Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of concentration and internment camps: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:57, 3 August 2006 edit80.127.21.134 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:40, 8 April 2024 edit undoDMacks (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators187,082 edits DENY sock Undid revision 1217539966 by Usersnipedname (talk)Tag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
==Jew misspelled==
{{Controversial|date=June 2018}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1=
{{WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=CL|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|list=yes|SciTech=y|WWI=y|WWII=y}}
{{WikiProject Lists|class=list|importance=low}}
}}
{{Press
| subject = talk page
| author = Matt Novak
| title = America's 'Detention Centers' Added to Misplaced Pages List of Concentration Camps
| org = ]
| url = https://gizmodo.com/americas-detention-centers-added-to-wikipedia-list-of-c-1826944008
| date = 19 June 2018
| quote =
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| accessdate = 19 June 2018


| author2 = River Donaghey
Jews is spelled "Jewws" on the bottom of the Germany section
| title2 = Misplaced Pages Added US Border 'Detention Centers' to Its List of Concentration Camps
| org2 = ]
| url2 = https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d3kjma/wikipedia-us-detention-centers-concentration-camps-vgtrn
| date2 = 19 June 2018
| quote2 =
| archiveurl2 =
| archivedate2 =
| accessdate2 = 19 June 2018


| author3 = Walter Einenkel
| title3 = Trump's 'Detention centers' added to Misplaced Pages's 'List of concentration and internment camps'
| org3 = ]
| url3 = https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/19/1773324/-Trump-s-Detention-centers-added-to-Misplaced Pages-s-List-of-concentration-and-internment-camps
| date3 = 19 June 2018
| quote3 =
| archiveurl3 =
| archivedate3 =
| accessdate3 = 19 June 2018


| author4 = Omer Benjakob
==Soviet Camps==
| title4 = Misplaced Pages Lists Trump’s Detention Centers as ‘Concentration Camps,’ Sparks Online War
| org4 = ]
| url4 = https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-wikipedia-spat-after-trump-centers-called-concentration-camps-1.6196587
| date4 = 20 June 2018
| quote4 =
| archiveurl4 =
| archivedate4 =
| accessdate4 = 24 June 2018


| author5 = Natasha Bach
why is it that Soviet camps are described in the first line of the article, but '''nothing else''' is stated after that? I have been trying to find out information on German WWII POWS and can find absolutely none on wikipedia. I know there is loads of information on the topic out there, but it is nowhere on wikipedia. I give one big WTF to wikipedia, so much for it being a source of knowledge. I dont know how such a huge website with information about everything on non-importance can miss such a huge section.
| title5 = Trump's Family Border Separation Policy Is Being Fought on a New Battleground: Misplaced Pages's List of Concentration Camps
| org5 = ]
| url5 = http://fortune.com/2018/06/20/family-border-separation-trump-detention-centers-wikipedia-concentration-camps/
| date5 = 20 June 2018
| quote5 =
| archiveurl5 =
| archivedate5 =
| accessdate5 = 24 June 2018


| author6 = Zoe Harris
--] 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
| title6 = Trump's Child Detention Centers Are On Misplaced Pages's "Concentration and Internment Camps" List
| org6 = ]
| url6 = https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a21650421/wikipedia-concentration-camps-internment-camps-trump/
| date6 = 19 June 2018
| quote6 =
| archiveurl6 =
| archivedate6 =
| accessdate6 = 24 June 2018


| author7 = Matt Novak
:At the time you posted your comment, the article had been vandalised and the section on "Russia and the Soviet Union" deleted. It was reinstated shortly afterwards. ] 13:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
| title7 = Misplaced Pages Editors Fight Over What to Call America's Concentration Camps
| org7 = ]
| url7 = https://gizmodo.com/wikipedia-editors-fight-over-what-to-call-americas-conc-1836771692
| date7 = 30 July 2019
| quote7 =
| archiveurl7 =
| archivedate7 =
| accessdate7 = 30 July 2019


}}
==Murder/Execution==
{{section sizes}}
{{archives|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:List of concentration and internment camps/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 6
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive=1
}}


== Immigration enforcement is not internment, and immigration facilities are not "internment/concentration" camps - POV issue==
From ]: "Although exact numbers will never be known, it is estimated that approximately six million Jews and 600,000 homosexuals were murdered in Nazi concentration camps."


Opening the discussion here since this article contains factually incorrect information.
"Murder" implies extrajudicial killing, which is exactly what the ] was not. Suggest changing to "executed" or some term which recognizes this.
According to the cited definition on the ] article:
"Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial. The term is especially used for the confinement "of enemy citizens in wartime or of terrorism suspects".


'''Immigration detention facilities are by definition NOT internment/concentration camps since the people being held in them are being charged with the crime of improper entry.''' ''Q.E.D.''
The correct term is clearly 'murder'. The reason is the actions would be considered as murder by every fair court of law on the planet.
There has not been official designation by a governing body of merit such as the EU, UN, etc. nor are there peer-reviewed publications that explain why immigration detention facilities are designated as "concentration/internment" camps. There are content experts that have made the determination that these are not to be called internment/concentration camps, including the official stance of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/why-holocaust-analogies-are-dangerous).


If we want to include in these series of articles that there are politicians, members of the media, and academics that want to call them concentration camps, then we can do that, but we need to make sure that the readers are reminded they are ''objectively NOT concentration camps'' according to the facts.
''Ok :-) You the writer. You seem to know what you're doing.''
--] (]) 00:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


I am proposing the following verbiage:
Murder is correct, because even the Nazis haven't changed the law in a way, that would have maken the Endlösung legal.
In May 2018, President Trump's administration instituted a "zero tolerance" policy mandating the criminal prosecution of all adults who were referred by immigration authorities for violating immigration laws. This policy directly led to the large-scale, forcible separation of children and parents illegally crossing the United States-Mexico border, including those claiming asylum after being detained. Parents were arrested and put into criminal detention, while their children were taken away, classified as unaccompanied alien minors, to be put into child immigrant detention centers. Though in June 2018 Trump signed an executive order ostensibly ending the family separation component of his administration's migrant detentions, it continued in limited fashion under alternative justifications into 2019. By the end of 2018 the number of children being held had swelled to a high of nearly 15,000, which by August 2019 had been reduced to less than 9,000. Though by definition immigration detention facilities are not considered internment/concentration camps, in 2019, a naming controversy arose. Various politicians, academics, and journalists made claims that these immigration detention facilities should be labeled as "concentration camps". Notable groups, such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, panned and rejected these analogies. Though the conditions of the facilities have been almost universally panned, including by a human rights chief in the UN, the UN has not designated these facilities as internment/concentration camps, and have reiterated that states do have the sovereign prerogative to decide on the conditions of entry and stay of foreign nationals.


