Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:17, 10 October 2020

This is the talk page for discussing Internment and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

	Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)
This 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

Military history: World War II Start‑class

This 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  World War II task force

The contents of the Concentration camp page were merged into Internment. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Mike Brest (8 October 2019). "Trump's detention facilities show up on Misplaced Pages's list of internment and concentration camps". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 8 October 2019. The Misplaced Pages page is titled "Internment" and encapsulates both internment camps as well as concentration camps.

Archives

Concentration camp: Archive 1 Internment: Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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

Look:

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

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

Please.

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

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

Stonewhite 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Yes, this is mentioned in the article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

But, to JellyBellyFred:

The Japanese were not beaten or tortured

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

Internment as a legal term

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

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

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

Wikiproject Prisons

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

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

Added

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

Internment vs concentration camp

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

Where you do feel this distinction is unclear?

The article currently states, "In the 20th century the arbitrary internment of civilians by the state became more common and reached a climax with Nazi concentration camps and the practice of genocide in Nazi extermination camps, and with the Gulag system of forced labor camps of the Soviet Union. As a result of this trend, the term "concentration camp" carries many of the connotations of "extermination camp" and is sometimes used synonymously. A concentration camp, however, is not by definition a death-camp. For example, many of the slave labor camps were used as cheap or free sources of factory labor for the manufacture of war materials and other goods."

- TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, the problem is, however, that as long as the "the term "concentration camp" carries many of the connotations of "extermination camp"", should we avoid using the term "concentration cam"p in articles and use "internment camp" instead, unless we are speaking of Nazi/Soviet camps? I've seen several heated debates about specific cases, in which one part wanted to use the term "concentration camp" when both terms were used by sources, obviously pushing certain POV. I think we should prefer the use of internment camp for all non-obvious cases, and add a note to WP:WTA that the term "concentration camp" should be avoided.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we should use whatever term was used by authorities at the time and/or what is most common when discussing that particular camp. Yes, using the term "concentration camp" can be just POV pushing, but I'm not sure that it always is. And to some degree, either choice is somewhat of a POV issue. ie. Trying to make a "concentration camp" more neutral by using words is also POV to some extent. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for restricting the use of the term "concentration camp" to Nazi/Soviet camps. Where the designation is used on the basis of a thorough analysis of the nature of the camp and its operation that desigantion should be accepted. For example the Bassiouni Commission Report - UN Document S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. I) of 28 December 1994, "FINAL REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSIONS OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 780 (1992)- ANNEX V THE PRIJEDOR REPORT" is quite unequivocal in its use of teh term in relation to camps in the Omarska-Keraterm-Trnoploje-Manjaca complex established in the early days of the Bosnian war.

Throughout the report you will find references to the concentration camps of Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje.

In PART ONE - VI CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND DEPORTATIONS

"22. As the "informative talks" or interrogations basically took place in the Omarska and Keraterm camps, it can be concluded that more than 6,000 adult males were taken to these concentration camps in the short period they existed (from the end of May to the beginning of August 1992). Since only 1,503 were moved on to Manjaça camp according to Mr. Drljaça, a limited number transferred to the Trnopolje camp, and almost none released, it may be assumed that the death toll was extremely high, even by Serbian accounts. The concentration camp premises were sometimes so packed with people that no more inmates could be crammed in. On at least one occasion, this allegedly resulted in an entire bus-load of newly captured people being arbitrarily executed en masse. Some 37 women were detained in Omarska, whilst no women were kept over time in Keraterm."

And shortly after, at para. 27, under VII THE STRATEGY OF DESTRUCTION, Bassiouni gives an explanation of the purpose of these concentration camps - the reason why the camps were used to "concentrate" key members of the Muslim and Croat communities.

"27. Despite the absence of a real non-Serbian threat, the main objective of the concentration camps, especially Omarska but also Keraterm, seems to have been to eliminate the non-Serbian leadership. Political leaders, officials from the courts and administration, academics and other intellectuals, religious leaders, key business people and artists - the backbone of the Muslim and Croatian communities - were removed, apparently with the intention that the removal be permanent. Similarly, law-enforcement and military personnel were targeted for destruction. These people also constituted a significant element of the non-Serbian group in that its depletion rendered the group at large defenceless against abuses of any kind. Other important traces of Muslim and Croatian culture and religion - mosques and Catholic churches included - were destroyed."

The .pdf version can be downloaded from www.law.depaul.edu/centers_Institutes/ihrli/downloads/V_a.pdf

Boundaries may sometimes be difficult to establish but the downplaying of the identity of concentration camps as a preliminary stage in a progress towards large scale deliberate or neglectful killing by subsuming the separate treatment of "Concentration camp" into an article on internment is unwarranted. There have been strong and arguably motivated efforts elsewhere to confine the use of the term "Concentration camp" to the Nazi camps (for example in the LM controversy over Trnopolje). The applicability or distinct identity of the term should not be restricted unless specific issues have been discussed and resolved.

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

Death camps

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

Internment in Britain in the 1980s

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

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

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

Internment in current Palestina

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

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

Gaza Strip

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

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

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

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

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

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

ridiculous british bias

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

I think the term ostensible (meaning "professedly" or "pretended") suggests there was likely another motivation, doesn't it? I'm not saying you are wrong, but motivations are hard things to prove. I'm not terribly familiar with the topic.

More importantly, I don't understand you last sentence. What other issues do you feel need to be included? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

concentration policy

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

British and US camps

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

GULAG

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

Norway

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

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

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

Sentence very hard to follow

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

Improvement in order

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

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

Peter 09:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% about the hatnotes. You don't think the article does a good job of describing the term concentration camp? I think by explaining that it had the same origins as internment camp (and other terms) but took on a different social meaning following the Holocaust, it does a great job. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I mostly meant that any reader who types in "concentration camps" (or follows a link, like I did) and pops up here should be treated to the term in bold in the lead. That's why I added them in the lead. Just wanted to add a reminder here in case the problem of hatnote bloat began all over.

