Talk:Internment/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

2004

I remove the part ", since the President charges you and hears your appeal" of the sentence " Those who have been charged face Military Commissions (rather than the court martials or civilian federal courts to which they are entitled) condemned by many as unfair, since the President charges you and hears your appeal" since I do not understand it. Does it mean that military commissions are under the direct supervisions of the president and not the Justice department? Or does it refer to the facts that the accusee only has limited means of defending himself? Or something else?

UnHoly 01:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anti-West bias?

Is there a reason this article doesn't mention the Nazis, or Stalin, or PRC? —Wahoofive (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it isn't part of Concentration camp is actually a pro-west bias. This is a clear POV fork. I'm proposing a merger.

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.

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)

Please note that internment camps are what the U.S. government called their activities regarding the Japanese during WWII. Slave camps extent in the antebellum U.S. cannot properly be called concentration camps because these were permanent ongoing living units, some as old as one hundred years. It would be a step down, to refer to them as concentration camps, in comparing Nazi camps to American plantation slave houses.````China Nolan


Thomas Pakenham, in his history of the Boer War, attributes the words "concentration camp" to two British Liberal Party MPs, C.P Scott and John Ellis, in 1901: "It was these two who first used in March an ominous phrase, 'concentration camps', taking it from the notorious reconcentrado camps, set up by the Spanish to deal with Cuban guerrillas". - Thomas Pakenham, The Boer War, Page 505. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixthemouse (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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 believe it's meant to reflect those that are not citizens of a given area, not extraterrestrials. Pacifiedcitizen 21:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

thats what mr.rice is really is under all that fuking old skin

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

That how the people who organised the concentration camps called the people they were concentraating. Franny-K 19:57, 29 August 2007 (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 <intern enemy aliens>. 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#History_and_usage_of_the_term. 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)

Proposed New Page =

I think this page, and Internment should be replaced with something like Wikipedia: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)

Objection to merge

I'm not very happy with this merge. Maybe my concerns stem from a different use of the term "Konzentrationslager" in German language, where it is in general used more exclusively for extermination and death camps. But as I pointed out on talk:concentration camp, there are many forms of internment which have nothing to do with concentration camps, e.g. "Camp X-Ray", e.g. temporary internment of, say, anti-nuclear protesters, etc. I really think these articles should be separated. -- 790 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this merge was incorrect. Whilst both bad, I would not put Internment in Northern Ireland with concentration camps. Chwyatt 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Abbr. KZ

BTW: This article is misleadingly. You should find a better way to refer to the Konzentrationslager

The abbrevation KZ is not the 3rd Reichs official abbrevation. Its not entirely known what this abbr. is based on. Konzentrationslager is a combined noun of Konzentration(Concentration) and Lager(Camp). The german officials used KL for abbrevation this manner. Like VL ( Vernichtungslager ) Death Camp and AL ( Arbeitslager ) Labor Camp. But to your excuse, most germans use this false abbrevation too. A rumor based on a book called "Der SS-Staat"(The SS-Regime) from Kogon(:DE), a german anti fashist, explains the herritage as that this abbrivation was chosen by the SS-KZ-Troops because KZ(try your best: Kaw-Sat / Like raw and satellite) sounds much harder and stronger in german then KL(Kaw-El) does.

Jeff Rense and Prison Planet's website

Jeff Rense and www.prisonplanet.com the Prison Planet website] have extensive references to Concentration Camps that are to be utilized in the U.S. upon the declaration of Martial Law to, as some has indicated, to imprison anyone who pisses off the U.S. govt. Is this material useful ? Martial Law 19:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Added a referense to Civilian Inmate Labor Program under the 'See Also' heading.

Gaza

Documentation for Gaza as a concentration camp. A simple google for gaza concentration turns up-

Assuming that this satisfies the documentation requested, I am reverting the article.

Carbonate 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the addition of gaza has received edits by other authors.

Carbonate 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Factal references needs to be placed in the article, as is done with other WP articles. Please separate WP-acceptable references from assertions by self-interested parties to a dispute. Thanks Hmains 21:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You are referencing metaphors, not documentation. Gaza strip is no more a concentration camp than Jericho is an open prison, as described in one of the editorials you linked to. Do a google search for "Gaza" and "hell" and see how many results you come up with. This does not mean that Gaza actually IS a hell, only that it is often compared to one. Just imagine what would happen if you ever tried to "release" all the "prisoners" from Gaza... for most of the population, Gaza is simply their home, which they would not leave for all the indignities and atrocoties they may suffer there. --woggly 09:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if they were permited to drill water wells and freely trade with the rest of the world it wouldn't be such a bad place. Many prisoners become institutionalized, but that doesn't mean prison is the best place for them. But I'm glad you commented as you were the one who put an administrative lock on the 'list of' article after I attempted to make corrections to the factual errors and satisfy the demands for citation. Carbonate 19:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Carbonate, by all means, this is a complex situation, and one that deserved to be discuss on Gaza Strip or whatever the appropriate page is for discussing the Palestinian situation. The references you cite are good ones, but even with them, I think it's still the case that calling the Gaza Strip a giant internment camp is at the least a very controversial claim. Whatever article mentions that claim, NPOV would require use to have a substantial discussion of the whole controversy-- explaining why some people might liken the situation there to a concentration camp, and explaining why others would disagree with that conclusion. It seems to me that such detailed coverage is probably beyond the scope of Internment and List of concentration and internment camps, but might be appropriate on a page discussing the Gaza Strip / Palestinian situation itself. --Alecmconroy 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
To include the claim we would require citations to reliable and authoritative secondary sources which identify the Gaza Strip specifically as an internment camp. If there are a few named and respected authorities who make this claim, then it could probably be included with attribution. If there is widespread consensus (which I don't think there is) then individual attribution might be unnecessary. As it stands, this represents a novel interpretation, which is forbidden per WP:OR, including by specific reference to novel interpretations of historical facts. Just zis Guy you know? 15:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have already given numerous authoratative sources including but not limited to reporter's accounts on the ground, UN officials, first hand accounts by people with degrees, encarta and lets not forget the quote from a letter written by a pope. These diverse and educated people justify more than just attribution and also satisfy citation requirements under primary, secondary and tertiary sources. This material and much more is available with simple google searches. The fact is, there are many, many people who belive this, like about a million Palistinians; or do their opinions count for less because they are the ones living the nightmare? Carbonate 18:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No you have not. You have given some sources which discuss things like the population density in the Gaza Strip, but your inference that this high poipulation density makes it an internment camp is a novel synthesis, specifically forbidden per WP:NOR with examples given by Jimbo. When your arguments are rejected the solution is not to keep repeating the same rejected arguments, but to bring better arguments. In this case a better argument would be a link to a respected authority who states that the Gaza Strip is an internment camp. A link to a news snippet from Reuters which describes the UN explicitly rejecting Ziegler's claim does not help your case. Ziegler's assertion is mentioned in his article, and unless and until it becomes substantially more mainstream it cannot be added here per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and it certainly cannot be asserted as fact per WP:NOR. You have raised this (prematurely) at WP:RFAR, and I note that two arbitrators have already said exactly the same. Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Alecmconroy, thank you for your acknowledgment of my refernces but... please explain to me what you think NPOV means? The way I read your statement, it means that only the populist point of view is neutral. Why is it that this issue requires an article unto its self but the Japanese Canadian ones do not? Or the Chinese ones? Or the Germans? Why would controversy cloud the facts in any way? Surely if the point of view is to be neutral then only the facts should be considered and not what the consenses of wikipedians think (how many wikipedians are there in gaza to give neutrality to the consensus?). If consensus was required, how does abortion present a NPOV?
If your argument is that much more needs to be said to do the topic justice, by all means please start writing. But have you noticed that just one wee little addition to a sentance is having so much trouble staying in? And the section in list of article keeps disappearing? And how everyone is screaming for "cite your references" and how for some reason only secondary sources are acceptable despite what the very rules that are being quoted say (like a preacher that quotes from a bible he has not read).
I guess the shame of the situation is too much to bear and it is better to hear no evil. The Germans had to face their attrocities when allies won, the Japanese took decades to admit theirs, I wonder how long it will be until this isn't taboo?
Carbonate 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

perhaps woogly could translate this for us? [4] Carbonate 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's about the recent bombing of Kfar Kanna. Kfar Kanna is in the north of Israel Qana. Qana is in south Lebanon, nowhere near the Gaza strip. --woggly 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, what does it say? Carbonate 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It says a lot of things, none of them about Gaza. I don't see the relevance to this discussion, and I don't have the time to spend translating it to prove that it is irrelevant. If you have a point to make, make it. This is an article from Ha'aretz. Ha'aretz has a searchable online English edition which you are welcome to peruse: http://www.haaretz.com/ I tried finding a translation of the article for you but the site requires registration, and I don't feel like registering right now. --woggly 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Try to think of it like this: I could make the case that the Palestinians are Nazis -- and get closer to meeting WP standards doing it. I could come up with good sources (that is, ones that meet WP standards) indicating Palestinians:

  • Hate Jews
  • Yearn for territorial expansion
  • Want to exterminate Jews
  • Are violent towards Jews
  • Engage in fascistic rituals
  • Supported Hitler during WWII
  • Etc.

If it weren't a violation of WP:POINT, I would post this on the Neo-Nazi article and see how many seconds it would take for me to get (rightly) reverted. Does that make it clearer? IronDuke 01:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from elsewhere... IronDuke 02:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the guy who prematurely and inappropriately referred this matter for arbitration (apologies repeated). I've been thinking (and studying) this matter since I butted in on it over a week ago, and I've refined my position somewhat. First of all the (pre-2005) incursions of Israeli settlers into the area to live and work rather belies the assertion that the whole of Gaza is a <pick a type> camp. It's a rare hellhole that is invaded by people who have the freedom to live elsewhere. Now, have <pick a type> camps come to exist in Gaza? I'm quite satisfied that the answer is yes, but the parties who have given rise to this condition are not limited to Israel. Start with Egypt, on which Gaza (also) borders. Before 1967, Gaza was Egyptian territory, and it remains officially outside Israel (yes, Auschwitz was outside Germany, too). Egyptians also deny entry into Egypt to Gazans. Further, the camp-like auspices of the places in Gaza are also nurtured, as they are in other places, by benevolent parties such as the United Nations. There really should be an entry for the UN and other international authorities that have and do either operate or support camps like the numerous Displaced-Persons camps in Europe and Cyprus after World War II. Now the infamous List of XYZ Camps could have an entry for Israel for camps that: (a) are on Israeli (acknowledged) soil; and/or (b) are operated by Israeli authorities, where "operated" encompasses a whole host of acts including logistical support, containment measures, and so on. Offhand, I don't know of any, but I certainly don't deny the possibility of such. But we should take care in applying standards to this so that we don't end up listing Harlem as a XYZ Camp, too.

