murals
Browns players featured on murals in downtown Cleveland include:
 * Jim Brown (along with other Cleveland dignitaries as under the banner "Cleveland is The Reason")
 * Myles Garrett (depicted as a child with his grandmother in Playhouse Square)

Streets

 * The street near First Energy Stadium in Cleveland was renamed "Alfred Lerner Way" in 2002 after the late owner.
 * The street in Berea, Ohio where the Browns headquarters and practice facility are located is named "Lou Groza Boulevard".

Media
Radio

WKNR (850 AM), WKRK-FM (92.3 FM), and WNCX (98.5 FM) serve as co-flagship stations for the Cleveland Browns Radio Network.

Jim Donovan serves as play-by-play announcer, calling games on-site alongside commentator Nathan Zegura – who made news when he had to serve an eight-game suspension due to arguing with officials during a game in 2018 when he was sideline reporter, and former NFL player and current WKNR host Je'Rod Cherry, who serves as sideline analyst/reporter. Cherry, WKRK's Ken Carman and Andy Baskin, and Cleveland area native/former NFL player Tyvis Powell host the network pregame show, while WKRK's Jeff Phelps and Powell host the network postgame show.

Spanish language broadcasts are heard on WNZN 89.1 FM with announcers Rafa Hernández-Brito and Octavio Sequera.

TV

Cleveland ABC affiliate WEWS-TV 5 serves as the broadcast TV home of the Browns, airing year-round team programming as well as all non-network preseason games, with the broadcast team of Chris Rose (play-by-play), former Browns left tackle Joe Thomas (analyst), and Aditi Kinkhabwala (sidelines). Bally Sports Great Lakes is the cable outlet for the team, airing various Browns related programming during the season.

Honors

The Browns in-house production team won a pair of Lower Great Lakes Emmy Awards in 2005. One was for a primetime special honoring the 1964 NFL Championship team (The 1964 Championship Show) and one was for a commercial spot (The Paperboy).

References in popular culture
The Browns have (either directly or indirectly) been featured in various movies and TV shows over the years. Notable examples include:
 * Cleveland native Arsenio Hall's television program, The Arsenio Hall Show, is known for the audience's shouting "Woof, woof, woof!" while pumping their fists—a chant that was used by fans of the Browns. He would refer to a section of the live audience as his "Dawg Pound".
 * On Living Single, Overton Wakefield Jones (John Henton) is a die-hard Cleveland Browns fan. On the episode "Living Single Undercover" season 4, episode 20, (aired April 10, 1997), Overton is sore over the Browns moving to Baltimore becoming the Ravens. Henton was born and raised in Cleveland, like his character on the show. Jim Brown guest starred in that episode.
 * On The Drew Carey Show, Browns quarterback Bernie Kosar appears (uncredited) in the episode "Drewstock" (aired January 29, 1997). In the episode "Drew Goes To The Browns Game", (aired September 29, 1999), Drew attends the Browns' first regular-season game since re-joining the NFL. (In real life, Drew Carey actually did appear on-field at the first regular-season game when the team returned in 1999.)
 * Cleveland Brown is the name of a character originally featured on the Fox TV show Family Guy, and the central character of the spin-off series The Cleveland Show.
 * On the TV show How I Met Your Mother, in the seventh-season premiere, the main characters go to a Cleveland Browns-themed wedding.
 * The Browns have been featured on some level in episodes of Hot In Cleveland and even in promotional videos using at least one of the main characters. In the episode "How Did You Guys Meet, Anyway?" (January 4, 2012), the characters reminisce about how they met in the 1980s while waiting in the restroom line at a Cleveland Browns game. In the episode "God and Football" (January 18, 2012), Melanie (Valerie Bertinelli) develops a relationship with the Browns placekicker (played by Dan Cortese). In the episode "The Gateway Friend" (May 2, 2012) Browns wide receiver/return specialist Josh Cribbs appears as himself portraying a karaoke contestant. After Super Bowl XLVI, Betty White appears in a video as Elka wearing a Browns jacket congratulating the New York Giants and hoping that the Browns win it one season. After the first round of the 2014 NFL draft, the four main characters appear in a video welcoming Justin Gilbert and Johnny Manziel to the Browns.
 * The 1966 film The Fortune Cookie with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau features the Browns and the city of Cleveland throughout the movie and was made with the cooperation of the Browns.
 * The 2008 film The Express: The Ernie Davis Story explains how Ernie Davis is traded to the Browns by the Washington Redskins. Early in the film, Jim Brown is taking photos in his Browns uniform after being drafted by them. Later in the film, it shows Davis struggling with leukemia after being drafted and the Browns hold a special pre-game ceremony for him.
 * In the 2010 film Hot Tub Time Machine, the Browns defeat the Broncos and win the 1986 AFC Championship Game (the game famous for former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway's 98-yard drive). It is explained that the reason why the Browns win this game is due to the butterfly effect.
 * In the 2014 film Draft Day, fictional Browns general manager Sonny Weaver, Jr. (Kevin Costner) attempts to land the number one pick in the NFL draft.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Cleveland Browns