Otherwise, I think the article kinda suffers from what many high-level topics suffer from: lack of serious, content-related attention. It's a massive topic, but has virtually no coverage. I really think it would be an improvement if some of the more general content from Nazi concentration camps and Gulag was added here as well, perhaps minus some detail.

Peter 16:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of specific items

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

Hi W.P. Uzer. I'm sorry if the edit comment on my revert wasn't clear enough. Yes, Internment in Northern Ireland uses the word "internment." So do Ukrainian Canadian internment, Castle Mountain Internment Camp and Eaton Internment Camp, Italian-Canadian internment, Japanese Canadian internment, Valby Internment, Internment camps in France, Santo Tomas Internment Camp, Japanese American internment, German American internment and Italian American internment, Bagram Theater Internment Facility. Then we have all the places where the word "detention" was used in place of the word "internment" but with the exact same meaning. Instead of listing all of them at the bottom of the page, another separate list has been made. We don't need to privilege the importance of any of them, except when they were the first to use the term, or when they changed the meaning of the term. Internment in Northern Ireland and Shark Island Concentration Camp fit neither of these categories. And as far as I can see, Shark Island used a German term for Concentration Camp after it was already in use in English. Apparently, the term is also used elsewhere for non-nazi camps, see Luka camp for instance.

As for your criticism of the lede. You're right, it isn't well worded. But your added sentence "Camps for the detention of large numbers of people may be called internment camps; in certain periods of history, particularly during the Nazi era, but previously also during British anti-guerrilla action in the Boer War, such camps have been called concentration camps" has no source. That makes it original research. I'll see if I can alter the intro in way that you'll find more appealing. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, but by "definition and history of the term" I mean, "the history of internment" without it just being a list. History being about change or continuity over time. Prison is neither just a dictionary definition nor is it a list of prisons. It's partly definition, but partly about what prisons have been, how they have been used in different ways, and so on. I'd be happy to include mentions of other internments and internment camps in this article if they were notable for some reason. Its use outside war, its use based on politics rather than ethnicity, etc. If you know of good sources describing the broad global history internment, please let me know. Perhaps they would give us ideas on how to craft the article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I don't know of any sources, though such undoubtedly exist, and that seems a good setup to aim at. Some of the information in the "List..." article should end up in this one, while the genuinely listy information could be kept separate. W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Americans and internment of Italians

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concentration camps after Nazi camps

The world changed during WWII.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concentration+camp "especially any of the camps established by the Nazis"

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263 Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

There exists inherent difference between internment and concentration and e.g. 20% pro year mortality in a Nazi concentration camp or in a Soviet correctional camp. Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is the precise mortality rate that defines a concentration camp vs an internment camp? And you figure, if anyone is planning to achieve that rate of mortality in the future, they will be sure to call their facilities "concentration camps" rather than "internment camps" ? I'm not arguing that there is no difference between different camps, but I do disagree that the terms themselves have any inherent difference in meaning. Death camp, on the other hand, is inherently different. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please provide references which describe the difference between the terms. I agree that some words catastrophically changed their meaning ("swastika"), but you have to provide solid sources which say that the change of the meaning of the word "conc camp" is a commonly accepted opinion. Please notice that it is an English-language encyclopedia, and we describe primarily en: usage. At the same time if the word has become a kind of "false friend", we can mention the peculiarity of its usage in other langauges (again, if you have sources which claim that). Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There existed a whole spectrum of camps and the main difference was the mortality rate, not the name, responsible state or political system. You both admit that the name concentration camp is a weasel word. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

English Misplaced Pages contains also the article Extermination through labor which says Extermination through labor is a term sometimes used to describe the operation of concentration camp, death camp and forced labor systems.Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read http://lubimyczytac.pl/ksiazka/204450/koszmar-niewolnictwa-obozy-koncentracyjne-od-1896-do-dzis-analiza , also available in German and Italian.Xx236 (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Many words changed their meaning: socialism, final solution, holocaust, party. Please show me your sources that 20th century genocides didn't change the world. Because the USA and UK weren't occupied so they can believe the world is still like it was around 1900. Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, please don't mix apples and oranges. Indeed, in early days pre-GULAG camps were described as "concentration camps" even by Soviets, because their primary goal was to isolate the "social parasites". But at their height you can hardly call GULAG camps "concentration": they were commonly described by scholars as penal labor camps. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we are to continue to mix "internment" and "concentration" in the same article, then we need sources explicitly saying that they mean the same thing, or at least specifying the relationship between them. One of the several major problems with this page is that it seems to be trying to deal with both of these two, apparently quite distinct, topics at one time. If this can't be justified by sources, then Poeticbent's suggestion of re-targeting the "concentration camp" search term seems a good and long overdue one (though exactly where to target it remains a matter for discussion). Like I said somewhere up this page, it's an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages that "concentration camp" currently redirects to this rather crappy article; it's also something of an embarrassment that we don't have a proper article about internment, because nearly all information about any actual cases of internment is forcibly shunted off into a separate and misnamed article ("List of ... camps"). W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, since you asked (I think I posted this already): Euphemisms, Concentration Camps And The Japanese Internment Among the choice quotes: "a concentration camp, such as those operated by the British during the Boer War, does not in and of itself suggest atrocity"; "The defines a concentration camp as, 'a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the Boer War (1899–1902); one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939–45.'"; "Roger Daniels, a historian and author, wrote an analysis for the University of Washington Press called 'Words Do Matter: A Note on Inappropriate Terminology and the Incarceration of the Japanese Americans.' He concludes that, although it's unlikely society will completely cease to use the phrase 'Japanese internment,' scholars should abandon the term and use 'concentration camp.' He considers internment a euphemism that minimizes a tragic time in American history." "...the Japanese American Citizens League, the oldest Asian-American civil rights group... sides with Daniels. It calls the camps concentration camps." The same article also presents a quote by historian Alice Yang Murray who argues, like you do, that although things were different in the past, today the "concentration camp" essentially means "extermination camp" in some people's minds, but there is certainly a debate worthy of representing here on wikipedia.That's precisely what I've been trying to do with this article, to show the history of the terms and how they have changed in some people's minds. If you want to add content from that article to the[REDACTED] article, that's fine with me, but I'm against splitting it. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this certainly ought to be included. Though I'm still not sure that the information/debate on the term "concentration camp" belongs in an article that ought to be about internment in all its aspects, particularly if it's going to end up dominating the latter article as it does at present (and will do even more when we start adding information like you've just provided). W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• W. P. Uzer is correct. This discussion although insightful on its own, did not help resolve anything with regard to a WP:redirect from the "concentration camp" to a totally unexpected, underdeveloped, and confusing entry. I just performed a Google search. The phrase "concentration camp" yielded 6,460,000 results for me. So, I removed the phrase "internment" from my search, i.e. "concentration camp" -internment and still, there were 6,340,000 results for the search. The word "internment" is not a prerequisite to concentration camps. Poeticbent talk 19:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