There are such camps on Lebanese territory, some of which is being reoccupied by Israel as I type. These camps could be properly listed as Lebanese XYZ Camps, although they might as well be listed as UN XYZ Camps, and Israel does have a hand in their creation and maintenance, but doesn't qualify to be the section head of the list entry.

If an entry for "Gaza" were added to the List of Camps, and locations specified therein, I would think that consistent with realities past, if not also present. If an entry for "United Nations" were added and Gaza, Lebanon, and lots of other places listed thereunder, I would also consider that consistent.

Recap:

The whole of Gaza is not a XYZ Camp.

There are XYZ Camps (I'm trying to stay away for the moment from the question of whether they are concentration, labor, or internment camps) in Gaza.

Such Camps as are in Gaza are not properly listed under "Israel," despite acknowledged involvement of Israel in their creation and maintenance. Rather, such Camps should be listed under "Gaza," "United Nations," or both.

--Joe 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

German "Corporate" users of labor camps

I've edited the sentence reporting this to reflect that labor at Auschwitz and other such places was devoted to the increasingly urgent German war effort rather than to the garnering of profit by private owners of German corporations. I do not deny that German "corporations" set up and operated portions of the labor operations for the production of "their" products, which were then "sold" to the German government in virtually all cases, but to style such operations as "corporate" is to perpetuate the fiction that German corporations were privately owned and operated for the benefit of their owners in the manner that corporations ostensibly are in the United States in 2006.

Corporations during the Nazi period in Germany were taken over by the state in every respect but formal (see Reimann, Guenter, The Vampire Economy, Vanguard Press, New York, 1944). Owners neither controlled their corporation's operations nor received any material profits from such operations, particularly after the beginning of hostilities on September 1, 1939 (a date that predates the operation of any of the labor camps). The production of slave camps may have benefitted the German war effort, and even the consumer economy of Germany, such as it was. It may even have appeared in some fashion on the financial statements of some German corporations. But it did not reflect, nor contribute to, the profit-motivated operations of any group of private owners in any sense. --Joe 16:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Need separate section on different camp types

The present article — which appears to have resulted from at least a partial merger — seems to conflate the form of concentration camp that involved execution and the kind that did not. While I don't disagree with their being in the same article — I do understand the euphemism and etymology issues — at present it's hard to disentangle the items referencing the internment camps that focused on segregating "enemy aliens" from the general population but did not seek their death. The mention of Japanese and Japanese-American camps in the United States, for example, occurs in the middle of a section about camps that came to be associated with execution or otherwise deliberately causing death. This has misleading results.

The present article is confusing for those who arrive here from links that referenced "internment" as a concept but were not talking about death camps at all. I think that this could be handled by establishing a separate section for discussion of other particular kinds of camp (the Australian example already given on this talk page would also go in the section). We could even have sub-headings and sections for the largest cases, building from the existing "list of concentration and internment camps," and summarizing, but not repeating, the relevant articles. I don't think that doing this is necessarily supporting euphemistic language, nor saying "it's OK to imprison a whole ethnic group as long as you don't actively kill them," but rather delineating historical groupings. Lawikitejana 07:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is, I believe, already a death camp article. Aside from those, it's pretty hard to clearly differentiate which death camps intentionally sought the death of their inmates and which camps simply let it happen. Proving intent is difficult in a court of law, and particularly difficult in cases of genocide (which is why genocide charges are so rarely made in the Hague). It's very expressly stated that there's a difference between internment camps and extermination camps. If users actually read the article, it's made quite clear. I don't see any problem with the article the way it is, aside from offending some people who think their country is morally superior to the rest of the world. - TheMightyQuill 16:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


I have editted the article by removing the paragraph about "concentration camps" from the Section "camps" to the section "concentration camps" I have added some examples of typical "internment camps" hoping this will clarify the issue. Syrenab 19:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, concentration camps meet the primary definition of internment camps (bascially, they intern people) so they ARE internment camps, and belong as a subsection. In other words, not all internment camps are concentration camps (well, actually they are since they all concentrate people, but they aren't all concentration camps according to the contemporary meaning of the term), but all concentration camps are interment camps. Your information about the Geneva convention is great, however. -- TheMightyQuill 08:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think that "concentration camps" belong asa subsection, why do you object (and removed) examples of camps which are "internment camps" in the strict meaning of the term, without the derogatory character of concentration camps as they are widely understood today. Even in Nazi Germany not all internment camps were straflager, which is what the KZ were.

BTW, if you think I am trying to whitewash Nazi Germany, I am not - because I am an ex-POW myself. I just want to get the facts straight. Isn't that the purpose of an encyclopedia?

Syrenab 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, the examples you gave ARE internment camps by the "strict meaning of the word", but so are concentration camps. Nazi concentration camps could be included in the same list. I don't think your intentions are deceitful, in fact, I sympathise with what you're trying to do, but once we start adding examples, EVERYONE will want to add theirs. That's why the concentration camp and internment camp articles were merged, and a separate list was created... it was taking over the page. Maybe we should have a direct link to the list within the article? -- TheMightyQuill 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I go aalong with that. But then, as pointed out by the unsigned contibutor in the next section, the details in paragraphs about the Boer War concentration camps are also out of place and should be reoved to the "List...".

I would also like to clean up the "Germany" section in that list, but it is blocked. Are you an Administrator? If so maybe you can use your influence. Syrenab 00:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

British Concentration Camp

The article (as of 31/10/2006) says The amenities in the British camps in South Africa were clearly planned to kill as many of the women and children as possible. They were accommodated in tattered reject tents which offered no protection against the elements. According to a British journalist, WT Stead, the concentration camps were nothing more than a cruel torture machine. He writes: "Every one of these children who died as a result of the halving of their rations, thereby exerting pressure onto their family still on the battle-field, was purposefully murdered. The system of half rations stands exposed and stark and unshamefully as a cold-blooded deed of state policy employed with the purpose of ensuring the surrender of people whom we were not able to defeat on the battlefield. I'd be interested in a source it makes for this claim. The Boer War by Thomas Pakenham says that Kitchener didn't actually hope to kill Boer women and children, he just didn't care. I propose this section state both views (if it can cite sources) or should be ammended.

Concentration camps in Tambov_rebelion

The original text of Tukhachevsky and Ovseyenko orders, (where the term Concentration camps is explicitly mentioned) is being translated and will be soon wikipied. For russian-readers, some are available on the web,

  • Tukhachvsky role in the Tambov revolt, including the text of commands given to the red army concerning the use of war gases, taking and executing hostages, deporting of peasant families to Concentration camps.

AbuAmir 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't say it's the first example of the term "Concentration Camp" being used when it occurred in Russia, and the orders were written in Russian. This certainly should be included in List of concentration and internment camps but I'm not so sure it belongs here. - TheMightyQuill 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You are right, perhaps, at least technically. However, I think the Bolshevik conc. camps were the first time this term signified something pre-Nazi. I should emphasize that nowhere and at notime did Bolsheviks use Camps to murder people, it was intended Exclusively to exploit the slave work power (usually until they died out, due to the dreadful conditions. The mass extermination of humans was not a primary aim of that regime, at least not after Lenin's death).

AbuAmir 06:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Until my translation of the full set is finished, please trust my academic honesty. Here is some of it:

30 мая 1921 года он подписывает приказ # 27 полномочной комиссии ВЦИК:

Original

"1. Полномочная Комиссия приказывает производить *выемку и заключение в **концентрационный лагерь семей всех отсутствующих бандитов, в следующих районах, постоянно ***оккупируемых...


Translated by AbuAmir 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC) on May 30, 1921 he (Tukhachevsky) signs the order #27 of the plenipotentiary comitee of the VTzIK:

"1. The plenipotentiary commitee hereby orders to perform *removal and imprisonment in a **Concentration camp of all absent bandits, in the following areas Constantly ***occupied... 


more of the same

7 июня 1921 года Тухачевский беседует по прямому проводу с главнокомандующим Вооруженными силами Республики Сергеем Каменевым и сообщает тому о своих решениях:

"Для устрашения и разложения бандитов семьи таковых будут эвакуироваться беспощадно. Две недели они будут выдерживаться в местных *концентрационных лагерях, а если бандит не придет и не сдастся, то после этого срока будут эвакуироваться в отдаленные места РСФСР".

On June 7, 1921, Tukhachevsky had a phone conversation with Kamenev, the supreme commander, Republic's armed forces, and informed him about the decisions he had made:

"In order to frighten the bandits, their families will be evacuated mercilesly . Two weeks they will be held in local *Concentration camps, and if the bandit won't show up and give up, they (families) will be evacuated to the most remote places in the RSFSR"

The point is just the use of the very term, CONCENTRATION CAMP.

Now, there are more documents available on the web. This source was just handy...

AbuAmir 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I question your honesty, but the word in Russian cannot be cited as the first use of the English term. That doesn't make sense. And besides, you could likely translate it to mean internment camp or prison camp instead, no? Finally, the article already states "The English term "concentration camp" was first used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa during the 1899-1902 Second Boer War. Allegedly conceived as a form of humanitarian aid to the families whose farms had been destroyed in the fighting, the camps were used to confine and control large numbers of civilians as part of a Scorched Earth tactic." So in this case, it was used to intern people purely because they were Boers, even though they weren't fighting. I don't see how your example is different. Please don't put it back in again until we've settled this. - TheMightyQuill 19:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
well, I agree to wait until it is settled.

I also accept your point and agree to remove the claim of the first usage of the term was during the boer campaign.

Now to the matter itself: The Nazi term Konzentrationslager is German after all, and the English translation to Concentration camp seems authentic. Let the Russian концентрационные лагеря be acceptable as well. Otherwise I feel here some very common bias, to deny that Bolsheviks could evil. If you put aside the Nazi extermination camps, you may discover that the Nazis copied from bolsheviks not only the term, but also the very concept.

Finally, what settlement do you suggest? AbuAmir 11:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I spent the last year living in Eastern Europe - I'm quite aware of the damage inflicted by the Soviet Union. In fact, the article already states "In the 20th century the arbitrary internment of civilians by the state became more common and reached a climax with Nazi concentration camps and the practice of genocide in Nazi extermination camps, and with the Gulag system of forced labor camps of the Soviet Union." The Konzentrationslager were undoubtedly translated at the time as Concentration Camps, but I'm not sure you can prove the Tambov Rebellion camps were. And besides, the Tambov rebellion still doesn't pre-date the Boer War. My solution was given in my first post: Add these camps to List of concentration and internment camps along with every other example of concentration camps. There's nothing particularly special about them, that they should be in this article. - TheMightyQuill 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
well, I too spent several years there, as a Diplomat, and I know these things very closely. Some places I saw with my very eyes, and I spoke with survivors. Now please excuse, I understand that this article is about the -term- and -conception- of Conc.camp, without going into details. I shall rewrite my contribution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbuAmir (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Cultural references?