Please make comments and supply edits. The sources are more or less the same, probably taking a few out (many just cite the same source anyway). We can add the sources before we post.
--] (]) 05:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


: That is what we at Misplaced Pages call ]. You take one definition and make your own interpretation of it. Sorry, but Misplaced Pages works by using reliable sources. // ] (]) 08:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
::{{tq|That is what we at Misplaced Pages call ]. You take one definition and make your own interpretation of it. Sorry, but Misplaced Pages works by using reliable sources.}}
::This is not original research, as everything posted is factual, and sourced (sources are already cited on the page). There's only one way to interpret the definition that is listed on the ] page, and it is clear that these immigration facilities are not "concentration camps". You have not proposed any changes or edits, so, please at least try to? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
:::You are "interpret" content from another Misplaced Pages page in order to explain away the statements by content experts, which is substituting your own position for theirs. This is absolutely ]: {{tq|This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.}}. --] (]) 18:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


::::{{tq|You are "interpret" content from another Misplaced Pages page in order to explain away the statements by content experts, which is substituting your own position for theirs.}}
==Churchill in the Boer War==
::::Wrong. I am reciting ("interpreting") facts in order to explain how immigration detention facilities are not "internment/concentration camps". We've already been over that the "content experts" you're attempting to use are not experts in the field. You're trying to use "original research" as a defense but it falls through here; it's like if I said "carbon is a non-metallic element", and I link the definition and Wiki page, and you claim this is "original research". The above block I suggested is based in fact and reality, and correctly describes the situation we're facing. Unless you have edits to propose, I will link the sources and replace.
::::--] (]) 22:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


These are concentration camps; this has already been decided by experts and affirmed by the Misplaced Pages editing community. Arguing otherwise without sources showing a change in the relevant experts is useless.
I am suprised to see Churchill cited as a member of the British military during the ]. It was always my understanding he was there purely in the capacity of a war correspondent. ] Later: he left the army in 1899, and became a war correspondent. While reporting the Boer War he was taken prisoner by the Boers but made headline news when he escaped, and, on returning to England, he wrote a book about his experiences. ]


Assuming, for the sake of this conversation, that you intend to use the same sources for the sentences of the paragraph you've proposed that are identical to the collaboratively written entry already the article, you still have yet to provide sources for the remaining content you're trying to suggest changing to. Without sources, there is nothing here to respond to, other than to assume this is ]. Until you provide sources and allow for a discussion of them, any attempt to include unsourced content will likely be reverted. Please also remember, if your edits are reverted, they have been challenged and per existing sanctions you must find consensus here on the talk page before reinstating them. As of yet I see no editors here supporting your proposed changes. --] (]) 03:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
: While some POWs were kept at NAZI camps they were not the reason for the camps. POWs are kept at POW camps. The Germans had POW camps as well as concentration camps. Also were the British Boer War camps POW camps or concentration camps? --rmhermen


:{{tq|These are concentration camps; this has already been decided by experts and affirmed by the Misplaced Pages editing community. Arguing otherwise without sources showing a change in the relevant experts is useless.}}
: In the Boer war, most POW's were shipped off to St Helena or Ceylon. The camps in which the Boer women and children were kept were called "concentration camps" by the British themselves. Down here, Kitchener is reviled to this day for his initiative in setting up these camps. Although not consciously intended as extermination devices, meagre rations and bad hygiene killed of between a quarter and a third of the inmates -- ]
:These are not concentration camps, by definition. This has not been decided on by experts, and the Misplaced Pages editing community is delusional if they believe so. Numerous other sources have made counter-claims, and the definition stands. Unless you can find a governmental body of merit that has classified these as concentration camps, or a peer reviewed article in a well renown journal of history or related subject, then this is simply a matter of opinion. And because this is a matter of opinion, there is a POV issue with that section.
:Why don't we reframe this section as a naming controversy instead? This article badly needs a balanced approach; it's a disservice to Misplaced Pages and its readers to leave it the way it is.
:--] (]) 07:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
::Well, this is to me a complete impasse. If you have a problem with the Misplaced Pages community's decision to follow content experts, take that up in another way, such as by challenging the RfC close or starting a new RfC altogether. But the community has already decided, this entry is to be included here and so it will remain here, with neutral language describing the example.
::If you cannot provide sources for your proposed language, then it is entirely inappropriate for inclusion. Without anyone other than you arguing for a POV issue, that tag now has no support for inclusion and the editors who have engaged you here apparently show consensus that it is inappropriate. I will be removing it ].
::--] (]) 17:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
:::{{tq|If you have a problem with the Misplaced Pages community's decision to follow content experts}}
:::The issue is they're not content experts, and you're claiming they are. That is a factually incorrect claim. A "senior lecturer of music" is not a content expert on concentration/internment camps.
:::{{tq|But the community has already decided, this entry is to be included here and so it will remain here, with neutral language describing the example. }}
:::If the entry stays, I'm fine with it, as long as it has neutral language and actually describes the facts of the matter. It currently contains non-neutral language, and falsities. Once the lock is lifted, I will make edits to ensure the language is more neutral, and is centered around the facts.
:::--] (]) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
::::Any inappropriate content changed/added without proper sourcing will be challenged. Expect to be required to find consensus for such content, should you be bold in making the edits and they are reverted for lack of source support. --] (]) 03:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
::The Misplaced Pages does not exist to carry water for a particular politician or party and their singular p.o.v. of what is and is not considered an internment camp. There is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that they are indeeed considered as such, so the Wiki should follow that. ] (]) 15:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
:::{{tq|The Misplaced Pages does not exist to carry water for a particular politician or party and their singular p.o.v. of what is and is not considered an internment camp. }}
:::I'd hope that is the case, but sometimes it definitely doesn't seem like this is a true statement.
:::{{tq|There is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that they are indeed considered as such, so the Wiki should follow that.}}
:::Except there's not. There are highly politicized pieces from those who are not experts in field. Similarly, there is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that says these are not "interment/concentration" camps. We need to make sure we have a NPOV here.
:::--] (]) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