How internment is not a prerequisite? You are saying that inmates of concentration camps were not interned against their will? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please read what I said, the word "internment" is not a prerequisite to a phrase "concentration camp" meaning, the phrase "concentration camp" itself should not be redirecting to "internment" per Misplaced Pages:Common name policy guideline. Poeticbent talk 19:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• In this case your statement is meaningless: any word is not a prerequisite to any other phrase: anything can be explained in some other words. On the other hand the concept of internment is a prerequisite to the concept of "concentration camp", and this is relevant to our discussion, because we are encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and for us the article is about atopic, not about a word which names the topic (with some exceptions, when the word is an encyclopedic topic itself). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• By the way, your Google logic is faulty as well. "concentration camp" gives 1 zillion hits and "concentration camp" -Nazi gives 0.98 zillion hits (check actual number yourself). Therefore "Nazi" is not a prerequisite for "concentration camp, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The words as such are extremely important. I'm sorry my statement is meaningless to you in the context of this discussion. However, it was just words that prompted UNESCO to change the official name of Auschwitz from "Auschwitz Concentration Camp" to "former Nazi German concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau" in order to make clear what the foreshortening words actually stand for. Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks please. Poeticbent talk 22:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not say the words are not important. I said your phrasing is meaningless and explained why. And I explained how I think the concept of "prerequisite" may be relevant to encyclopedic definitions, as distinguished from dictionary definitions. As for UNESCO, my point exactly. "Concentration camp" and "Nazi concentration camp" are two different subjects, and UNESCO decided to use the precise terminology. Also, I fail to see how a logical discussion you see a personal attack; please be specific in your accusations. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Google lists almost only texts about Nazi concentration camps. Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Recentism. But still: "Inside an American concentration camp" and much more. Prevalence of usage does not trump the accepted dictionary definition. By the same logic we would have to redirect Communist state to Soviet Union yesterday and to China today. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

That would constitute WP:FORK and an invitation to WP:SYNTH to prove a point at the expense of another point, namely, they are one and the same. You say they are supposed to differ by the level of atrocities, if I understand correctly. But first, we already have emotional term "death camp". And second, the extreme atrocities of Nazi camps do not devaluate atrocities elsewhere to the level of "mere inconveniences". (Someone already mentioned that "internment camp" was simply an euphemism for an unpleasant concept, akin to "pacification" and others. And, by the way, I have an impression that the term "pacification" today means not how it sounds. Does someone want to take on "Pacification (brutal suppression)" article?) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

To be exact we have the Extermination camp article, and the Death camp is a redirect.

This Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article about concentration camps, so such article has to be written and any discussions about it should go to Talk:Concentration camp.

80 years since the creation of Nazi camps and 70 years since the end of WWII isn't recentism.

You are using real problems to prove that creation of an ideal article is impossible. But we don't create ideal articles, we are humans and we create human description of the world and the world changed in the 20th century. Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What you mean to say is that Misplaced Pages doesn't have an article titled concentration camps. It *does* have an article about concentration camps: this one. You are suggesting that there is a valid reason to have two separate articles Concentration camp and Internment which both mean, at their basic level, the exact same thing. Some people assume "Concentration camp" means "Nazi concentration camp", a subject which *does* deserve it's own article, which is why we have one: Nazi concentration camps. Since you don't seem to think "concentration camp" means the same thing as internment but rather, if I understand correctly, means "Nazi concentration camp" any suggestion to createa separate concentration camp article would just duplicate what already exists at Nazi concentration camps. Instead, we have one dictionary definition article here where "Internment" and "Concentration camp" are discussed as the same phenomenon, with plenty of visible links to Nazi concentration camps. I really can't see why that is an insufficient compromise for you. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if you are right this is not an article but a stub, which isn't any form of a compromise but rather of neglecting the subject. It doesn't link the Extermination through labor article, which describes, among others, concentration camps.

The List of concentration and internment camps is controversial, it doesn't explain the level of cruelty. The Russia and the Soviet Union section is unproportionally short, it doesn't inform that Polish POWs of 1920 war were kept in concentration camps, later Poles were interned and murdered, which is known as Katyn massacre. These aren't details.

There exists a Wikidata problem - reading this article you hardly can find an artcle about concentration camps in many languages. ( concentration camp (Q152081) )Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Poles were interned in Lithuania 1939-1940, not listed, which ws good for them, but should be mentioned. http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_r=9252&p_d=130209&p_k=2 Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

I mean that all prisoners of a concentration camp can be murdered outside the camp and the world would pretend it doesn't know anything about the murder during 50 years. It belongs to the definition of a concentration camp.Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess I disagree. I don't think it's especially relevant to this article. I'm no expert on Katyn, but weren't those killed there military prisoners? It doesn't seem to be mentioned at Prisoner-of-war camp. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages really shouldn't have "dictionary definition" articles, or should try not to. Here, under the title Internment, there should be a full article about internment, incorporating information about the many cases and forms of internment that have occurred (much of it is already available in the wrongly titled "List of ..." article; it just needs to be moved to here, leaving only actual lists in the list article). "Concentration camp", however, is a different subject - most definitely not the same phenomenon, as most people presumably know. As neutral encyclopedia writers we would not attach the label "concentration camp" to just any internment facility. Our article on concentration camp would be about the facilities that we can neutrally call concentration camps, and about the usage of the term (and debate around such usage). It seems somewhat warped to do as we virtually seem to be doing at the moment - putting the concentration camp article at Internment, and the internment article at List of concentration and internment camps. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Concentration camps may refer to:

• Internment - the general phenonmenon of interning or concentrating civilians, frequently in camps
  • List of concentration and internment camps - examples of these camps
  • Nazi concentration camps (the most important examples of concentration camps in history {{citation}}: Empty citation (help), far more important than any others which should not be listed here)

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

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

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

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

the dictionary - but Misplaced Pages isn't a dictionary, so quoting a dictionary is only the beginning;

and various other published references - really various which means here accidental. No academic text about internment or concentration camps in general.Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC) There exists a book in French and German (I haven't read it).Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

http://www.cairn.info/revue-les-cahiers-de-la-shoah-2003-1-page-45.htm It's a 2003 article, I hope it was deveoped later. Kotek is an academic historian.Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The List of concentration and internment camps is a synthesis of many sources, which is close to OR, because the editors have to create the general image, e.g. the limits of the description and the allotement of space - according to what: the number of camps, number of prisoners, number of death victims, death ratio, period of existence, cruelties (medical experiments) or none, which means bias. Xx236 (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Were exactly a rhetoric of dehumanization, of depersonalization is mentioned here?Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The references of this article are listed. What is the logic? They are all in English, they are about Nazi, English and US camps.

Firstly, you are complaining about the sources all being in English? That's actually preferable according to WP:RSUE.

Second, the article mentions camps established in Poland by the Russian empire, and Spanish camps established in Cuba, and German camps established in German South-West Africa. It also includes, for no apparent reason, an image of Italian camps established in Libya. There is no mention of "US camps" aside from American camps established in the Philippine–American War. Are we reading the same article? Themightyquill (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The name of one Soviet camp was "concentration camp Kozielsk-1". Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

The Soviet camps weren't obviously POW camps, there are many questions. There was Soviet law and documents about the camps.

I don't know contemporary Russian law but the Russian Misplaced Pages says that concentration camps are also for POWs, which continues Soviet line: Polish POWs were kept in concentration camps around 1920, not in POW camps.

The SU hasn't declared war against Poland in 1939, it was rather a humanitarian mission (according to Soviets). So (Internationally) legally Poles (not only army officers but all unifermed men including foresters plus one woman) were interned, not POWs. Accordingly the camps were concentration camps, not POW camps.

I'm sorry for my spelling error, the English name of the town is Kozelsk, which makes ""concentration camp Kozelsk-1". It's a translation of Russian концлагерь «Козельск-1», I don't know what the name comes from. The legal name was probably simply Козельский лагерь (Kozelsk camp). One of documents says interned people (интернированных) but NKVD camps for POWs (лагерях НКВД СССР для военнопленных). Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, xx236, but it all sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. And even if you had sources to show that Kozelk is commonly described as a concentration camp, I still don't see why it is especially notable from among all the examples in List of concentration and internment camps. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The French article describes the process of evolution of the cc to the Nazi camps.Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Collins definition

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

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

Spanish Republicans at Meheri Zabbens and Argelès-sur-Mer

MPS1992 just added the following:

"In the late 1930s, over 100,000 defeated or interned personnel of the Spanish Republican armed forces, along with civilians, were held in concentration camps by France, including at Meheri Zabbens, and at the Camp de concentration d'Argelès-sur-Mer in southern France. Some of these managed to go into exile or went to join the armies of the Allies to fight against the Axis powers, while others ended up in Nazi concentration camps.."

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

The importance could certainly be debated, but it seems very clear to me that its relevance in this article cannot be disputed. The scale is surely significant, as the sources appear to indicate over 100,000 internees at various points. This compares dramatically with the widely-cited Boer War example, which currently in this article implies a much smaller number of internees, and the other earlier examples in this article, which are not clear about the numbers involved but seem likely to be fairly small.

The date is a complication. Uses of "internment" before the Nazi actions tend to be considered more worthy of mention. The French actions came after the Nazis began using internment (and concentration) camps, but before the outbreak of World War 2, which many associate closely with Nazi extremes.

Certainly I think this instance of internment is important, both for its similarities to other cases (numerous deaths resulting from poor conditions, limited legal basis), and also for its differences (the Spanish internees were there for completely different reasons from most of the other examples in the article). And, as I said, the scale. MPS1992 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Maybe you could stress those notable qualities in the text (with functional references of course) to show why it's important. I'm not sure that internment prior to the Second World War is in itself noteworthy, especially given the significant numbers of internments around the world during the First World War. See List of concentration and internment camps for examples. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Internments by Japanese during WW2

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

Soviet camps

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009230811/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

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

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

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

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

without trial v before trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gulag, again

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

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

On Natchez

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

Great. Thank you for providing backup to the claim regarding why that source was unreliable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I've gone ahead and removed the text again. I was not sure if I should message you or hope that you would look at the talk page, so I did both. Sorry for any annoyance, I'm new here. Scio c (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