What about cultural references to camps, internment, extermination...? Svetovid 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

+++++++ China Nolan Sez...+++++++ The popular conception of concentration camps clearly brings into mind Nazi camps. When people look up concentration camps this will be the first thing they think they will see. After addressing this need, you should have additional sections that expand the definition with links to fuller descriptions of sub-species. These would be internment camps, concentration camps broken out by national uses (Australian, British, Soviet, Austrian, Spanish, etc,) reservations and the like. This is similiar to what a dictionary does by presenting the most popular use of the term followed by a descending list of next popular to least popular. ````China Nolan````

Source data

Either provide source info or this article may be deleted. 65.173.105.125 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you mark those places that need references with {{fact}}Kgrr 06:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Detainment Camp=Internment Camp=Relocation Camp=Concentration Camp?

Over 500 articles make reference to this article either directly or through redirects. All these pages re-direct to Internment:

but Detention_center re-directs to Prison

According to the current definition, Guantanamo Bay detention camp qualifies as an detainment camp / concentration camp / internment / relocation camp. It holds political opponents, enemy aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, usually during a war. The inmates are selected according to some specific criteria, rather than individuals who are incarcerated after due process of law fairly applied by a judiciary. I.e. are imprisoned without habeas corpus rights, no right to see an attorney, no charges, no court trial, no jury... Thus Camp Delta, Camp Echo, Camp Iguana (for Children) and Camp X-ray are all concentration camps/internment camps/relocation centers/detention centers. Same difference.

Four words with one and the same exact meaning?? Same article to cover them all? Perhaps they all are used to reframe the same thing - an illegal prison for people that have not been accused of anything. I would think that there would be several opposing viewpoints here. Im also astonished how this article dresses-down suspected torture camps, detention camps, and concentration camps to be mere internment centers.

"All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.)" -- President George W. Bush 2003 State of the Union Address

Kgrr 07:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference between internment camp, detention camp, concentration camp and relocation camp is fuzzy at best. One term is usually chosen over another for political reasons (ie. governments call their own camps internment camps, while critics call them concentration camps). I think the article explains this quite clearly. Perhaps Detention center redirects to Prison because, at least in Canada, they are used synonymously. A "youth detention centre" has more in common with a prison than with a concentration camp. However, we spell it "centre", so who knows? If you want to include Guantanamo somewhere, the place to do it is at List of concentration and internment camps. - TheMightyQuill 07:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of these redirects, but I think 'detention centre'->'Internment' is one too far. The most common use of the phrase 'detention centre', at least in the UK, is a structure or location for temporarily holding refugees and asylum seekers, particularly those whose claims for asylum have been rejected. In other words, more akin to a Refugee camp. Maybe I'm trying to draw a distinction that doesn't really exist, but is the detention centre at Sangatte fundamentally the same as a concentration camp? I doubt it. I will be listing this one on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion to see what other people think. Terraxos 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Added: after a little more investigation, I've changed my mind - perhaps this is an appropriate redirect after all. 'Detention centre' turns out to have multiple meanings (including simply as a synonym for Prison), but it can and does also refer to the type of camps this article is about. The detention centres I referred to above, for instance, would come under the 'illegal aliens' category. Terraxos 02:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Detention Centre should have a disambiguation page, with links to Prison, Internment, Refugee camp and Youth detention center? - TheMightyQuill 05:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

USA Internment Camps

If you go on Postsecret this week, there is a postcard from someone who says they helped to build an internment camp in the USA and they are real. It was built underground. Michaelritchie200 14:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article seems to get vandalised almost every day by anon users, perhaps it needs semi-protection? LDHan 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is possible to get permanent semi-protection for an article? How do we go about it? - TheMightyQuill 19:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You can ask at WP:RFPP, though to be honest this is not one of the worst articles on my watchlist in terms of vandalism. Typically admins will only semi-protect against vandalism if you're in to the tens of edits per day. David Underdown 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Redirected from Concentration camp"?

Internment? Geez, what a bullocks. This article is about internment camps! Do you think people want to read about "camps set up by neutral nations (Switzerland and Sweden) for holding members of the armed forces of the warring nations, who had crossed their borders" when they click the link? The article on concentration camps should be on, guess what, the etymology, history, and examples of CONCENTRATION CAMPS (starting with the German Africa and Mengele Senior until North Korea nowadays). --HanzoHattori 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of this article IS etymology, history, and examples of your understanding of concentration camps. I believe there is just one sentence about camps set up by neutral nations. I don't see why you are so upset by that. - TheMightyQuill 05:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The history of concentration camps was discussed in GULAG by Anne Applebaum - the first real concentration camps in the bad (and now the only used) meaning of this word were the German camps in Africa. Refugee camps for displaced persons outside their countries are UNRELATED. --HanzoHattori 08:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Concentration Camps

The idea that concentration camps were invented by the British in South Africa during theBoer War (2nd Anglo-Boer War 1899-1902) was a creation of Goebels. If you repeat a lie often enough it will be believed. If you read contemporary sources e.g. newspapers. you will find the term used was Campo de Concentrado, copied from the Spanish in Cuba. (I also read it in the diary of a New Zealand soldier at the time) The Spanish in Cuba appear to have been the first to have made use of barbed war to confine large numbers of people. The problem is that since the Nazi era concentration camps have come to mean extermination camps. There was a huge death toll in South Africa which is now part of the Afrikanner anti-British mythology, but this was largely due to disease and neglect. The Boers even claim that the British put broken glass in the mealie etc, but a large part of the problem was the lack of toilet facilities. The Boers had some habits which may have been aceptable on the open Veldt grassland, but which meant that when a large population was kept in close confinement disease spred rapidly. (I have opened an account but Wikipedia wont accept my password.)

Sources? - TheMightyQuill 13:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Concentration Camps?; American Camps in which Japanese were held during World War 2

Readers of this page may have interest in the discussion at [5], with regard to whether the camps in which Japanese were detained/imprisoned/etc. during World War 2 in the US are properly called "concentration camps."--Epeefleche 02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Spanish Concentration Camps

The mentioned book or author never says “concentration” comes from the Spanish. The same author says: “Reconcentration was nothing new. The United States had practiced a form of reconcentration in its wars with Native Americans…” (War and Genocide in Cuba, 1895-1898, pg 8. Tone, John Lawrence, UNC 2006, ISBN 0807830062). And what´s more, I don’t think that book can be considered a good or neutral source, primarily by its title, that uses the word “genocide” in a different meaning that the one in the most prestigious dictionaries. The english word "concentration" etymology is french (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, concentrate bring to a COMMON centre. XVII. f. † concentre (XVI) — F. concentrer ; see CON- , CENTRE vb., -ATE 3). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinaster (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright © 2007 Columbia University Press, is a very standard reference. It is transcribed on Bartleby.com. There we find in part that a concentration camp is
a detention site outside the normal prison system created for military or political purposes to confine, terrorize, and, in some cases, kill civilians. The term was first used to describe prison camps used by the Spanish military during the Cuban insurrection (1868–78), those created by America in the Philippines (1898–1901), and, most widely, to refer to British camps built during the South African War (Boer War) to confine Afrikaners in the Transvaal and Cape Colony (1899—1902). ...
FWIW, note that the ref is not to Cuba in the 1895-1898 period of the JL Tone book's title.
--Jerzy•t 05:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Deleted vandalism from: 75.108.2.193 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Natasha Wagner.

--131.111.247.135 (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A guarded compound

A guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, esp., any of the camps established by the Nazis prior to and during World war II for the confinement and persecution of prisoners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.79.193 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your point is? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Internment as a legal term

As there is a good article "List of concentration and internment camps". I think that this article should concentrate on the legal aspects of internment. Ie the legislation used to send people to internment camps, and those caught up in that legislation.

I have started this process with two sections on Great Britain and Ireland. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think as soon as you start that process, this article will soon turn into another list just like List of concentration and internment camps. That article isn't a list of camps per se, but a list of internment processes (?) and who was caught up in the legislation. Perhaps that article should have its title changed, but adding the information here is a bad idea. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted "a modern example of which is the Guantanamo Bay detention camp" Guantanamo Bay does not fit the definition of a concentration camp. Reasons: 1. The Oxford dictionary definition requires concentration camp inhabitants to be originally "of a district". Guantanamo Bay does not fit that definition. 2. Mainstream media, and generally accepted usage, does not refer to Guantanamo Bay as a concentration camp. 3. As an expansion on #2 and the Wikipedia description, concentration camp traditionally means that inhabitants are not given proper nourishment or medical care. Neither is the case at Guantanamo Bay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafgreen (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Added

More info of post-war use of German camps as transit points for transfered Germans and prisons for Polish resistance against Soviet rule as well as members of ethnic minorities.--Molobo (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Internment in Britain in the 1980s

I don't really know much about the editing and stuff so I'm sorry if this is done wrong, but I noticed in this article it talks of internment in Britain in 1939/40 but mentions nothing of the internment the British imposed in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s a much more recent example. Surely there should be a section in the article on that?

Please see List of concentration and internment camps. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So why does Internment in the 1940s merit a place in the article but internment thoughout the 60s 70s and 80s in Ireland not?

Internment in current Palestina

In my opinion, the current situation in Palestina should be referred to as internment. The people are denied free movement, trade and so on, but since some may find this controversial, I want others opinions on this here first Rkarlsba (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoting obvious political sensational statements in a supposedly factual article seems to me fundamentally wrong. The Gaza strip is not a camp and so the term internment camp is irrelevant, much less concentration camp with its derived connotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.132.106 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Strip

In my opinion, The Gaza Strip section needs revising. It's overtly biased and doesn't fully reflect the opinion of Israel, United States, and several popular Muslims who have spoken against Hamas and the countries that enable it.

Factually speaking, Israel does not control the conditions of the refugee camps. Yes they have imposed sanctions against the territory, but only in response to the increasing rocket attacks and Hamas onsistently violating truces/cease fires/etc (though Israel still wanted to extend the cease-fire).


Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Jordan are the primary contributers to the refugee camps, and continue to enable Hamas through fundamentalist schools and turning a blind eye to the terrorist-breeding inside the camps. Any intervention by Israel is immediately met with violence by the Palestinians. As far as I know, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that offers Palestinian citizenship (10,000 a year since 2001 mostly persecuted Christians) whilst the neighboring Arab states refuse the admittance of ANY Palestinians as they have turned Israel into the ultimate scapegoat. Though technically, Jews have always bared the harshest punishment since the rise of the Ottoman Empire and before.

Obviously my opinion might conflict with the NPOV rules of wikipedia, but the section clearly needs some additions to create a better sense neutrality and not be yet another propaganda/overly biased article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I retract my statements. I've discovered that the extremely disputed arguments inferring that the Gaza Strip refugee camps are "internment/concentration centers" render its inclusion here unnecessary and false. For starters, it's absurd to compare the Palestinian situation to concentration camps. The concentration camps existed to systematically erase the Jews of Europe (and eventually of the world). The refugee camps exist in Palestinian to contain the population and curb the suicide bombings/rocket attacks/assaults against Israel, and also demonize Israel. Israel has never intended to destroy the Palestinians, and in fact has done everything in its power, even risking its own safety, to create a more healthy environment for these people. After the Palestinians elected a terrorist organization as their government, any hope for their own state is basically gone. And as far as I know, no other article on wikipedia excluding Israeli Apartheid Analogy compares the Palestinian refugee camps to concentration camps. But remember, that article is still in start-class and heavily disputed.

I will delete the Gaza Strip section according to these facts. Feel free to discuss your opinion here, though please be cordial and polite. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

concentration policy

I came to the article trying to find out about the origin and history of population concentration policies. My impression is that population concentration policies are generally directed at dispersed members of a community who are felt to be different from dominant members in some way (mostly ethnic) and as such pose a 'problem' that can only be addressed when those people are concentrated in a specific location. 'Addressing the problem' may run the gamut from aid and education/conversion to extermination. From this perspective, concentration camp just refers to a particular type of location suitable for carrying out the concentration policy. But not all concentration locations need to be camps (they may be reserves or regions) and not all concentration policies involve internment. My feeling is that the way the article is now set up, the larger issue of population concentration policy is not covered. I just raise the issue here, as I am not an expert on population concentration policy, and would probably not do well if I tried to write the article. However, I know that concentration was an explicit policy in the 19th century directed at native americans, and this concentration policy antedates most of the references I have seen on the subject in various Wikipedias. Zwart (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

British and US camps

Perhaps, in the interest of neutrality, it would be best to have a small section about British and US concentration camps, instead of one solely focusing on Nazi and Soviet camps. This bias is clear in our countries' history textbooks but it doesn't need to be here on Wikipedia. If no one objects, I will add an appropriate section. Kernow (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

GULAG

I removed the mention of GULAG because, as a rule, people were sent there according to trial decision (or equal procedure), as a rule, based on some Penal Code article (frequently # 58). The decision about each person was made separately. Therefore, GULAG is beyond the scope of this article, which deals with "the imprisonment or confinement of people, commonly in large groups, without trial." However, I think deportation of some nations, (e.g. of Volga Germans) under Stalin had the same traits as deportation of Japanese Americans did, so I propose to include that material into the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Norway

Concentration camps in Norway should probably accompany Concentration camps in Sweden and Concentration camps in France.

This link [6] is about the Mallnitz (Concentration camp) in Norway, where cannibalism allegedly took place. --Orncider (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference seems to say that it was an extermination camp for prisoners who were too sick to work, and that the food rations were half of what was "normal". 3 prisoners accused of cannibalism were executed by gunfire to the stomach. --Orncider (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

ridiculous british bias

Wiki has massive POV problems. Looks like a British nationalist wrote it or something. The Boer concentration camps were "ostensibly" to help them? Hillarious, since those families were denied food if their male head of household was believed to be still fighting. Whole thing needs rewritten to be inclusive of other issues that could fit under the definition of being a camp.

I think the term ostensible (meaning "professedly" or "pretended") suggests there was likely another motivation, doesn't it? I'm not saying you are wrong, but motivations are hard things to prove. I'm not terribly familiar with the topic.
More importantly, I don't understand you last sentence. What other issues do you feel need to be included? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you knew your history you'd understand that the British used them to contain the families of the Boer Rebels who were supplying the enemy (which makes sense). The camps were fine until disease broke out and the British had no means of treating such a mass of people. As a result people bacame undernourished and with outbreaks of cholera and dysentry they had no chance. As for them being denied food specifically as a punishment, I'd like to see you prove that. They were ALL put in there because their "home owners" were fighting the British. Clearly you are yet another colonial with anti-British POV. I guess it's a shame the Boers weren't black in this instance. What a field-day you'd have with that!

If you knew your history you'd know that there were concentration camps for blacks during the Boer War run by the British and they also died in their thousands. What do you think of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.54.83 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sentence very hard to follow

The sentence “It is also known to confine those persecuted within a country's boundaries” in the lead makes barely any sense to me — perhaps someone who knows what is intended could clarify it? PJTraill (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Improvement in order

If a term like concentration camp is going to be a redirect here, this article needs to make a minimum of effort of actually describing the concept. Otherwise, list of concentration and internment camps will serve readers much better.

Focus on placing more information in the lead and less into hatnotes. And please rethink whether it's relevant to mention "Internet" and "internship" here. There's a limit to how many misspellings we should take into account.

Peter Isotalo 09:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% about the hatnotes. You don't think the article does a good job of describing the term concentration camp? I think by explaining that it had the same origins as internment camp (and other terms) but took on a different social meaning following the Holocaust, it does a great job. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I mostly meant that any reader who types in "concentration camps" (or follows a link, like I did) and pops up here should be treated to the term in bold in the lead. That's why I added them in the lead. Just wanted to add a reminder here in case the problem of hatnote bloat began all over.
Otherwise, I think the article kinda suffers from what many high-level topics suffer from: lack of serious, content-related attention. It's a massive topic, but has virtually no coverage. I really think it would be an improvement if some of the more general content from Nazi concentration camps and Gulag was added here as well, perhaps minus some detail.
Peter Isotalo 16:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of specific items

Internment in Northern Ireland should be included under "See also" because it relates to something that was actually widely called "internment" (unlike most of the other subjects listed), so is relatively likely to be something people are looking for under this topic. I don't know why the reference to Shark Island should be removed - it seems to be one of the few places outside the Boer War/Nazi contexts that was called a concentration camp. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi W.P. Uzer. I'm sorry if the edit comment on my revert wasn't clear enough. Yes, Internment in Northern Ireland uses the word "internment." So do Ukrainian Canadian internment, Castle Mountain Internment Camp and Eaton Internment Camp, Italian-Canadian internment, Japanese Canadian internment, Valby Internment, Internment camps in France, Santo Tomas Internment Camp, Japanese American internment, German American internment and Italian American internment, Bagram Theater Internment Facility. Then we have all the places where the word "detention" was used in place of the word "internment" but with the exact same meaning. Instead of listing all of them at the bottom of the page, another separate list has been made. We don't need to privilege the importance of any of them, except when they were the first to use the term, or when they changed the meaning of the term. Internment in Northern Ireland and Shark Island Concentration Camp fit neither of these categories. And as far as I can see, Shark Island used a German term for Concentration Camp after it was already in use in English. Apparently, the term is also used elsewhere for non-nazi camps, see Luka camp for instance.
As for your criticism of the lede. You're right, it isn't well worded. But your added sentence "Camps for the detention of large numbers of people may be called internment camps; in certain periods of history, particularly during the Nazi era, but previously also during British anti-guerrilla action in the Boer War, such camps have been called concentration camps" has no source. That makes it original research. I'll see if I can alter the intro in way that you'll find more appealing. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's original research, it's just a summary of what appears later in the article, which is what you'd expect in the lead. I partly agree about the separate list, but someone looking for internment in northern Ireland isn't going to look at a list of *camps*, they should be referred to a list of internment situations or something (can't think of the right word at the moment). I think the significance of the Shark Island camp is that it was actually officially called a concentration camp, rather than just referred to as such pejoratively. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned, Luka camp and other similar camps are also referred to as concentration camps. President Roosevelt referred to Japanese internment camps as "concentration camps", and unlike the Shark Island camp, he called them that in English.[7] The words are effectively synonymous, though connotations have changed since the holocaust. I see your point about a mismatch between the list title and Irish internment, but there are plenty of other examples of non-camp internment in the list too. You might suggest renaming it. List of internments and concentration camps ? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for improving the article, but there are still many problems with it. You seem happy to leave in obscure claims such as that of the Polish historian, while consistently deleting mention of a particular camp that was officially called a concentration camp (albeit in German, but this isn't an English dictionary, it's about the concept). You must realize (and this could probably be worked into the article) that "concentration camp" is often (and in a contemporary context probably exclusively) used pejoratively, by people talking about their enemies' internment facilities - that's quite a different thing than cases of camps which were actually called that by the people who set them up. Other problems with the article as it is now (perhaps you intend to improve it further, but still): there's almost nothing about "internment" except dictionary definitions, which is not what a Wikipedia article should be based on. Under the title "History of the terms..." there is nothing about the history of the term "internment". In fact I think we should stop trying to deal with these two rather different concepts in one article - it's an embarrassment that people typing "concentration camp" into Wikipedia are brought to this almost AfD-worthy page. I would send them instead to the Nazi concentration camps article, which is probably the primary topic, and includes all the significant information from this article (and more) regarding concentration camps, Nazi or otherwise. Then we would be left with a respectable stub on the subject of internment, which could be gradually built up into a reasonable article on the topic (without the undue emphasis on concentration camps and usage of that term). W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Being Polish doesn't make one obscure. He even has an English-language Wikipedia page, so he must be notable. He makes a stated claim about the first concentration camps, and it's referenced in a published book. There's no claim of notability for Shark Island (it's one of several konzentrationslager used by Germans), so such a claim can't be referenced. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of claims that such-and-such was a concentration camp - this Polish one doesn't seem particularly different. I don't know what claim about Shark Island you think can't be referenced - that it was officially called a concentration camp? W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Are we talking past each other here? Being a concentration camp isn't notable. As I have mentioned multiple times now, many different camps have been officially called concentration camps, and not just by their opponents. The Germans used the term in multiple places. At the same time as the Shark Island camp, the Germans had several others in German Southwest Africa. President Roosevelt referred to the camps for Japanese American set up during his time in office as "concentration camps." We have the first uses of the term listed, in Spanish, from which the English use of the term was taken. What does it matter if other languages also used the term afterwards? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Further thought: make Concentration camp into a disambiguation page, remove the section about concentration camps from this article (it already appears, in better form, at the Nazi CC article), and move everything from the "List of ..." article to here (we've already observed that it's not really a list of camps, but a whole load of relevant information), so that we will then already have a full-length article on internment. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I really disagree. There is no functional difference of definition between concentration camp and internment camp or any of the other words used. Some are used as euphemisms to make one's own camps seem nicer, and some are used (as you mention) pejoratively to make one's enemies camps seem worse. Since there is no definition separating one from the other, we'd be doing Original Research if we select Camp X goes under "Concentration Camp" and Camp Y goes under "Internment Camp." I think redirecting people looking up what a concentration camp is to "Nazi Concentration Camp" is totally crazy - that's an extreme definition, not an encyclopedic definition. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But you must surely recognize that what we have at the moment is unacceptable - this article is terrible, despite your efforts to improve it. What is your suggestion as to what we do with it? What is wrong with moving the material from the "List..." article back to here, and with making "Concentration camp" a disambiguation page? We can certainly make a distinction (as we already do, sort of) between those facilities which were officially called concentration camps, and those which may be called concentration camps by enemies or commentators. We have to do something about this. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I accept that it can be improved, but I don't accept that it's terrible. And no, I don't think there's a point in differentiating between those camps termed "concentration camps" and others. Should we also have separate articles for Detention Camps, Detention Centres, Detention Facilities, Prison Camp, Why would you? We don't have separate article for aubergine and eggplant. They're the same thing. Are you talking about the English words "concentration camp" or words in other languages that get translated to "concentration camp" ? Obviously, Konzentrationslager looks a lot like "concentration camp" but they also use the term to describe things that we call "internment camps". And what about Japanese or Chinese terms? I have no idea - they might translate into either concentration camp or internment camp. So then you're grouping camps based on the similarity of the languages in which their official names were used. It just doesn't make any sense, and I can't see the benefit. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting separate articles. I'm suggesting one article, called Internment, which includes proper information (not just a few dictionary definitions and a few random and disconnected facts) about the subject of internment - and that information can currently be found (to a first approximation) at the article that is misleadingly named "List of... camps". So merge that page into this one (or merge this into that one and then rename it). A second question is what to do with people typing in "concentration camp" - possibly they would like to read that article; more likely they want information about the Nazi concentration camps or other facilities that were officially or widely known as concentration camps. So the best thing to do for them would be a user-friendly disambiguation page, with the various target articles clearly listed and briefly described. Nothing you say seems to indicate any problems with that idea. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now I see what you're saying about the disambig page, and finally understand where you're coming from. Sorry for my confusion. Following that logic, we should then also make disambig pages for detention camp and the various other euphamisms, with each one listing Internment at the top, but then a list things officially called detention camps (or whatever). If we decide to go ahead with this, I'm sure you would be okay with that. I'm still quite concerned, however, that it will be challenging to keep the list at Concentration camp (disambiguation) under control. It could be that each of those disambiguation pages will end up nearly as long as the current List article. "Surely people looking up concentration camp want to know about GULAGS..." or Guantanamo Bay, etc. etc. I still don't think it's easy to tell exactly which camps were "officially" called concentration camps, unless they happen to be run by people who spoke English, German or a handful of other European languages that visibly similar words. As for your merge suggestion - Personally, I think it makes sense to have a list separate from a "definition and history of the term" type article. I think they serve rather different purposes. That's just my opinion though. Perhaps we should bring in other voices/opinions in? Do you want to ask for input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities ? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, bring in opinions from anywhere you think appropriate. I don't think, though, that "definition and history of the term" is a basis for an encyclopedia article - it would be a basis only for a dictionary entry (unless we can find significant reliable non-dictionary sources actually discussing the use and history of the term "internment", as opposed to the use and history of internment - which I find unlikely, since it's just a fairly average word). W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but by "definition and history of the term" I mean, "the history of internment" without it just being a list. History being about change or continuity over time. Prison is neither just a dictionary definition nor is it a list of prisons. It's partly definition, but partly about what prisons have been, how they have been used in different ways, and so on. I'd be happy to include mentions of other internments and internment camps in this article if they were notable for some reason. Its use outside war, its use based on politics rather than ethnicity, etc. If you know of good sources describing the broad global history internment, please let me know. Perhaps they would give us ideas on how to craft the article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I don't know of any sources, though such undoubtedly exist, and that seems a good setup to aim at. Some of the information in the "List..." article should end up in this one, while the genuinely listy information could be kept separate. W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Americans and internment of Italians