::::Except there is, you can't just be dishonest about sources that are clearly in the article now to support that view. ] (]) 01:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
: Not extermination devices? Interesting. And what about all the acts of brutality recorded; mass graves (from obvious mass executions)? The Scorched earth policy should be defined better. Burning down absolutely everything in sight. Farms, houses, livestock and even wildlife were killed. -Gron


:* I would point out to the OP (as has been noted in previous discussions), this is not a ], but a ]; whether the phrase "concentration camp" is applicable is not dispositive of the issue. The inclusion of criminal charges is also of no particular relevance, since any government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" a class of people with a crime, ostensibly requiring their confinement (by comparison, the Nazi regime enacted numerous laws effectively making Jews "illegals" and thus legally subject to the treatment that was accorded to them). ] ] 17:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
: I agree, the article states that the concentration camps were initially designed as a form of humanitarian aid to protect women and children whose homes had been lost during the fighting. Most of the women and children had been forcefully evicted by the British and their farms burnt down as part of the scorched earth policy used by Kitchener to win the war. To say that it was in some way an act of kindness on behalf of the british is a lie and I will change it in a week if there are no objections. - John
:::{{tq|I would point out to the OP (as has been noted in previous discussions), this is not a ], but a ]; whether the phrase "concentration camp" is applicable is not dispositive of the issue.}}
:::These do not fit the definition of internment nor concentration camps, so, your point is moot.
:::{{tq|The inclusion of criminal charges is also of no particular relevance,}}
:::It is absolutely relevant since the definition in the sister page is "the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial."
:::{{tq|since any government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" a class of people with a crime, ostensibly requiring their confinement}}
:::This is illogical reasoning. Using this "logic", we should include primary schools in this list since the government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" children with a crime, and ostensibly require their confinement. On top of all that, the US government is not charging a protected class of people, it's enforcing its immigration laws for those who voluntarily decide to commit a crime. For all these reasons and more, these are factually not interment/concentration camps.
:::--] (]) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
::::There's a lot of discussion here about precise definitions and whether you personally believe those definitions fit, but ultimately the only thing we should be discussing is whether ] describe these locations as concentration or internment camps. The ] on the matter concluded that reliable sources ''did'' generally refer to these locations as such, so that's what Misplaced Pages uses. Our personal opinions on whether definitions fit or the logic is sound is irrelevant. ] (]) 12:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
::::: I think it's ...dangerous to use whether the people in a facility have been charged with a crime as the whole determination of whether something is a concentration camp or not. For reasons cited above, although in reverse, too. I don't think we should allow governments to decide whether their detention facilities are concentration camps or not based on whether they've charged the prisoners. It means that, if we say its only a concentration camp if the imprisoned have not been charged and there is no intent to try them, then the death camps of the Nazis would not be concentration camps, because they created laws that made being Jewish (or gay, or slavic, or so on and so on) illegal. If we say that it's only concentration camp if the imprisoned ''have'' been charged and there's an intent to try, then gross violations of human rights are somehow not concentration camps on that basis. I don't think that the... "legal status" of the imprisoned is a good basis for whether something is a concentration camp or not. I think the treatment of those people, and overall intent of the facility--namely the ''concentration'' of an "undesirable" category of people into one location where they can exterminated, either through formal execution or working them to death, or both, or simply allowing them to die due to gross indifference and negligence--should be the determining factor. Now, we can argue whether that is the intent of "immigrant detention facilities," and I would say it is, but I imagine OP would disagree, but my point here is that "whether the targeted people are formally charged with a crime or not" is not a rational criteria for whether something is a concentration camp or not (although it does provide the answer to the question that prompted me to come to the Talk page- why Tevego is a concentration camp, but earlier labor camps with lethal consequences practiced by America, England and Spain are not) --] (]) 06:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


== Significant problems with "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border" ==
==Rummel's estimates==


According to ], this article should list places that describe the "imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges." This is a necessary condition for listing a camp here (but not sufficient, as POW camps that would otherwise meet this criteria are listed elsewhere). However, the "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border" section does not cite any sources that meet this criteria. While there's a number of experts who use the word "concentration camps", this seems like a clear case where they are using a different definition from what this page is using.
See this graphic for Rummel's estimates:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.TAB1.1.GIF


Reading this section, I'm led to believe that the immigrants are being held without charges. ''This is not true'' (they were charged with the crime of Unlawful Entry).
==China==


In order for this section to remain, we need to find a reliable source that says the immigrants are being held "without charges or intent to file charges" in accordance with the definition being used by this page. Alternatively, the definition of Internment needs to be adjusted.
I made a number of changes to the China entry to make it more NPOV. I removed the statement that China currently has hundreds of concentration camps which isn't factual
unless you want to define any prison as a concentration camp. Also, the statement
that prison goods make up an insignificant part (i.e. less than 1%) of China's exports also needed to be in there. -- ]


Or, if it turns out that we can find a reliable source that says all of the immigrants have been charged with a crime and are being processed lawfully, that would contradict the requirement for listing an example on this page, and it would need to be removed in its entirety, maybe moved to a list in a different article, that doesn't imply being held without charges. --] (]) 20:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
==United States (WWII)==


:Concur, and there are other issues as well, which have been raised by others in the edit log. I have added an NPOV tag while this gets sorted out here. ] (]) 14:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
What about US camps for Americans of Japanese origin during WW2 ? --]


The Powers That Be may have a desire to keep an eye out for the deletion of these two properly cited statements also.
:It's in there: "The term ? is often used as an equivalent in other historical contexts, such as the imprisonment by the United States of ? citizens during World War II. However American internment camps did not involve forced labor or extermination, merely confinement."