As you might guess, based on my response here, the problem with removal of that content without explanation by another editor and your removal without explaining why the source was unreliable was troubling, to say the least. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, Not only did I offer an explanation, I gave two reasons, the main reason I gave in my edit summary was "Content does not relate to surrounding text" as its not an etymology or a definition, this was still valid regardless of whether the source was reliable or not. Also User:Monopoly31121993(2) had already pointed out a reliable source that contradicted what was there in his edit summary : "not RS, see Natchez page and citation of The Black experience in Natchez, 1720-1880 by Ronald L. F Davis for details, no mention of internment or concentration camps". Given that I was the third person that tried to remove the information, with two valid reasons given, and it was the third time you put it back there, I would think that the onus would be on you to prove the source was reliable and to rework or relocate the information so that it would better fit into the article. -- Scio c (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gmatsuda and Scio c, I just read your posts and think there might have been a slight misunderstanding. As I mentioned in my deletion, Reliable sources are necessary for including this and in this case, the source provided was not a RS so it was removed. I also went a step further by investigating what were indeed a series of tragic events in and around Natchez during the Civil War. I have added a paragraph to the Natchez, Mississippi page about those events and cited the relevant pages from a RS if either of you would like to read more about the topic. Scio c, as a new editor, please know that your contributions are GREATLY appreciated. Please continue to be bold!Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Monopoly31121993(2), what bugged me was that the unreliable source was put back there three times, despite adequate explanation, and your edit on Natchez, Mississippi was also reverted by the same person for "RV: unsourced edits", despite the fact you cited a reliable source. I took the liberty of adding a ISBN and url to your source and copied your edit to History of Natchez, Mississippi where the same unreliable source was present. I probably won't be watching those pages in the future so if you change what you added to Natchez, Mississippi you might want to update the relevant section in History of Natchez, Mississippi as well. Thank you for finding that book and doing the research. -- Scio c (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I propose consensus required to override 'Concentration Camp' experts on subject of U.S. Immigration System's Concentration Camps

The current version of this article contains four sources for the fact that the camps operated by the U.S. government are concentration camps. All these articles sourced the label from experts on the subject. I argue we should require consensus before overruling subject experts and their published work and statements.

I argue that a well-publicized and prominent example of contemporary concentration camps makes for an excellent entry on an "Examples" list, as the whole point of the list is to point readers to notable examples that highlight the concept.

If there is consensus that WP editors should be overruling content experts about the labeling of U.S. Immigration concentration camps, then so-be-it, but I think this would go against the spirit of WP and WP editing. If someone would like to put forward arguments as to why such a well-known and well-publicized example shouldn't be on the list, feel free to do so and see if there is consensus for its removal, without ruling on the validity of the label.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I support this inclusion. Beyond labeling by experts, haven't international groups expressed this interpretation as well?

However, to be encyclopedic, and to be consistent with the present of the present article, internment centers or camps instead should be used.Dogru144 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say, this article makes clear in its introduction that it is intended to cover all internment camps, including the concentration camp subtype. Its definition section covers both more general internment camps and concentration camps, so I think examples of both (as well as the extermination camps that your own contribution highlights - some of the existing examples are of this subtype) are appropriate.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Does not meet the definition in the fist sentence. "Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial." They are awaiting trial and are suspected of the crime of being in the country illegally, This is totally political, it doesn't need to be. I don't like the camps and I don't like our current government, but this is an encyclopedia. Oh and some sources saying they are not concentration camps. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).2600:1700:1111:5940:8412:322D:289:42CB (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Many individuals - children - are placed in these concentration camps without authorities ever intending to file charges against them (see sources included for this item in the article). Others are placed in the camps prior to having charges filed against them and do not ever see the inside of a criminal courtroom, as immigration courts are of a different process (again, see included sources). Further, there is no "crime of being in the country illegally," as the act of being on U.S. soil without authorization is a civil, not criminal, matter. In all cases, these meet the definition from the article's introduction.

These concentration camps strictly meet the definition stated in the introduction. Further, experts on the subject also conclude that these camps are in fact concentration camps (see included sources). Would you like to present evidence of criminal (not immigration) trials for those held in these concentration camps?

To address your sources: the CNN citation is a biased opinion by a politician; Dr. Lipstadt's statements in the New York Post piece clearly refer to Nazi concentration camps, not concentration camps more generally, as a false interpretation of Representative Ocasio-Cortez's publicization of the "concentration camp" label; The Jewish Insider piece is a collection of three opinions, all of which are clearly aimed at falsely interpreting a Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's words, again, as being a direct reference to Nazi concentration camps; the Haaretz piece is behind a paywall, but its title and sub-title indicate that it is both opinion from a biased politician and, once again, statements by Dr. Lipstadt falsely interpreting Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's words as being a direct reference to Nazi concentration camps; and the final reference is, once again, statements from individuals falsely interpreting Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's words as being a direct reference to Nazi concentration camps.

There are no statements in the sources you've provided that show experts speaking about whether or not these are concentration camps. Instead every one of them is (properly) concluding that these are not death camps, a la Nazi concentration camps.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Obama Administration's 2014 Event Added

Looking at the two links included for justification of adding the Obama Administration to the line about the Trump Administration's family separation policy does not seem to back up the former's inclusion. Neither link states that children were separated from their families when taken to Fort Sill, so unless sources can be provided, then linking the two in this fashion would be inappropriate.

@Tobby72: I propose Obama Administration's 2014 event be separated from the Trump Administration's ongoing event, so that discussion of either/both can be carried out individually without complication by the other. The linked WP article for the Obama Administration's 2014 American immigration crisis likely has multiple sources contained within to inform a discussion about whether or not that event qualifies as an example, given the agreed-upon definition in this article. Given that Tobby72 is the one who most-recently included the 2014 event as an example, I am hoping they can help with this discussion.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

American Immigration Policy Should be Removed

This article is not objective with regards to American Immigration Policy being characterized as a concentration camp. The article provides a definition, "imprisonment . . . without charges, or intent to file charges, and thus no trial". This is false. There is a trial and due process to determine if there is a legal right of entry and whether there is a valid asylum claim. . Controlling the flow immigration is done by nearly every country around the world. Being held pending an immigration hearing is not a concentration camp. There has been no evidence of deplorable and inhumane conditions in these centers comparable to a concentration camp. Detention is based on citizenship status, not immutable traits.

One can believe that the actions are deeply immoral including the family seperation, but the concentration camp categorization and comparison is not appropriate.

Yad Vashem , the US Holocaust Museum , and Aushwitz Museum have cautioned against comparisons with Concentration Camps that killed 6 million Jews and with the atrocities of the Holocaust. Most people associate concentration camps with the systematic extermination of the Jews. Language and categorization that echoes this comparison is inappropriate. I think the American Immigration Policy should be removed.