I fully acknowledge that these are important events, but they aren't particularly important to our modern understanding of the term interment. Unlike GULAGS and Nazi death camps, they are fairly consistent with previous examples of internment. And if you look at the list of internments, there are hundreds of similar ones. The internment of Japanese Americans is notable, but not any more notable than the rest, unless you happen to be Japanese or American (or both). - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So why don't we allow this article to contain information about these AND about all the others? This article will never develop out of its present sorry state if you just sit here removing anything anyone tries to add to it. Either we transfer the information wholesale from the (misnamed) "list" article, or we allow the article to grow organically as Wikipedia articles generally do. (Actually, since we already seem to have a great deal of information in the other article, the first option - wholesale transfer - would seem to be the best.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not just sitting here removing anything that anyone tries to add to it (and don't appreciate the accusation, thankyouverymuch). People have contributing valuable information that integrates with the article, and in those cases, I (and others) have left it alone. I'd love to see more of that. Most people, however, just add a sentence referencing whatever interment they happen to be interested in that doesn't contribute anything to our understanding of what internment is. Secondly, I think there is value in having an separate encyclopedia-style article talking about interment broadly, rather than just an introduction to a list. Why would the latter be better than the current setup? Park and Bridge and a great number of other topics have articles like this, and I think it works. I'm not sure Interment will ever be a long article, but I don't know that it needs to be. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well it needs at least to be something that reflects the subject. Someone reading the present article will have little idea of what internment means and has meant in practice, since only a few isolated instances (and pretty atypical ones) seem to be allowed to be referred to. As I said in previous threads, the actual lists, i.e. lists of camps, figures, etc., can be separated off, but it seems entirely unhelpful to exclude information about virtually all actual instances of internment from this article, leaving us with almost nothing of substance (and most of what we have probably belongs in a separate article about the concept of concentration camps). W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that someone reading the example would have little idea of what interment means. I think it currently informs people in the clearest way possible -- a way that avoids all the semantic posturing that governments do when interning people. It also generally avoids POV value judgements. That said, I'm not opposed to describing in more detail what the term means. If you and/or anyone else wants to illustrate different types of internment in prose style which happens to include examples, that's fine with me. But simply adding references to examples of internment without stating what makes them notable (among all the possible examples) isn't helpful. I don't, however, think that the government organizing the internment or the people being interned makes an internment notable. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Notable, I suppose, means that a significant number of sources have written about them. There are plenty of such cases, dealt with in the "List" article and elsewhere. It makes no sense to exclude all "typical" examples of internment just because there is no overriding reason to include some as opposed to others - we can see where this policy leads by looking at the article in its present form, where the few examples given mostly represent atypical forms of internment, or things that have rarely or never been referred to as internment at all. Surely you can see how this is totally unhelpful and highly misleading to readers? W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

on the citing of definitions, i.e., the definition of "concentration camp" in particular

For decency's sake--why not cite the ENTIRE OED definition of "concentration camp"? As opposed to your exceedingly biased--i.e., via selective focus--because truncated quote, of a SEGMENT of the COMPLETE definiton. And, do look up "bias," amd "selective" while you're there...

Look:

The Random House Dictionary defines the term as: "a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc.", and, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it thus: "A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions." Finally, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as : "a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined."

Through any of those THREE definitions, Guantanammo does, in fact, fit.


Please.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concentration+camp

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concentration+camp


Stonewhite 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Concentration Camp" is usually used when referring to the WW I German camps run by Hitler. Interment Camps have a WAY different meaning. The Japanese were not beaten or tortured, as the word "Concentration Camp" implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JellyBellyFred (talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is mentioned in the article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
But, to JellyBellyFred:

The Japanese were not beaten or tortured[citation needed]

Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Collins definition

For the purposes of encyclopedia the def from Collins is useless. "Internment is being iterned". In a dictionary, you have a further link to the word. In wikipedia we don't link to verbs and adjectives. Therefore for the sake of completeness, "to intern" must also be defined. Otherwise it is just a tautology, see 'sepulka' :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed by Themightyquill. Thx, Staszek Lem (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Concentration camps after Nazi camps