Trump used facilities that were built during the Obama-Biden administration to house children at the border. Michelle Obama spoke at the 2020 Democratic National Convention and noted the "cages".  What she did not say is that the very same "cages" were built during and used in her husband’s administration, for the same purpose; that of holding migrant kids temporarily.
==Canada (WWI)==
<ref>{{cite news |url=https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-democratic-national-convention-ap-fact-check-immigration-politics-2663c84832a13cdd7a8233becfc7a5f3 |title=AP FACT CHECK: Michelle Obama and the kids in ‘cages’ |work=Associated Press |date=17 August 2020 }}</ref> ] (]) 01:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


Additionally, this individual seems to take umbarrage with these properly quoted referenced statements.
WRT the claims of Canadian concentration camps during WWI, could somebody provide some evidence please? --]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Pinchme123
*I was just thinkgin that, I'm putting the Totally disputed tag. And Ukraine was not part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire but the Czarist Russia. ] 7 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)


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


Sincerely,
: Maybe whoever wrote that referred to ]? It's still a stretch, though, I agree. --] 16:19, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Gek75231 ] (]) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}


== Expanding the description of scholars' letter to USHMM in "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border" ==
:I doubt the Canadians of 1917 knew a Galician from a Cardassian. In any case most Galicians are Poles, not Ukrainians. ] 00:08, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You deemed "The letter is a defense of ] to allow for 'learning from the past' but does not discuss Ocasio-Cortez's comments or the U.S. detention camps." as unnecessary clarification. I agree that the individual need not be cited, despite being a core part of the sources you provided, but I believe there is still a need for the clarification that the rejection of resistance was not the whether the label is correct or incorrect, but rather the right to use it as an argument of analogy and for learning purposes. That was my core point and thus I think this clarification is needed for reading this page. ] (]) 18:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
:I think the article already gives an appropriate description for the context of the original reaction from USHMM and the letter sent by 400+ scholars to them decrying that original reaction. This description is included to briefly reference the short-term controversy over calling these concentration camps "concentration camps." But this entry isn't about the letter or naming controversy, nor is it about analogies, so in my opinion any further expansion of describing the letter would probably run afoul of ]. --] (]) 07:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


== Additional entries, expanding on an entry, citations ==
:I owe you a beer if you can prove the latter statement. ] 06:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


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


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


* '''What I think should be changed''':
I'm moving the offending paragraph here:
Under section "World War I (Austria-Hungary)", Subsection "Austria", add in:


- Mauthausen , formed 22. September 1914. Housed Serbian and Italian POWs and Serbian civilian internees.
: ''During World War I, thousands of Ukrainians were put into internment camps as "enemy aliens" to perform forced labor in steel mills, forestry, etc. This is partly because Ukraine was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, partly because capitalists wanted to exploit them for cheap labor, partly because of racism in Canada. Other Slavic citizens of Austria-Hungary were also interned, such as Serbs, Czechs and Slovaks.''
- Aschach an der Donau , Housed Serbian and Montenegrin POW officers and soldiers and civilian internees.


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


- Braunau in Bohemia (today: Broumov in the Czech Republic), it was formed on 11. June 1915. Housed Serbian and Russian POWs and civilian internees, including underage Serbian children.
**Thanks for fixing 2 of my objections. The rest of the article is very subjective still and doesn't have sources. There is already an article on ] camps so a link would be better anyhow and a merge of the information to that article. I will give up the dispute tag so as not to get into a edit war. But I do believe this article could use a clean-up tag. ] 7 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
- Heinrichsgrien to Heinrichsgrün
- Heinrichsgrün (today: Jindřichovice Czech Republic), formed beginning of June 1915, received first internees 17. June 1915. Housed Russian, Italian, Montenegrin and Serbian POWs and Montenegrin and Serbian civilian internees.


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


Under section "World War I (Austria-Hungary)", Subsection "Hungary", add in:
: Here's a source, in case we want to put it back in.


- Sopronnyék (today: Samersdorf, Austria), formed on 5. April 1915. Housed Serbian and Montenegrin POWs and civilian internees, including underage children.
==Japan (WWII)==
- Boldogasszony (today: Frauerkirchen, Austria), formed in February 1915. Housed Russian, Italian, Romanian, Serbian and Montenegrin POWs and Serbian and Montenegrin civilian internees.


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


* '''Why it should be changed''': The list is incomplete, research indicates that Austria-Hungary had 10 major camps and circa 300 camps in total. There are also no specific pages for the entries, so the list page should be more detailed for the time being. More references and specific for each change available on request.
==Theresienstadt==


* '''References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)''':
AFAIK Theresienstadt was not a concentration camp, but a ], and the Nazis put mainly old people there.


<ref>{{cite web |last1=Vemić |first1=Mirčeta |title=Mass mortality of Serbian prisoners of war and interned civilians in Austro-Hungarian camps during the First World War 1914-1918 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287414914_Mass_mortality_of_Serbian_prisoners_of_war_and_interned_civilians_in_Austro-Hungarian_camps_during_the_First_World_War_1914-1918 |website=ResearchGate |publisher=ResearchGate Gmbh |access-date=2 October 2022}}</ref>
Should we correct this for accuracy's sake or should we leave it as it is a rather pedantic discrimination for most people??


--]


] (]) 15:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I've seen ] defined as a "ghetto" (not sure about correct term, I'm translating directly from spanish here, "gueto de tránsito") by some scholars, like ] on his book "Ordinary men".
: {{u|Everythingaboo}} do you really have a COI with a list of concentration/internment camps? I don't think the request edit template is correct for this change... ] (]) 16:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

::Hi!
But on the Wiki entry for ], it states that it really was a concentration camp disguised as a normal town, or ghetto. So, I wouldn't change it until we find a normative definition.
::There is a COI, as this account is connected to someone working at a publisher, so it would be to avoid referencing the publisher's own materials.

::Also, not sure why in the references section for what we are referring to, one can see the "AP FACT CHECK: Michelle Obama and the 'kids in cages'" reference. ] (]) 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
--]
:::Just by way of explanation, the AP source you're talking about is being picked up by the reftalk template because someone made a reference with it in a previous section. I've added a reftalk template to that section to clarify the situation. --] (]) 17:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

::::Ah, thanks for the explanation! ] (]) 06:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
] was a ghetto and a transit camp (presumably what is meant by "collective point" -- must reword that). There were actually two seperate camps, the small fortress, which was used as a prison camp, and the large fortress which contained the town, and appeared more as a ghetto, though it was mostly a collection point for prisoners who had been transported from other ghettoes in the Reich, before they could be sent to other concentration or extermination camps.
:::::The proposed change has been reviewed and you are approved to go ahead and implement it in the article. Best, ''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 03:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->
--]
{{reftalk}}

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

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

==Guantanamo Bay==

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

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

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

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

::: The key word is "soldiers". The Guantamo concentration camp holds civilians. // ]

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

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

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

:::: "arresting suspected criminals"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

==Rheinwiesenlager==

How many people died in the Rheinwiesenlager?