Condemnation of comparison and categorization as concentration camps: Chuck Todd- MSNBC ; Jake Tapper- CNN- ; Bill Hemmer- Fox News ; Holocaust Survivors condemnation of comparison of immigration centers to concentration camps

^ 8 USC ss 1221-1232 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229a ) ^ ( https://twitter.com/yadvashem/status/1141267813249835008 ) ^ Senior Historian From Yad Vashem -(https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-exactly-is-a-concentration-camp-aoc/) ^ ( https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/statement-regarding-the-museums-position-on-holocaust-analogies ) ^ ( https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/449237-auschwitz-memorial-responds-to-msnbc-host-chris-hayes-over ) ^ (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/20/chuck_todd_why_arent_democrats_calling_out_alexandria_ocasio-cortez_for_concentration_camp_comments.html) ^ ( https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1144378806268026882 ) ^ ( https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-fox-news-concentration-camps-1444606 ) ^ (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-holocaust-survivors-respond-to-aocs-concentration-camp-comments)

I added disputed, but hope higher ups make this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.20.255 (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that the U.S. Immigration System through time - the system as it was from 2016 and prior - may not be an appropriate example for this page's list, as those detention and processing facilities do not appear to have been previously described as internment or concentration camps by experts. Further, they may not meet the definition(s) as provided in this article, given that the system at that time did not appear to be used in a punitive way while simultaneously limiting detainees' access to the judicial system, but instead was used to help facilitate quick access to the judicial system. (No sources provided because, well, how would one "prove" this negative?)

However, with regard to this system from 2017 onward, experts have been rather emphatic in noting the changes in policies and application of those policies - including rendering it next to impossible to seek asylum through the so-called "official" channels available to those who present themselves at the U.S.-Mexico border - that have turned previous detention and processing centers into concentration camps. Given that the this change lines up directly with the change in U.S. administration, it would make sense that the system as previously administered was not an example of internment/concentration camps, but that the system as it currently exists is. For citations, read those already included in support of the entry "Trump administration family separation policy (2017-present)"

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources used for the entry "Immigration detention under Bush and Obama," one was an opinion article and should remain deleted. Of the remaining three, only one of these - Some of the pictures of border kids that haunt me most are from 2014. Here’s why | Philadelphia Inquirer - describes any detention or processing facilities prior to 2017 as as even just potentially punitive in nature:

When Free had a chance encounter with the president at a political event, he warned him that the detention centers would be "a stain on his legacy." He said the president wanted to know if Free was an immigration lawyer — implying that everyday citizens weren't worried about what goes on at the border — and then said, according to Free: "I'll tell you what we can't have, it's these parents sending their kids here on a dangerous journey and putting their lives at risk." The message that Free took away was that the president saw family detention as a deterrent to keep more refugees from coming.

This quote shows only an evaluation of remarks by the president by a single individual. The other two remaining references do not describe any conditions nor circumstances prior to 2016 that would meet the definition of an internment or concentration camp used in this article.

Unless other citations can be provided for "Immigration detention under Bush and Obama" that supports its inclusion on a list of internment/concentration camps, this should be removed from the list.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In follow-up to my earlier post, every single citation listed for the Immigration Detention Centers relies on one single author: Andrea Pitzer. She does not appear to have a PhD or even Masters Degree. I can find no basis to qualify her as an expert on this matter. She is not more credible than multiple Holocaust museums who have many experts with PhDs studying the field, Holocaust Survivors, and multiple journalists that I have listed.

There has been no evidence provided that the detained individuals will not receive trials for their asylum claims. On the contrary, the law requires they will, which i cited. Further, there has been an extensive Humanitarian aid package of 4.6 billion of dollars passed and on its way to the detained individuals. This shows there is no punitive intent to inflict harm or a design for harm, but the country is merely being overwhelmed by the number of immigrants.

The Japanese were American Citizens and were put in camps because of their immutable traits. The European Jews (should have been citizens) and were rightful inhabitants of their land, they were put in camps (and killed) for immutable traits. The same can be said about the African Boers in South Africa. The undocumented migrants are coming of their own free will, unlike every other example, and are not being targeted due to immutable traits, but immigration status.

The only other expert in any of the articles J. Hyslop states, "all four of the early instances—Americans in the Philippines, Spanish in Cuba, and British in South Africa, and Germans in Southwest Africa—they're all essentially overriding any sense of rights of the civilian population." Every instance was a native population being moved based on their immutable traits. With the Detention Centers, a population is coming into a foreign country and is being asked to stop pending a hearing. It doesn't appear to be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.20.255 (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The conditions are atrocious, but having a picture of Holocaust survivors across from the detention center is insulting to every single holocaust survivor. The immigration policy can be deeply wrong, embarrassing, and even human rights violations without being a concentration camp. B

Regarding Obama and Pre-2017, you rely upon hearsay for establishing an encyclopedia article establishing consensus definitions of Concentration Camps. We do not know if this statement happened, nor do we know what the president meant by the statement. This does not seem appropriate.

I agree with the suggestion below to just put the list of examples article that doesn't highlight the Immigration Detention Centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8B00:2C60:5987:CC33:AF1A:8431 (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that American Immigration centers should not be included in the examples because of the stated facts above. It seems like the consensus is that it shouldn’t be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

With regard to U.S. centers from 2017 and onward, I would disagree. Multiple RS are used to justify their inclusion, with voices from multiple experts included in those examples (one source alone quotes from three separate experts). Further, arguments to exclude because of comparisons to Holocaust camps fail, given that multiple examples here come from other time periods and locations and are meant to exemplify the broadness of the category.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with Pinchme123's statement above. The inclusion is justified based on multiple sources/experts. Doremo (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with Pinchme123. Objectively and disregarding political bias, the practice seems to meet the definition and as such warrant inclusion. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly DoubleGrazing your opinion is biased. Stating you have no bias doesn’t mean anything. It clearly does not meet the definition of a concentration or interment camp. The article provides a definition, "imprisonment . . . without charges, or intent to file charges, and thus no trial". This is false. There is a trial and due process to determine if there is a legal right of entry and whether there is a valid asylum claim. . Controlling the flow immigration is done by nearly every country around the world. Being held pending an immigration hearing is not a concentration camp. There has been no evidence of deplorable and inhumane conditions in these centers comparable to a concentration camp. Detention is based on citizenship status, not immutable traits.