The world changed during WWII.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concentration+camp "especially any of the camps established by the Nazis"
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263 Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Google shows mostly articles about Nazi concentration camps.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Concur. All hatnotes in this article are inappropriate. "Concentration camp" should redirect "Nazi concentration camps" (World War II) with a separate hatnote to British concentration camps (Boer War). The same applies to lists of camps and information on internment actions by country. List of concentration and internment camps should not be a part of a hatnote but an internal link instead, or a "See also" maybe. Poeticbent talk 05:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and I'm not sure what your point is with the two links, xx236. The word "especially" doesn't mean only. The second article (from the holocaust museum so it would naturally be interested in the holocaust) still says "The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy." There remains no inherent difference between internment and concentration. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There exists inherent difference between internment and concentration and e.g. 20% pro year mortality in a Nazi concentration camp or in a Soviet correctional camp. Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what is the precise mortality rate that defines a concentration camp vs an internment camp? And you figure, if anyone is planning to achieve that rate of mortality in the future, they will be sure to call their facilities "concentration camps" rather than "internment camps" ? I'm not arguing that there is no difference between different camps, but I do disagree that the terms themselves have any inherent difference in meaning. Death camp, on the other hand, is inherently different. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Please provide references which describe the difference between the terms. I agree that some words catastrophically changed their meaning ("swastika"), but you have to provide solid sources which say that the change of the meaning of the word "conc camp" is a commonly accepted opinion. Please notice that it is an English-language encyclopedia, and we describe primarily en: usage. At the same time if the word has become a kind of "false friend", we can mention the peculiarity of its usage in other langauges (again, if you have sources which claim that). Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There existed a whole spectrum of camps and the main difference was the mortality rate, not the name, responsible state or political system. You both admit that the name concentration camp is a weasel word. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
English Wikipedia contains also the article Extermination through labor which says Extermination through labor is a term sometimes used to describe the operation of concentration camp, death camp and forced labor systems.Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Please read http://lubimyczytac.pl/ksiazka/204450/koszmar-niewolnictwa-obozy-koncentracyjne-od-1896-do-dzis-analiza , also available in German and Italian.Xx236 (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Many words changed their meaning: socialism, final solution, holocaust, party. Please show me your sources that 20th century genocides didn't change the world. Because the USA and UK weren't occupied so they can believe the world is still like it was around 1900. Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way, please don't mix apples and oranges. Indeed, in early days pre-GULAG camps were described as "concentration camps" even by Soviets, because their primary goal was to isolate the "social parasites". But at their height you can hardly call GULAG camps "concentration": they were commonly described by scholars as penal labor camps. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that if we are to continue to mix "internment" and "concentration" in the same article, then we need sources explicitly saying that they mean the same thing, or at least specifying the relationship between them. One of the several major problems with this page is that it seems to be trying to deal with both of these two, apparently quite distinct, topics at one time. If this can't be justified by sources, then Poeticbent's suggestion of re-targeting the "concentration camp" search term seems a good and long overdue one (though exactly where to target it remains a matter for discussion). Like I said somewhere up this page, it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia that "concentration camp" currently redirects to this rather crappy article; it's also something of an embarrassment that we don't have a proper article about internment, because nearly all information about any actual cases of internment is forcibly shunted off into a separate and misnamed article ("List of ... camps"). W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, since you asked (I think I posted this already): Euphemisms, Concentration Camps And The Japanese Internment Among the choice quotes: "a concentration camp, such as those operated by the British during the Boer War, does not in and of itself suggest atrocity"; "The [Oxford English Dictionary] defines a concentration camp as, 'a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the Boer War (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.'"; "Roger Daniels, a historian and author, wrote an analysis for the University of Washington Press called 'Words Do Matter: A Note on Inappropriate Terminology and the Incarceration of the Japanese Americans.' He concludes that, although it's unlikely society will completely cease to use the phrase 'Japanese internment,' scholars should abandon the term and use 'concentration camp.' He considers internment a euphemism that minimizes a tragic time in American history." "...the Japanese American Citizens League, the oldest Asian-American civil rights group... sides with Daniels. It calls the camps concentration camps." The same article also presents a quote by historian Alice Yang Murray who argues, like you do, that although things were different in the past, today the "concentration camp" essentially means "extermination camp" in some people's minds, but there is certainly a debate worthy of representing here on wikipedia.That's precisely what I've been trying to do with this article, to show the history of the terms and how they have changed in some people's minds. If you want to add content from that article to the wikipedia article, that's fine with me, but I'm against splitting it. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this certainly ought to be included. Though I'm still not sure that the information/debate on the term "concentration camp" belongs in an article that ought to be about internment in all its aspects, particularly if it's going to end up dominating the latter article as it does at present (and will do even more when we start adding information like you've just provided). W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • W. P. Uzer is correct. This discussion although insightful on its own, did not help resolve anything with regard to a WP:redirect from the "concentration camp" to a totally unexpected, underdeveloped, and confusing entry. I just performed a Google search. The phrase "concentration camp" yielded 6,460,000 results for me. So, I removed the phrase "internment" from my search, i.e. "concentration camp" -internment and still, there were 6,340,000 results for the search. The word "internment" is not a prerequisite to concentration camps. Poeticbent talk 19:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
How internment is not a prerequisite? You are saying that inmates of concentration camps were not interned against their will? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read what I said, the word "internment" is not a prerequisite to a phrase "concentration camp" meaning, the phrase "concentration camp" itself should not be redirecting to "internment" per Wikipedia:Common name policy guideline. Poeticbent talk 19:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In this case your statement is meaningless: any word is not a prerequisite to any other phrase: anything can be explained in some other words. On the other hand the concept of internment is a prerequisite to the concept of "concentration camp", and this is relevant to our discussion, because we are encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and for us the article is about atopic, not about a word which names the topic (with some exceptions, when the word is an encyclopedic topic itself). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way, your Google logic is faulty as well. "concentration camp" gives 1 zillion hits and "concentration camp" -Nazi gives 0.98 zillion hits (check actual number yourself). Therefore "Nazi" is not a prerequisite for "concentration camp, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The words as such are extremely important. I'm sorry my statement is meaningless to you in the context of this discussion. However, it was just words that prompted UNESCO to change the official name of Auschwitz from "Auschwitz Concentration Camp" to "former Nazi German concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau" in order to make clear what the foreshortening words actually stand for. Wikipedia:No personal attacks please. Poeticbent talk 22:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I did not say the words are not important. I said your phrasing is meaningless and explained why. And I explained how I think the concept of "prerequisite" may be relevant to encyclopedic definitions, as distinguished from dictionary definitions. As for UNESCO, my point exactly. "Concentration camp" and "Nazi concentration camp" are two different subjects, and UNESCO decided to use the precise terminology. Also, I fail to see how a logical discussion you see a personal attack; please be specific in your accusations. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Google lists almost only texts about Nazi concentration camps. Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Recentism. But still: "Inside an American concentration camp" and much more. Prevalence of usage does not trump the accepted dictionary definition. By the same logic we would have to redirect Communist state to Soviet Union yesterday and to China today. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems we need to decide what Wikipedia is going to do with the search term "concentration camp". Redirecting it to Nazi concentration camps is one possibility, and that article already contains a section ("Pre-war camps") that does a good job of explaining about the history of concentration camps up to WWII times. However it would be rather off-topic for that article if we were to add more detailed information about the use of the term and characteristics of concentration camps (or alleged concentration camps) not related to the Nazi one. In my view probably the best solution is to start a separate article titled "concentration camp" in which we can get all the information together and expand on it as appropriate. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That would constitute WP:FORK and an invitation to WP:SYNTH to prove a point at the expense of another point, namely, they are one and the same. You say they are supposed to differ by the level of atrocities, if I understand correctly. But first, we already have emotional term "death camp". And second, the extreme atrocities of Nazi camps do not devaluate atrocities elsewhere to the level of "mere inconveniences". (Someone already mentioned that "internment camp" was simply an euphemism for an unpleasant concept, akin to "pacification" and others. And, by the way, I have an impression that the term "pacification" today means not how it sounds. Does someone want to take on "Pacification (brutal suppression)" article?) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
To be exact we have the Extermination camp article, and the Death camp is a redirect.
This Wikipedia doesn't have an article about concentration camps, so such article has to be written and any discussions about it should go to Talk:Concentration camp.
80 years since the creation of Nazi camps and 70 years since the end of WWII isn't recentism.
You are using real problems to prove that creation of an ideal article is impossible. But we don't create ideal articles, we are humans and we create human description of the world and the world changed in the 20th century. Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
What you mean to say is that Wikipedia doesn't have an article titled concentration camps. It *does* have an article about concentration camps: this one. You are suggesting that there is a valid reason to have two separate articles Concentration camp and Internment which both mean, at their basic level, the exact same thing. Some people assume "Concentration camp" means "Nazi concentration camp", a subject which *does* deserve it's own article, which is why we have one: Nazi concentration camps. Since you don't seem to think "concentration camp" means the same thing as internment but rather, if I understand correctly, means "Nazi concentration camp" any suggestion to createa separate concentration camp article would just duplicate what already exists at Nazi concentration camps. Instead, we have one dictionary definition article here where "Internment" and "Concentration camp" are discussed as the same phenomenon, with plenty of visible links to Nazi concentration camps. I really can't see why that is an insufficient compromise for you. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Even if you are right this is not an article but a stub, which isn't any form of a compromise but rather of neglecting the subject. It doesn't link the Extermination through labor article, which describes, among others, concentration camps.
The List of concentration and internment camps is controversial, it doesn't explain the level of cruelty. The Russia and the Soviet Union section is unproportionally short, it doesn't inform that Polish POWs of 1920 war were kept in concentration camps, later Poles were interned and murdered, which is known as Katyn massacre. These aren't details.
There exists a Wikidata problem - reading this article you hardly can find an artcle about concentration camps in many languages. ( concentration camp (Q152081) )Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Poles were interned in Lithuania 1939-1940, not listed, which ws good for them, but should be mentioned. http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_r=9252&p_d=130209&p_k=2 Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the length of the Russia/Soviet Union section in List of concentration and internment camps, that seems like a more appropriate place to discuss it. But your suggestion that we include details on the Katyn massacre is precisely my problem. Why include that detail and not others? And if we include all information on all internments/concentration camps that anyone feels is important, would that really create a good article? I'm not suggesting this article couldn't be improved, but I don't think adding information that doesn't address the topic of the article (ie. What is internment/a concentration camp?) is useful. I don't think information on the Katyn massacre, for example, helps answer that question. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I mean that all prisoners of a concentration camp can be murdered outside the camp and the world would pretend it doesn't know anything about the murder during 50 years. It belongs to the definition of a concentration camp.Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess I disagree. I don't think it's especially relevant to this article. I'm no expert on Katyn, but weren't those killed there military prisoners? It doesn't seem to be mentioned at Prisoner-of-war camp. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia really shouldn't have "dictionary definition" articles, or should try not to. Here, under the title Internment, there should be a full article about internment, incorporating information about the many cases and forms of internment that have occurred (much of it is already available in the wrongly titled "List of ..." article; it just needs to be moved to here, leaving only actual lists in the list article). "Concentration camp", however, is a different subject - most definitely not the same phenomenon, as most people presumably know. As neutral encyclopedia writers we would not attach the label "concentration camp" to just any internment facility. Our article on concentration camp would be about the facilities that we can neutrally call concentration camps, and about the usage of the term (and debate around such usage). It seems somewhat warped to do as we virtually seem to be doing at the moment - putting the concentration camp article at Internment, and the internment article at List of concentration and internment camps. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think I've provided sources that support my argument. This article is not a "dictionary definition" article, it's an encyclopedia article, which includes a definition and gives broad encyclopedic information about the article. It's NOT simply a list of examples, and I can't see how your proposal would be anything other than a long list with details. There's no point in describing different camps unless you can show how they are related to each other. I'm not attaching "concentration camp" to any particular camp. Rather my point is the opposite, that "concentration camp" is a loaded term like "terrorist" that is frequently applied, after the fact, to the camps run by people we don't like, whereas internment camp is frequently applied to camps run by people we do like. It's encyclopedic to describe that, but not NPOV to adopt it as a categorization scheme. Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Or thinking about it some more, perhaps concentration camp should be a disambiguation page - there could be a separate article on usage of the term called concentration camp (term) or something (or that might even just be a section of the internment article like now, but it shouldn't dominate that article - that article should be allowed to develop to cover the topic of internment fully). I think I saw in some other language Wikipedias that the disambiguation page solution was used. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, firstly, having a separate article called Concentration camp (term) doesn't seem to jive with your argument a few seconds ago that we shouldn't have dictionary definition articles. But your second suggestion of having a disambiguation page is not unreasonable. My only concern is how do we keep the disambiguation page from simply replicating List of concentration and internment camps? What do we put on the disambiguation page, and how to we rationalize it?