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

==Amnesty International's phrasing==

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

----

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

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

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

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

] 15:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Gulag ==

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

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

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

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

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

Harald

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

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

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



== UK ==

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

== Listing order of the countries... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== German concentration camps ==

I can't find an article on German concentration camps during WWII. There are separate entries for ], ], different camps listed separately, there is even a list of ]. However, I can't find a list of all German camps during WWII wherever they were. Is there such a list? ]]]] 23:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

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


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

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

==Ropers' Sept 11 edit==

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

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

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

==Israel/ Sabra and Shatila Massacre==

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

Did the ] involve concentration camps? If so, who the heck ran them? ] 06:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

Saipan Internment Camp 1944

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

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

::The people in the gaza strip can not leave freely so they are imprisoned. They can not immigrate because other countries won't let them in. The people are held in a high concentration and denied basic means of survival. I'd call that a concentration camp. ] 04:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== "This article should include material from ESMA" ==

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

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

== early French colonization in North Africa ==

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

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

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


USA

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

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

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

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


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

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

== France ==

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

]]

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



== cuba deleted ==

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

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

--Sweden--
I have taken the liberty of editing this page so that the wartime Swedish government is not calles a "pro-Nazi regimé" are there any resonable objections? ] 15:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
==]==
] has been nominated to be improved on the ]. Support this article with your vote and help us improve it to ]!--] 10:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

== Argentina ==

The entire section on Argentina was deleted, without explanation:

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

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

08:30, 1 March 2006 Gbinal

] 23:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

== Spain / Franco ==

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



== Donnog's changes ==

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

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

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

German article on concentration camps states:

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

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

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

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

== Proposed Merger of ''Internment''; Proposed Split of ''Concentration Camp'' ==

] meets the definition of ] in this article. The fact that Internment offers only Anglophone countries, suggests a ], 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.-- ] 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"). ] 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. -] 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. ] 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 ] and 2) a ]. A link at the top to ] would be a good idea, but there were plenty of Nazi concentration camps that weren't death camps. -- ] 10:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose merger''' of ] 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.--]\<sup>]</sup> 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. -- ] 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. -- ] 12:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

:::But what's with dissidents in, say, China? Or with that Russian ] 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. -- ] 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. -- ] 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 ]s 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 ... .

: defines internment as a noun associated with the verb intern: ''to confine or impound especially during a war <intern enemy aliens>''. is ''a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined''. ]s are not the same as "prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees".--]\<sup>]</sup> 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. -- ] 10:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

::*The difference is that ]s 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 ]. 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 ] that way). The term is also a translation from ''Konzentrationslager'', perhaps this article on concentration camps should focus on ''Konzentrationslager''.--]\<sup>]</sup> 11:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Please, see the article we are discussing ].
It says: <BR>

<blockquote>The ], 2nd ed. defines ''concentration camp'' as:
''a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by ] during the ] 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''
</blockquote>

<blockquote>In the English-speaking world, the term "concentration camp" was first used to describe camps operated by the ] in ] during the ]-] ]. 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 ] guerilla activity.</blockquote>

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 ], but using the current definition of ] 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 ]. People can make up their own minds which is which. Of course, ] should be kept separate, but linked to from the other two pages.

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

== Link to Prison Planet? ==

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

== Holocaust template ==

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

== Proposed New Page ==

I think this page, and ] should be replaced with something like ]. The country by country listing on this page should move to ].

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

:I essentially agree. At ] 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. ] 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

== Reference System ==

I became very confused reading this article on which note numbers referred where. There were at least 3 schemes of references, one with all number 1. There were thus about seven "note 1" items. I'm not claiming I have tidied these into "the definitive reference scheme", but I have made them self consistent by using cite.php for all and gathering them automatically at the foot of the article in "Notes" where there is an explanation (when you edit) for the uninitiated on how to use the cite.php scheme. ] 12:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
: Wonderful! Thanks for your help cleaning up this page. --] 14:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::My pleasure. I have not checked the notes for relevance. I trusted previous editors for that. The tables were a by-product of dealing with the refs They were a mess. They are not perfect now, but they are maintainable and where in HTML are valid html. ] 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

== Australia and the Half Caste resettlements ==

Does this qualify for incorporation into this article? provides a drama documentary of the attempts by the Government of Australia (Great Britain) to remove half caste children from their families to seek to ensure racial purity. I don;t have the data to do this myself, but, if it is valid, perhaps someone would take it on?

The children were first "concentrated" in schools a great distance from their families in order to learn how to be good servants before being "issued" to white families (according to the movie which states that the story is true) ] 10:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

: I don't know... The Australian ] and the ] are certainly examples of ], but I'm not sure they would qualify as internment or concentration camps. I would say the motivation is not the same, since authorities thought they were helping the children, but the line isn't exactly clear.

:By the way, I'm not sure why you suggested the Government of Australia was somehow directed by GB, since the schools continued until 1972. -- ] 15:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::to your BTW I now know better :). I had thought this phenomenon was an "Empire" thing. The include vs exclude argument I do not feel strongly about one way or the other. It was curiosity that prompted the question. The movie made me feel that it was zealous ethnic purification (not "cleansing" in the recent sense). "After 6 g--] 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)enerations there is not a trace of black" was a paraphrased (or mis) quote from the script. ] 17:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Czech republic - Terezin ==

Hi, add pls something about "Böhmen und Mären protectorate" - thats name for Czech republic (Czechoslovak)during WWII. In czech republic was lot of concentration camps and gethos, also. Try to start with getho called "Terezin". Jan

== Sweden ==

The information on WW2 internment camps in Sweden (for instance in ]) seemt to have been lost. I managed to find an old version and have restored and expanded it a bit. // ]

== Camps in Cuba? ==

I've read of camps set up by Castro on Cuba to hold political prisoners, homosexuals, and so on.

Does anyone know anything about this?