One can believe that the actions are deeply immoral including the family seperation, but the concentration camp categorization and comparison is not appropriate.

Yad Vashem , the US Holocaust Museum , and Aushwitz Museum have cautioned against comparisons with Concentration Camps that killed 6 million Jews and with the atrocities of the Holocaust. Most people associate concentration camps with the systematic extermination of the Jews. Language and categorization that echoes this comparison is inappropriate. I think the American Immigration Policy should be removed.

Condemnation of comparison and categorization as concentration camps: Chuck Todd- MSNBC ; Jake Tapper- CNN- ; Bill Hemmer- Fox News ; Holocaust Survivors condemnation of comparison of immigration centers to concentration camps There has been no evidence provided that the detained individuals will not receive trials for their asylum claims. On the contrary, the law requires they will, which i cited. Further, there has been an extensive Humanitarian aid package of 4.6 billion of dollars passed and on its way to the detained individuals. This shows there is no punitive intent to inflict harm or a design for harm, but the country is merely being overwhelmed by the number of immigrants.

The Japanese were American Citizens and were put in camps because of their immutable traits. The European Jews (should have been citizens) and were rightful inhabitants of their land, they were put in camps (and killed) for immutable traits. The same can be said about the African Boers in South Africa. The undocumented migrants are coming of their own free will, unlike every other example, and are not being targeted due to immutable traits, but immigration status.

^ 8 USC ss 1221-1232 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229a ) ^ ( https://twitter.com/yadvashem/status/1141267813249835008 ) ^ Senior Historian From Yad Vashem -(https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-exactly-is-a-concentration-camp-aoc/) ^ ( https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/statement-regarding-the-museums-position-on-holocaust-analogies ) ^ ( https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/449237-auschwitz-memorial-responds-to-msnbc-host-chris-hayes-over ) ^ (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/20/chuck_todd_why_arent_democrats_calling_out_alexandria_ocasio-cortez_for_concentration_camp_comments.html) ^ ( https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1144378806268026882 ) ^ ( https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-fox-news-concentration-camps-1444606 ) ^ (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-holocaust-survivors-respond-to-aocs-concentration-camp-comments) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 13:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the first sentence, this whole comment is copied above (posted originally by 73.19.20.255) and has been responded to there. As additional refutation of the sources Hurledhandbook cites that rely on the Holocaust to deny that the current U.S. facilities cannot be called "concentration camps," there are numerous news outlets that have reported on an effort by hundreds of genocide experts to have the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum retract their statement. Newseek's article: "More than 400 Holocaust, genocide experts think Ocasio-Cortez should be allowed to call migrant detention centers 'concentration camps'". And as I stated in my last comment, this article includes multiple examples of internment and concentration camps from locations and time periods outside of Nazi Holocaust camps.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but that article just says 400 “experts”. Who are these so called “experts”? They are nobody’s. They are professors at colleges. They are not experts. Ah, yes. The fabled “concentration camp experts.” We can only assume the “experts” she consulted don’t work at the Auschwitz Museum or United States Holocaust Museum or the Wiesenthal Center or, you know, any places that employ actual concentration camp experts who are sick and tired of AOC’s Holocaust comparisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

All of us hiding behind fake names on Misplaced Pages are the nobodies, not 400 college professors. They are our intellectual and professional community. Doremo (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Here are some people who are actual experts on the holocaust and concentration camps. Also Bernie Sanders because he is Jewish, a politician and he is a democrat. Even comparing the detention camps to concentration camps is disgusting. https://nypost.com/2019/06/19/israeli-holocaust-museum-lectures-aoc-after-concentration-camp-remarks/

https://forward.com/news/national/426187/sanders-aoc-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camps/

https://jewishjournal.com/news/nation/300186/wiesenthal-center-calls-aocs-concentration-camp-remarks-insult-to-victims-of-the-shoah/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It should not be included because it doesn’t meet the definition of an internment camp. The definition of internet camp is “a prison camp for the confinement of enemy aliens, prisoners of war, political prisoners, etc.” These illegal immigrants are put in the camps because they are illegally crossing the border. This is therefore a crime and should be dealt with accordingly. They are not being put in the camps because of their race, religion, etc.. they are being put in for a crime. There is no mistreatment and it is not ill willed. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/internment-camp

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/july/leader-of-national-hispanic-christian-group-tours-border-facility-pushes-back-against-reports-of-mistreatment-of-migrant-children — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove list of examples

There's no legitimate criteria for what should be included in the "Examples" list here, when we already have List of concentration and internment camps. I suggest we remove the examples section completely, or eventually, we'll end up with everything at List of concentration and internment camps also listed here. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

My twopenn'orth: I don't see any harm in retaining this section, whereas I do find that helps to flesh out the point that internment/concentration camps wasn't just a Nazi practice. Just because there isn't clear criteria for inclusion doesn't suggest to me that we couldn't include some examples notable for their historical significance or currency. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the list should be retained. It is a relatively brief list of notable examples. Doremo (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the current absence of any defined criteria for inclusion, does not mean that nothing should be included. Key examples should be retained. MPS1992 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It should not be included because it doesn’t meet the definition of an internment camp. The definition of internet camp is “a prison camp for the confinement of enemy aliens, prisoners of war, political prisoners, etc.”