Concentration camps may refer to:

<! -- Please don't place any more examples here -- >

I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, but I'm skeptical about how it will play out. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is the ONLY Wikipedia in the world redirecting the search "concentration camp" to the "internment". No other Wikipedia edition does that.[8] – This is the reason why we're having this discussion. Please take a look. A full list of sister Wikipedias where concentration camp is the actual target article ... not a "redirect" includes entries written in 58 languages. The "Internment" is a different article in a number of languages, twelve to be exact.[9] – In all cases from above, the target article "concentration camp" features the actual description of the Nazi concentration camp as well. Poeticbent talk 19:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, so far your side of the argument has cited "google hits" and "what's on other, far smaller wikipedia projects" as evidence, whereas the current setup has the dictionary and various other published references as evidence. So, call me unconvinced. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

the dictionary - but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so quoting a dictionary is only the beginning;
and various other published references - really various which means here accidental. No academic text about internment or concentration camps in general.Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC) There exists a book in French and German [10] (I haven't read it).Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a great source. Did you read the article? Definitely worth including, and along with a dictionary definition, it's a better starting point than google hits or "what other wikipedia projects do." - Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.cairn.info/revue-les-cahiers-de-la-shoah-2003-1-page-45.htm It's a 2003 article, I hope it was deveoped later. Kotek is an academic historian.Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The List of concentration and internment camps is a synthesis of many sources, which is close to OR, because the editors have to create the general image, e.g. the limits of the description and the allotement of space - according to what: the number of camps, number of prisoners, number of death victims, death ratio, period of existence, cruelties (medical experiments) or none, which means bias. Xx236 (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to prevent the exact same thing from happening to this article. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is a substub quoting accidental texts.Xx236 (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Accidental texts? This article has very similar content to the review of the book on 20th century camps that you posted. You might note that review doesn't mention Katyn either. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Were exactly a rhetoric of dehumanization, of depersonalization is mentioned here?Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The references of this article are listed. What is the logic? They are all in English, they are about Nazi, English and US camps.
Firstly, you are complaining about the sources all being in English? That's actually preferable according to WP:RSUE.
Second, the article mentions camps established in Poland by the Russian empire, and Spanish camps established in Cuba, and German camps established in German South-West Africa. It also includes, for no apparent reason, an image of Italian camps established in Libya. There is no mention of "US camps" aside from American camps established in the Philippine–American War. Are we reading the same article? Themightyquill (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The name of one Soviet camp was "concentration camp Kozielsk-1". Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think its official name is particularly important if it was a POW camp, it's a different issue. Incidentally, what was the official Russian name? A google search for "concentration camp 'Kozielsk-1'" yields no relevant results. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Soviet camps weren't obviously POW camps, there are many questions. There was Soviet law and documents about the camps.
I don't know contemporary Russian law but the Russian Wikipedia says that concentration camps are also for POWs, which continues Soviet line: Polish POWs were kept in concentration camps around 1920, not in POW camps.
The SU hasn't declared war against Poland in 1939, it was rather a humanitarian mission (according to Soviets). So (Internationally) legally Poles (not only army officers but all unifermed men including foresters plus one woman) were interned, not POWs. Accordingly the camps were concentration camps, not POW camps.
I'm sorry for my spelling error, the English name of the town is Kozelsk, which makes ""concentration camp Kozelsk-1". It's a translation of Russian концлагерь «Козельск-1», I don't know what the name comes from. The legal name was probably simply Козельский лагерь (Kozelsk camp). One of documents [11] says interned people (интернированных) but NKVD camps for POWs (лагерях НКВД СССР для военнопленных). Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, xx236, but it all sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. And even if you had sources to show that Kozelk is commonly described as a concentration camp, I still don't see why it is especially notable from among all the examples in List of concentration and internment camps. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The French article describes the process of evolution of the cc to the Nazi camps.Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll read the French when I have some time. Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if evolution is a good term to use. Kotek doesn't use it, and I believe the English review argued specifically against a direct causality. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Republicans at Meheri Zabbens and Argelès-sur-Mer

MPS1992 just added the following:

"In the late 1930s, over 100,000 defeated or interned personnel of the Spanish Republican armed forces, along with civilians, were held in concentration camps by France, including at Meheri Zabbens,[Ref Almirante Valdés (VS o AV)] and at the Camp de concentration d'Argelès-sur-Mer in southern France. Some of these managed to go into exile or went to join the armies of the Allies to fight against the Axis powers,[Ref 24 au 26 août 1944 Libération de Paris par les chars... espagnols de la nueve ] while others ended up in Nazi concentration camps.[Ref “Republicans deportats als camps de concentració nazis” ]."

Personally, I'm unconvinced that this is a worthwhile addition to the page, since I don't think this particular internment of civilians and soldiers is particularly important to the understanding of internment/concentration camps but since I've been criticized for removing content in the past, I thought I'd bring it up here for discussion. Note that the first reference seems to be a Spanish-language blog, and the second two (at least for me) are dead links. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The importance could certainly be debated, but it seems very clear to me that its relevance in this article cannot be disputed. The scale is surely significant, as the sources appear to indicate over 100,000 internees at various points. This compares dramatically with the widely-cited Boer War example, which currently in this article implies a much smaller number of internees, and the other earlier examples in this article, which are not clear about the numbers involved but seem likely to be fairly small.
The date is a complication. Uses of "internment" before the Nazi actions tend to be considered more worthy of mention. The French actions came after the Nazis began using internment (and concentration) camps, but before the outbreak of World War 2, which many associate closely with Nazi extremes.
Certainly I think this instance of internment is important, both for its similarities to other cases (numerous deaths resulting from poor conditions, limited legal basis), and also for its differences (the Spanish internees were there for completely different reasons from most of the other examples in the article). And, as I said, the scale. MPS1992 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@MPS1992: Maybe you could stress those notable qualities in the text (with functional references of course) to show why it's important. I'm not sure that internment prior to the Second World War is in itself noteworthy, especially given the significant numbers of internments around the world during the First World War. See List of concentration and internment camps for examples. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Internments by Japanese during WW2

There doesn't seem to be any mention of Japanese internments during WW2 of europeans or foreign nationals or captured populations. Since the nazi concentration camps are here, then also internment/workcamps for asians of all kinds probably should be here as well (huge numbers were mistreated and worked to death under the Japanese). Non-Japanese People used for Medical experimentation may or may not also be relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.140.104 (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Soviet camps

Can we at least have a section about the Soviet Union, even if all it does is redirect people to the pages for Gulags or Forced Labor Camp or whatever? As is clear from the Talk page, the experts even disagree on what constitutes a concentration camp proper, and to the average layman the gulags and corrective labor camps in Russia are just referred to as 'concentration camp'. I'm not saying we have to redefine things based on this, but it would be nice to have a header for Soviet Union with links leading to the appropriate pages. From looking at this page, it would appear that the Soviets never detained people in camps without trial at all - the word 'Soviet' doesn't even appear on the page. I fear that the average person could scan this page and discover that the British, Americans and Germans kept people in camps in inhumane conditions, but the Soviets did not. It is also widely inconsistent to list gulags and labor camps on the 'List of concentration and internment camps' page yet to be silent about them on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1AD2:7600:4FD:FC5C:E679:9986 (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There are many examples of camps from all around the world that aren't mentioned - that's why there's a list. I don't think the omission of soviet gulags implies that the Soviets didn't do anything, any more than it suggests the many other examples of camps around the world not mentioned didn't exist. Should we just delete this page and link to the list, that way everyone gets "fair" coverage? For the record, GULAG used to be linked in the see also section, but seems to have been removed by Paul Siebert. You can see his comments above. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Falsehood Removed: "Hitler praised Americans for gunning down millions of Redskins"

It was the polar opposite of praise if you read it in context.

It was in the overall context of criticizing German immigrants to America for integrating into America, and was critical of American society. The (translated) quote in context:

Hitler: "You hope that France will say that we, the French, can no longer see that the Germans are suffering. Consequently, we want to give up some of our pensioner's life to the French, we want to pay everyone a bit more taxes, so that the Germans can pay the reparations, we want to even refund you what you have paid, of your own free will. This doctrinaire view can be contrasted with the whole experience of world history. Tell me a people from world history who would have been freed on the way. Call me a people who, in spite of work, diligence, submissive attitude, pleas and begging, would have become free. There is no such people. On the contrary, with food, the appetite of the ruling peoples grows. And as soon as a people has taken over this cult role, the other peoples regard it as their right to live by this people. Again and again we see that the German beggars have to experience with astonishment how the doors remain closed. Of course you say: Yes, that is the one conception of the nutrition of a people, that one always extends the ground; instead, the people can be adapted to the soil. Now I would just like to comment on this because the general views about it, conditioned by our official economy, are completely wrong. First the emigration. First of all, I have to say that the state-political wisdom of emigrating a people that you can no longer feed on your own soil is very limited. Yes, where do you want to emigrate? To North America? This North America once belonged to a very different people, namely the Indians. The whites took the land from them, drove them back to an ever closer area and finally gave them the firewater (alcohol). And after the White shot down the millions of redskins to a few hundred thousand, he wants to watch the modest remains in the cage. You see, you do not want to represent your people in Europe, but you are involved in land theft elsewhere. Here away from any imperialist idea, but over to the country, which represents the imperialism in pure culture! There you go, and I know exactly: over there you will be ashamed of your German nationality. You can not escape the curse: if you leave your people by emigration, you steal the bread elsewhere." --Farry (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

without trial v before trial

In common parlance is there some specific amount of time that must pass for a person to be confined without trial before they are considered to be interned? I imagine a lot of people charged with murder are kept in jail prior to their trial beginning but I don't know if the term internment is used to describe that or not.