== Gaza Strip ==

Despite the undoubtly horrible living conditions within the Gaza Strip, it simply cannot be called a camp, and thus it has no place in this article. Furthermore, I consider it either a bait, or at least a severly NPOV comment. I have thus deleted it. --] 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:40, 8 April 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of concentration and internment camps article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCorrection and Detention Facilities (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology / World War I / World War II CL‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
CLThis article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
World War I task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis talk page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Section sizes
Section size for List of concentration and internment camps (127 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 1,201 1,201
Argentina 2,912 2,912
Australia 128 3,912
World War I 853 853
World War II 831 831
Modern day 2,100 2,100
Austria-Hungary 20 5,550
World War I (Austria-Hungary) 1,241 5,530
Austria 2,893 2,893
Bosnia and Herzegovina 44 44
Hungary 1,352 1,352
Bosnia and Herzegovina 27 2,506
Bosnian war 2,479 2,479
Bulgaria 13 3,017
World War I (Bulgaria) 2,806 3,004
Bulgarian occupied Serbia 198 198
Cambodia 1,271 1,271
Canada 12 13,422
World War I (Canada) 93 2,002
Ukrainian Canadian internment 493 493
Camps and relocation centres elsewhere in Canada 1,416 1,416
World War II (Canada) 1,148 11,408
Internment of Jewish refugees 1,037 1,037
German Canadian internment 1,683 1,683
Italian Canadian internment 4,033 4,033
Japanese Canadian internment and relocation centres 924 3,507
Camps and relocation centres in the West Kootenay and Boundary regions 649 649
Self-supporting centres in the Lillooet-Fraser Canyon region 1,934 1,934
Channel Islands 671 671
Chile 2,452 2,452
People's Republic of China 88 9,828
Laogai 5,249 5,249
Falun Gong 2,149 2,149
Tibet 106 106
Xinjiang 2,236 2,236
Croatia 197 1,822
World War II (Croatia) 1,139 1,139
Yugoslav wars 486 486
Cuba 9 5,226
Cuban War of Independence 3,401 3,401
Rule of Fidel Castro 1,816 1,816
Czechoslovakia 864 864
Denmark 13 2,207
Before and during World War II 517 517
After World War II 1,677 1,677
Finland 13 5,524
Finnish Civil War 3,639 3,639
World War II (Continuation War) 1,872 1,872
France 252 8,805
Devil's Island 225 225
Algeria 3,833 3,833
Spanish Republicans 2,672 2,672
Vichy France 1,823 1,823
Germany 13 11,140
German South West Africa, 1904–1908 1,059 1,059
World War I (Germany) 923 923
Nazi era 9,145 9,145
Hong Kong 14 1,192
World War II (Japanese) 1,178 1,178
India 225 4,398
World War I (India) 425 425
World War II (India) 2,298 2,298
Sino-Indian War 1,450 1,450
Ireland 1,678 3,580
World War II (Ireland) 1,902 1,902
Isle of Man 563 2,894
World War I (Isle of Man) 650 650
World War II (Isle of Man) 1,681 1,681
Italy 3,705 3,705
Israel 802 802
Japan 11 6,764
World War II (Japan) 6,753 6,753
Korea, Republic of 629 629
Libya 2,019 2,019
Mexico 514 514
Montenegro 372 372
Netherlands 17 4,324
World War I (Netherlands) 1,679 1,679
World War II (Netherlands) 2,303 2,303
Indonesian National Revolution 325 325
New Zealand 230 230
Norway 456 456
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of 5,230 5,230
Ottoman Empire and Turkey 753 753
Paraguay 1,068 1,068
Poland 1,684 1,684
Portugal 137 137
Romania 132 132
Russia and the Soviet Union 3,505 5,522
After the 1990s 2,017 2,017
Serbia 866 866
Slovakia 421 421
South Africa 55 55
Spain 2,279 2,279
Sri Lanka 7,557 7,557
Sweden 2,259 2,259
Switzerland 3,330 3,330
United Kingdom and colonies 33 15,983
Bermuda 547 547
Cyprus 589 589
England 1,510 1,510
Ireland: pre-1922 440 440
Kenya 1,662 1,662
Malaya 712 712
Northern Ireland 4,589 4,589
Scotland 1,393 1,393
South Africa 3,256 3,256
Soviet Russia 804 804
Wales 448 448
United States 19 31,516
Indigenous people 50 6,299
Cherokee 910 910
Dakota 2,791 2,791
Navajo 2,548 2,548
Philippines 794 794
World War I (United States) 1,455 1,455
World War II (United States) 3,982 3,982
Political dissidents 768 768
Afghan War and the occupation of Iraq 9,407 9,407
Migrants on the Mexico–United States border 8,792 8,792
South and North Vietnam 2,996 2,996
Yugoslavia 18 7,097
Nazi camps 3,088 3,088
Communist camps 3,991 3,991
See also 104 104
References 645 2,797
Works cited 2,152 2,152
Total 205,995 205,995
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Immigration enforcement is not internment, and immigration facilities are not "internment/concentration" camps - POV issue

Opening the discussion here since this article contains factually incorrect information. According to the cited definition on the Internment article: 

"Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial. The term is especially used for the confinement "of enemy citizens in wartime or of terrorism suspects".

Immigration detention facilities are by definition NOT internment/concentration camps since the people being held in them are being charged with the crime of improper entry. Q.E.D. There has not been official designation by a governing body of merit such as the EU, UN, etc. nor are there peer-reviewed publications that explain why immigration detention facilities are designated as "concentration/internment" camps. There are content experts that have made the determination that these are not to be called internment/concentration camps, including the official stance of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/why-holocaust-analogies-are-dangerous).

If we want to include in these series of articles that there are politicians, members of the media, and academics that want to call them concentration camps, then we can do that, but we need to make sure that the readers are reminded they are objectively NOT concentration camps according to the facts. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I am proposing the following verbiage: 

In May 2018, President Trump's administration instituted a "zero tolerance" policy mandating the criminal prosecution of all adults who were referred by immigration authorities for violating immigration laws. This policy directly led to the large-scale, forcible separation of children and parents illegally crossing the United States-Mexico border, including those claiming asylum after being detained. Parents were arrested and put into criminal detention, while their children were taken away, classified as unaccompanied alien minors, to be put into child immigrant detention centers. Though in June 2018 Trump signed an executive order ostensibly ending the family separation component of his administration's migrant detentions, it continued in limited fashion under alternative justifications into 2019. By the end of 2018 the number of children being held had swelled to a high of nearly 15,000, which by August 2019 had been reduced to less than 9,000. Though by definition immigration detention facilities are not considered internment/concentration camps, in 2019, a naming controversy arose. Various politicians, academics, and journalists made claims that these immigration detention facilities should be labeled as "concentration camps". Notable groups, such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, panned and rejected these analogies. Though the conditions of the facilities have been almost universally panned, including by a human rights chief in the UN, the UN has not designated these facilities as internment/concentration camps, and have reiterated that states do have the sovereign prerogative to decide on the conditions of entry and stay of foreign nationals.