If it only refers to people who are never expected to get a trial, how long a delay goes by before this term applies? Or are there adjectives like "annual internment" giving specifics of duration, like someone jailed for a year and still not having gotten a trial? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Flamous7: excellent job with the sources you added![

  • Lowry, David (1976). "Human Rights Vol. 5, No. 3 "INTERNMENT: DENTENTION WITHOUT TRIAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND"". Human Rights. 5 (3). American Bar Association: ABA Publishing: 261–331. JSTOR 27879033. The essence of internment lies in incarceration without charge or trial.
  • Kenney, Padraic (2017). Dance in Chains: Political Imprisonment in the Modern World. Oxford University Press. p. 47. ISBN 9780199375745. A formal arrest usually comes with a charge, but many regimes employed internment (that is, detention without intent to file charges),

There seems to be a distinction here between Lowry (without filing) and Padraic (without INTENT to file). Which is more prevalent? How do prove a negative (a lack of intention?). If going with the broader Lowry usage (lack of charges, regardless of future intent) is there no minimum duration suggested by anyone before using? IE not calling it "internment" if there is a 1 day delay between imprisoning someone and being able to charge them? ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You would have to look it at like intent to murder. Its based on actions of an entity or government. Examples include laws governing such matters, previously history, providing a public defender, providing a date of arraignment reading of rights. If the entity doesn't follow a certain set of actions then it can be argued there was no intent to file charges. Flamous7 (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Gulag, again

The see also section should include a link to the gulag page, the argument that it does not technically meet the definition of internment is a reason not to mention gulags in the article itself, but not necessarily to not mention it in the see also section. The links in the see also section can be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics, see: MOS:SEEALSO. I think gulags are closely enough related to the subject of Interment to have a link in the see also section, especially since other subjects that do not meet the definition of internment are listed there such as Labor camp and House arrest. Underneaththesun (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC))

On Natchez

I feel the text on Natchez should be moved or removed for the following reasons : 1. It does not provide or contribute to the section it is located in, its not an etymology or a definition. 2. Those clams about Natchez originate from a "Amateur historian" named Paula Westbrook who is also a "Paranormal expert". I have tried and failed to find another historian who makes the same claims as Paula, but I have found several, some with actual degrees, who make different claims. Please see [1] for a reliable source.Scio c (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Great. Thank you for providing backup to the claim regarding why that source was unreliable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. I've gone ahead and removed the text again. I was not sure if I should message you or hope that you would look at the talk page, so I did both. Sorry for any annoyance, I'm new here. Scio c (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
As you might guess, based on my response here, the problem with removal of that content without explanation by another editor and your removal without explaining why the source was unreliable was troubling, to say the least. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, Not only did I offer an explanation, I gave two reasons, the main reason I gave in my edit summary was "Content does not relate to surrounding text" as its not an etymology or a definition, this was still valid regardless of whether the source was reliable or not. Also User:Monopoly31121993(2) had already pointed out a reliable source that contradicted what was there in his edit summary : "not RS, see Natchez page and citation of The Black experience in Natchez, 1720-1880 by Ronald L. F Davis for details, no mention of internment or concentration camps". Given that I was the third person that tried to remove the information, with two valid reasons given, and it was the third time you put it back there, I would think that the onus would be on you to prove the source was reliable and to rework or relocate the information so that it would better fit into the article. -- Scio c (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gmatsuda and Scio c, I just read your posts and think there might have been a slight misunderstanding. As I mentioned in my deletion, Reliable sources are necessary for including this and in this case, the source provided was not a RS so it was removed. I also went a step further by investigating what were indeed a series of tragic events in and around Natchez during the Civil War. I have added a paragraph to the Natchez, Mississippi page about those events and cited the relevant pages from a RS if either of you would like to read more about the topic. Scio c, as a new editor, please know that your contributions are GREATLY appreciated. Please continue to be bold!Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Monopoly31121993(2), what bugged me was that the unreliable source was put back there three times, despite adequate explanation, and your edit on Natchez, Mississippi was also reverted by the same person for "RV: unsourced edits", despite the fact you cited a reliable source. I took the liberty of adding a ISBN and url to your source and copied your edit to History of Natchez, Mississippi where the same unreliable source was present. I probably won't be watching those pages in the future so if you change what you added to Natchez, Mississippi you might want to update the relevant section in History of Natchez, Mississippi as well. Thank you for finding that book and doing the research. -- Scio c (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Article heavily biased towards debate over the term - creating a section on historical examples

The article is dominated by hand wringing over the meaning of the term, but I feel it could be much improved by an addition of a section on historical examples where each case can be described. At the moment I'll just put dot points in the spirit of WP:WORKINPROGRESS. Feel free to expand, I'll try to get back, but may not. Mozzie (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Goddamnit....Only the english language version ommits the word concentration camp. There literally isn't an article for "concentration camps", only Nazi concentration camps or internment camps

There is clearly a concerted propaganda effort going on here to define only the Nazi camps as concentration camps. Concentration camp is not a pejorative term for an internment camp. It is a type of internment camp where people, often undesirables, are concentrated for a longer period of time, a type of permanent or quasi-permanent institution. An internment camp is a more temporary solution for the need to house people. I'd say the Cuban internment camps in the 60s in the US were just that while the camps to house Japanese in the US were concentration camps. Whether or not the current immigration camps are either is up to someone else to decide but this is bloody nonsense. It's also bloody fucking nonsense that when I google "concentration camp" in other languages that I know I get far more varied results than when I google it in English which always leads to the nazi terminology.

Here's Swedish national radio historian arguing that it is damaging to only define concentration camps through the lense of nazi crimes: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/785605?programid=503

Spanish link talking about the 300 concentration camps in Spain: https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/Franco-campos-concentracion-Espana-calculado_0_876663097.html

Nurse in Australia that worked in detention centers defines these as concentration camps due to conditions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0bVvYk-jJk

If we are going to go after definitions then the dictionary definitions are clearly available: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/concentration-camp "a place where large numbers of people are kept as prisoners in extremely bad conditions, especially for political reasons: "

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Anne Applebaum defines concentration camps as places where people are interned not for what they did but for who they are. Whether or not immigrants are "doing" something when immigrating or not is up to someone else to define but clearly families are being destroyed and seperated when US born children are taken away from their families or forced in together with their parents into these camps.

Americans are ruining everything with their identity politics, but can we at least please not ruin wikipedia and can someone fix this??? 81.231.231.39 (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Internment vs concentration camp

With both internment camp and concentration camp redirecting here, and with Nazi death camps being near synonymous to concentration camp in popular parlance, I think we need to make the distinction clear, both in the article and in our editorial policies (WP:WTA, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Where you do feel this distinction is unclear?
The article currently states, "In the 20th century the arbitrary internment of civilians by the state became more common and reached a climax with Nazi concentration camps and the practice of genocide in Nazi extermination camps, and with the Gulag system of forced labor camps of the Soviet Union[7]. 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. For example, many of the slave labor camps were used as cheap or free sources of factory labor for the manufacture of war materials and other goods."
- TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Right, the problem is, however, that as long as the "the term "concentration camp" carries many of the connotations of "extermination camp"", should we avoid using the term "concentration cam"p in articles and use "internment camp" instead, unless we are speaking of Nazi/Soviet camps? I've seen several heated debates about specific cases, in which one part wanted to use the term "concentration camp" when both terms were used by sources, obviously pushing certain POV. I think we should prefer the use of internment camp for all non-obvious cases, and add a note to WP:WTA that the term "concentration camp" should be avoided.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we should use whatever term was used by authorities at the time and/or what is most common when discussing that particular camp. Yes, using the term "concentration camp" can be just POV pushing, but I'm not sure that it always is. And to some degree, either choice is somewhat of a POV issue. ie. Trying to make a "concentration camp" more neutral by using words is also POV to some extent. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason for restricting the use of the term "concentration camp" to Nazi/Soviet camps. Where the designation is used on the basis of a thorough analysis of the nature of the camp and its operation that desigantion should be accepted. For example the Bassiouni Commission Report - UN Document S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. I) of 28 December 1994, "FINAL REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSIONS OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 780 (1992)- ANNEX V THE PRIJEDOR REPORT" is quite unequivocal in its use of teh term in relation to camps in the Omarska-Keraterm-Trnoploje-Manjaca complex established in the early days of the Bosnian war.
Throughout the report you will find references to the concentration camps of Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje.
In PART ONE - VI CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND DEPORTATIONS
"22. As the "informative talks" or interrogations basically took place in the Omarska and Keraterm camps, it can be concluded that more than 6,000 adult males were taken to these concentration camps in the short period they existed (from the end of May to the beginning of August 1992). Since only 1,503 were moved on to Manjaça camp according to Mr. Drljaça, a limited number transferred to the Trnopolje camp, and almost none released, it may be assumed that the death toll was extremely high, even by Serbian accounts. The concentration camp premises were sometimes so packed with people that no more inmates could be crammed in. On at least one occasion, this allegedly resulted in an entire bus-load of newly captured people being arbitrarily executed en masse. Some 37 women were detained in Omarska, whilst no women were kept over time in Keraterm."
And shortly after, at para. 27, under VII THE STRATEGY OF DESTRUCTION, Bassiouni gives an explanation of the purpose of these concentration camps - the reason why the camps were used to "concentrate" key members of the Muslim and Croat communities.
"27. Despite the absence of a real non-Serbian threat, the main objective of the concentration camps, especially Omarska but also Keraterm, seems to have been to eliminate the non-Serbian leadership. Political leaders, officials from the courts and administration, academics and other intellectuals, religious leaders, key business people and artists - the backbone of the Muslim and Croatian communities - were removed, apparently with the intention that the removal be permanent. Similarly, law-enforcement and military personnel were targeted for destruction. These people also constituted a significant element of the non-Serbian group in that its depletion rendered the group at large defenceless against abuses of any kind. Other important traces of Muslim and Croatian culture and religion - mosques and Catholic churches included - were destroyed."
The .pdf version can be downloaded from www.law.depaul.edu/centers_Institutes/ihrli/downloads/V_a.pdf
Boundaries may sometimes be difficult to establish but the downplaying of the identity of concentration camps as a preliminary stage in a progress towards large scale deliberate or neglectful killing by subsuming the separate treatment of "Concentration camp" into an article on internment is unwarranted. There have been strong and arguably motivated efforts elsewhere to confine the use of the term "Concentration camp" to the Nazi camps (for example in the LM controversy over Trnopolje). The applicability or distinct identity of the term should not be restricted unless specific issues have been discussed and resolved.

In principle I agree with Piotrus. But because the term "concentration camp" was used both about british internment camps and nazi death camps, the article should reflect both meanings. The nazis of course used "concentration camp" as a euphamism, just like the bosnian-serb used "interrogation centre" as a euphamism for concentration camp (during the Bosnian war). It is not the aim of WP to affect the way these words are used, but instead to very clear in specifying the various meanings attached to these words. I also agree with Themightyguill that using only the term "concentration camp" can in some cases be POV pushing, particularly if the term is not used by sources or if the reasons for using the term is not specified; using a more neutral term can also be POV pushing if the term is in fact used by the sources. In any case, WP can not make it's own conclusions based on the evidence, this would constitute original research. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Death camps

With regard to the above, clearly there is a difference between the larger concentration camp or internment camp and the extermination camp. This distinction should have been provided in this article.Dogru144 (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ronald L. F Davis (1999). The Black experience in Natchez, 1720-1880: A special history study, Natchez National Historical Park, Mississippi. Eastern National. pp. 145–160. ISBN 978-1888213379.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Internment/Archive_1&oldid=1131531513"