Please make comments and supply edits. The sources are more or less the same, probably taking a few out (many just cite the same source anyway). We can add the sources before we post. --166.216.158.172 (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That is what we at Misplaced Pages call original research. You take one definition and make your own interpretation of it. Sorry, but Misplaced Pages works by using reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
That is what we at Misplaced Pages call original research. You take one definition and make your own interpretation of it. Sorry, but Misplaced Pages works by using reliable sources.
This is not original research, as everything posted is factual, and sourced (sources are already cited on the page). There's only one way to interpret the definition that is listed on the Internment page, and it is clear that these immigration facilities are not "concentration camps". You have not proposed any changes or edits, so, please at least try to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.195.119 (talk • contribs)
You are "interpret" content from another Misplaced Pages page in order to explain away the statements by content experts, which is substituting your own position for theirs. This is absolutely original research: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
You are "interpret" content from another Misplaced Pages page in order to explain away the statements by content experts, which is substituting your own position for theirs.
Wrong. I am reciting ("interpreting") facts in order to explain how immigration detention facilities are not "internment/concentration camps". We've already been over that the "content experts" you're attempting to use are not experts in the field. You're trying to use "original research" as a defense but it falls through here; it's like if I said "carbon is a non-metallic element", and I link the definition and Wiki page, and you claim this is "original research". The above block I suggested is based in fact and reality, and correctly describes the situation we're facing. Unless you have edits to propose, I will link the sources and replace.
--107.77.214.158 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

These are concentration camps; this has already been decided by experts and affirmed by the Misplaced Pages editing community. Arguing otherwise without sources showing a change in the relevant experts is useless.

Assuming, for the sake of this conversation, that you intend to use the same sources for the sentences of the paragraph you've proposed that are identical to the collaboratively written entry already the article, you still have yet to provide sources for the remaining content you're trying to suggest changing to. Without sources, there is nothing here to respond to, other than to assume this is original research. Until you provide sources and allow for a discussion of them, any attempt to include unsourced content will likely be reverted. Please also remember, if your edits are reverted, they have been challenged and per existing sanctions you must find consensus here on the talk page before reinstating them. As of yet I see no editors here supporting your proposed changes. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

These are concentration camps; this has already been decided by experts and affirmed by the Misplaced Pages editing community. Arguing otherwise without sources showing a change in the relevant experts is useless.
These are not concentration camps, by definition. This has not been decided on by experts, and the Misplaced Pages editing community is delusional if they believe so. Numerous other sources have made counter-claims, and the definition stands. Unless you can find a governmental body of merit that has classified these as concentration camps, or a peer reviewed article in a well renown journal of history or related subject, then this is simply a matter of opinion. And because this is a matter of opinion, there is a POV issue with that section.
Why don't we reframe this section as a naming controversy instead? This article badly needs a balanced approach; it's a disservice to Misplaced Pages and its readers to leave it the way it is.
--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, this is to me a complete impasse. If you have a problem with the Misplaced Pages community's decision to follow content experts, take that up in another way, such as by challenging the RfC close or starting a new RfC altogether. But the community has already decided, this entry is to be included here and so it will remain here, with neutral language describing the example.
If you cannot provide sources for your proposed language, then it is entirely inappropriate for inclusion. Without anyone other than you arguing for a POV issue, that tag now has no support for inclusion and the editors who have engaged you here apparently show consensus that it is inappropriate. I will be removing it per conditions #1 and #2.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the Misplaced Pages community's decision to follow content experts
The issue is they're not content experts, and you're claiming they are. That is a factually incorrect claim. A "senior lecturer of music" is not a content expert on concentration/internment camps.
But the community has already decided, this entry is to be included here and so it will remain here, with neutral language describing the example.
If the entry stays, I'm fine with it, as long as it has neutral language and actually describes the facts of the matter. It currently contains non-neutral language, and falsities. Once the lock is lifted, I will make edits to ensure the language is more neutral, and is centered around the facts.
--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:80 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Any inappropriate content changed/added without proper sourcing will be challenged. Expect to be required to find consensus for such content, should you be bold in making the edits and they are reverted for lack of source support. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages does not exist to carry water for a particular politician or party and their singular p.o.v. of what is and is not considered an internment camp. There is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that they are indeeed considered as such, so the Wiki should follow that. Zaathras (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages does not exist to carry water for a particular politician or party and their singular p.o.v. of what is and is not considered an internment camp.
I'd hope that is the case, but sometimes it definitely doesn't seem like this is a true statement.
There is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that they are indeed considered as such, so the Wiki should follow that.
Except there's not. There are highly politicized pieces from those who are not experts in field. Similarly, there is a wealth of historical sourcing and coverage that says these are not "interment/concentration" camps. We need to make sure we have a NPOV here.
--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:80 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Except there is, you can't just be dishonest about sources that are clearly in the article now to support that view. Zaathras (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would point out to the OP (as has been noted in previous discussions), this is not a List of concentration camps, but a List of concentration and internment camps; whether the phrase "concentration camp" is applicable is not dispositive of the issue. The inclusion of criminal charges is also of no particular relevance, since any government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" a class of people with a crime, ostensibly requiring their confinement (by comparison, the Nazi regime enacted numerous laws effectively making Jews "illegals" and thus legally subject to the treatment that was accorded to them). BD2412 T 17:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I would point out to the OP (as has been noted in previous discussions), this is not a List of concentration camps, but a List of concentration and internment camps; whether the phrase "concentration camp" is applicable is not dispositive of the issue.
These do not fit the definition of internment nor concentration camps, so, your point is moot.
The inclusion of criminal charges is also of no particular relevance,
It is absolutely relevant since the definition in the sister page is "the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial."
since any government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" a class of people with a crime, ostensibly requiring their confinement
This is illogical reasoning. Using this "logic", we should include primary schools in this list since the government can decide to arbitrarily "charge" children with a crime, and ostensibly require their confinement. On top of all that, the US government is not charging a protected class of people, it's enforcing its immigration laws for those who voluntarily decide to commit a crime. For all these reasons and more, these are factually not interment/concentration camps.
--2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:80 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
There's a lot of discussion here about precise definitions and whether you personally believe those definitions fit, but ultimately the only thing we should be discussing is whether reliable sources describe these locations as concentration or internment camps. The last Request for Comment on the matter concluded that reliable sources did generally refer to these locations as such, so that's what Misplaced Pages uses. Our personal opinions on whether definitions fit or the logic is sound is irrelevant. Sam Walton (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it's ...dangerous to use whether the people in a facility have been charged with a crime as the whole determination of whether something is a concentration camp or not. For reasons cited above, although in reverse, too. I don't think we should allow governments to decide whether their detention facilities are concentration camps or not based on whether they've charged the prisoners. It means that, if we say its only a concentration camp if the imprisoned have not been charged and there is no intent to try them, then the death camps of the Nazis would not be concentration camps, because they created laws that made being Jewish (or gay, or slavic, or so on and so on) illegal. If we say that it's only concentration camp if the imprisoned have been charged and there's an intent to try, then gross violations of human rights are somehow not concentration camps on that basis. I don't think that the... "legal status" of the imprisoned is a good basis for whether something is a concentration camp or not. I think the treatment of those people, and overall intent of the facility--namely the concentration of an "undesirable" category of people into one location where they can exterminated, either through formal execution or working them to death, or both, or simply allowing them to die due to gross indifference and negligence--should be the determining factor. Now, we can argue whether that is the intent of "immigrant detention facilities," and I would say it is, but I imagine OP would disagree, but my point here is that "whether the targeted people are formally charged with a crime or not" is not a rational criteria for whether something is a concentration camp or not (although it does provide the answer to the question that prompted me to come to the Talk page- why Tevego is a concentration camp, but earlier labor camps with lethal consequences practiced by America, England and Spain are not) --ValravenApocalypse (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Significant problems with "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border"

According to Internment, this article should list places that describe the "imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges." This is a necessary condition for listing a camp here (but not sufficient, as POW camps that would otherwise meet this criteria are listed elsewhere). However, the "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border" section does not cite any sources that meet this criteria. While there's a number of experts who use the word "concentration camps", this seems like a clear case where they are using a different definition from what this page is using.

Reading this section, I'm led to believe that the immigrants are being held without charges. This is not true (they were charged with the crime of Unlawful Entry).

In order for this section to remain, we need to find a reliable source that says the immigrants are being held "without charges or intent to file charges" in accordance with the definition being used by this page. Alternatively, the definition of Internment needs to be adjusted.

Or, if it turns out that we can find a reliable source that says all of the immigrants have been charged with a crime and are being processed lawfully, that would contradict the requirement for listing an example on this page, and it would need to be removed in its entirety, maybe moved to a list in a different article, that doesn't imply being held without charges. --Awwright (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Concur, and there are other issues as well, which have been raised by others in the edit log. I have added an NPOV tag while this gets sorted out here. 109.229.202.124 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The Powers That Be may have a desire to keep an eye out for the deletion of these two properly cited statements also.

Trump used facilities that were built during the Obama-Biden administration to house children at the border. Michelle Obama spoke at the 2020 Democratic National Convention and noted the "cages".  What she did not say is that the very same "cages" were built during and used in her husband’s administration, for the same purpose; that of holding migrant kids temporarily. Gek75231 (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, this individual seems to take umbarrage with these properly quoted referenced statements. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Pinchme123

Appropriate attention & actions toward said user would be appreciated.

Sincerely, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Gek75231 Gek75231 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. "AP FACT CHECK: Michelle Obama and the kids in 'cages'". Associated Press. 17 August 2020.

Expanding the description of scholars' letter to USHMM in "Migrants at the Mexico–United States border"

You deemed "The letter is a defense of analogies to allow for 'learning from the past' but does not discuss Ocasio-Cortez's comments or the U.S. detention camps." as unnecessary clarification. I agree that the individual need not be cited, despite being a core part of the sources you provided, but I believe there is still a need for the clarification that the rejection of resistance was not the whether the label is correct or incorrect, but rather the right to use it as an argument of analogy and for learning purposes. That was my core point and thus I think this clarification is needed for reading this page. 69.122.71.186 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the article already gives an appropriate description for the context of the original reaction from USHMM and the letter sent by 400+ scholars to them decrying that original reaction. This description is included to briefly reference the short-term controversy over calling these concentration camps "concentration camps." But this entry isn't about the letter or naming controversy, nor is it about analogies, so in my opinion any further expansion of describing the letter would probably run afoul of WP:UNDUE. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Additional entries, expanding on an entry, citations

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.


  • What I think should be changed:

Under section "World War I (Austria-Hungary)", Subsection "Austria", add in:

- Mauthausen , formed 22. September 1914. Housed Serbian and Italian POWs and Serbian civilian internees. - Aschach an der Donau , Housed Serbian and Montenegrin POW officers and soldiers and civilian internees.

Edits:

- Braunau in Bohemia (today: Broumov in the Czech Republic), it was formed on 11. June 1915. Housed Serbian and Russian POWs and civilian internees, including underage Serbian children. - Heinrichsgrien to Heinrichsgrün - Heinrichsgrün (today: Jindřichovice Czech Republic), formed beginning of June 1915, received first internees 17. June 1915. Housed Russian, Italian, Montenegrin and Serbian POWs and Montenegrin and Serbian civilian internees.


Under section "World War I (Austria-Hungary)", Subsection "Hungary", add in:

- Sopronnyék (today: Samersdorf, Austria), formed on 5. April 1915. Housed Serbian and Montenegrin POWs and civilian internees, including underage children. - Boldogasszony (today: Frauerkirchen, Austria), formed in February 1915. Housed Russian, Italian, Romanian, Serbian and Montenegrin POWs and Serbian and Montenegrin civilian internees.


  • Why it should be changed: The list is incomplete, research indicates that Austria-Hungary had 10 major camps and circa 300 camps in total. There are also no specific pages for the entries, so the list page should be more detailed for the time being. More references and specific for each change available on request.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):


Everythingaboo (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Everythingaboo do you really have a COI with a list of concentration/internment camps? I don't think the request edit template is correct for this change... GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi!
There is a COI, as this account is connected to someone working at a publisher, so it would be to avoid referencing the publisher's own materials.
Also, not sure why in the references section for what we are referring to, one can see the "AP FACT CHECK: Michelle Obama and the 'kids in cages'" reference. 213.67.202.78 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Just by way of explanation, the AP source you're talking about is being picked up by the reftalk template because someone made a reference with it in a previous section. I've added a reftalk template to that section to clarify the situation. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the explanation! 213.67.202.78 (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The proposed change has been reviewed and you are approved to go ahead and implement it in the article. Best, Spencer 03:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. Vemić, Mirčeta. "Mass mortality of Serbian prisoners of war and interned civilians in Austro-Hungarian camps during the First World War 1914-1918". ResearchGate. ResearchGate Gmbh. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
Categories:
Talk:List of concentration and internment camps: Difference between revisions Add topic