These illegal immigrants are put in the camps because they are illegally crossing the border. This is therefore a crime and should be dealt with accordingly. They are not being put in the camps because of their race, religion, etc.. they are being put in for a crime. There is no mistreatment and it is not ill willed.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/internment-camp

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/july/leader-of-national-hispanic-christian-group-tours-border-facility-pushes-back-against-reports-of-mistreatment-of-migrant-children — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DoubleGrazing, Doremo, and MPS1992. A shortened list of notable examples with a link to the main List of concentration and internment camps seems entirely appropriate.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

REMOVE the reference to the Trump administraion family separation policy. FIRST, is was NOT Trump's policy, but Barrack Obama's policy. Second, It is more than disgusting for a site such as this to reference a politically charged snark and besmirchment of our fine law enforcement from a clearly biased and bigoted person for a legitimate source as an "example". This is BullShit!! Take it OFF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.104.34 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The entry is well-sourced to multiple experts and provides value to the page as an example of a contemporary internment/concentration camp system. Please keep your language civil. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Ronald L. F Davis (1999). The Black experience in Natchez, 1720-1880: A special history study, Natchez National Historical Park, Mississippi. Eastern National. pp. 145–160. ISBN 978-1888213379.
2. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/23/sotu-schiff-on-concentration-camps.cnn
3. https://nypost.com/2019/06/19/israeli-holocaust-museum-lectures-aoc-after-concentration-camp-remarks/
4. https://jewishinsider.com/2019/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-holocaust-analogy-draws-ire-of-jewish-community/
5. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-bernie-sanders-distances-himself-from-aoc-s-concentration-camps-comparison-1.7394013
6. https://jewishjournal.com/news/nation/300186/wiesenthal-center-calls-aocs-concentration-camp-remarks-insult-to-victims-of-the-shoah/
7. Is living as an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. a crime?
8. "When Obama Sent Migrant Children To Ex-Japanese Internment Camp, It Was Called Fort Sill: Critics Slam 'Hypocrisy' of Outrage Over Trump Detention Plan". Newsweek. 13 June 2019.
9. Bunch, Will (24 June 2018). "Some of the pictures of border kids that haunt me most are from 2014. Here's why". The Philadelphia Inquirer.
10. 8 USC ss 1221-1232 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229a )
11. ( https://twitter.com/yadvashem/status/1141267813249835008 )
12. Senior Historian From Yad Vashem -(https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-exactly-is-a-concentration-camp-aoc/)
13. ( https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/statement-regarding-the-museums-position-on-holocaust-analogies )
14. ( https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/449237-auschwitz-memorial-responds-to-msnbc-host-chris-hayes-over )
15. (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/20/chuck_todd_why_arent_democrats_calling_out_alexandria_ocasio-cortez_for_concentration_camp_comments.html)
16. ( https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1144378806268026882 )
17. ( https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-fox-news-concentration-camps-1444606 )
18. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-holocaust-survivors-respond-to-aocs-concentration-camp-comments)
19. https://www.apnews.com/3970025578ff467fa99ed7d027363054

Politics is not "consensus".

Why are supporting links for detention centers associated Trump admin sources from political blog (Huffington Post) and politics pages of Esquire?

Are detainees really being held arbitrarily and absent due process? In fact they are accused of actual illegality and are only being detained pending adjudication.

All of the supposed references on this go back to a single "expert" who I'm sure just accidentally happens to be an anti-Trump leftist. If we can get her reported throughout more and more of liberal media does that make that one person each more of a "consensus"? Hogwash. Get the politics off the site.

Leftist moderation of Misplaced Pages does not alter reality and the truth, it simply discredits Misplaced Pages. Crybaby politics at the long overdue the rule of law insults actual victims of genocidal internment like the Holocaust. Cpurick (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The provided sources quote multiple experts, though one of them is quoted more than once (and wrote one of the sources). --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the inclusion of the detention centers in any list as a concentration camp or internment, ultimately harms Misplaced Pages as an unbiased source and is pushed for inclusion by people with agendas and people with political motives, besides which the US detention centers don't meet the guidelines for inclusion as per the article's lead or definitions. Sir Joseph 19:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

As Sir Joseph is well aware, the matter of whether or not the U.S.-Mexico border concentration camps are appropriate for concentration/internment camp lists on Misplaced Pages was settled by an RfC at Talk:List of concentration and internment camps#RFC about U.S.-Mexico border camps. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

As you're well aware, an RFC is only for that specific page, not for the entire Misplaced Pages. Regardless, I'm taking this page off my watchlist, please don't ping me. I've had enough of your bias. Congratulations on helping Trump win in 2020. Sir Joseph 19:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References 23,24,25,26 (as of this edit) are on the Trump detention centers. Two of them are bylines by Andrea Pitzer. The other two both refer to an "expert" and in both those cases "the" expert is Andrea Pitzer. Thus, the entire "consensus" is ONE expert with an obvious political bias. Furthermore, you appear to be defending it with similar bias. It is what it is. This is an insult to anybody who understands what a concentration camp is/was. Cpurick

You are correct about two of them having Pitzer as a byline; given that she's a content expert, I'm not sure this is a bad thing. In one of the other two sources - the Esquire piece - two other experts aside from Pitzer are included: another historian and a sociologist. In the Huffington Post article, another historian is also quoted.

The page is currently protected, but once that is lifted, I can diversify the sources to address your concerns. The RfC I linked to before contains a ton of sources from a broad range of experts all using the label, and at one point another editor even compiled quotes from an additional five experts (not including Pitzer). Here's that list:

--Pinchme123 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I again propose that the bullet list of examples be removed entirely. Any short list, particularly one without any (let alone clear) criteria, will inevitably be controversial, POV, and arbitrary. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

When you last informally proposed to remove the list at the beginning of July, four editors (including myself) stated that they thought the list should stay, for varying reasons. I don't know if anything has changed in a month and a half to justify reversing course. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article was, at least for a time, locked to editing over a dispute about what to include in the list, so... - Themightyquill (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What to include in the list, not whether or not to include the list at all, so... --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I am disgusted at the obvious influence of politics here. Disgusted. It borders on criminal that leftist academics steward so much of our knowledge.

The US Southern Border detainees are here in violation of law. Their detention is part of lawful due process, they are afforded representation and they are free to go if they want to leave the country. None of those conditions apply to any form of internment. There is no particular expertise or authority that comes from having a political agenda, just a demonstration of petty bitterness and poor sportsmanship among sore losers of a political race. Cpurick (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the detainees are here, I think they are in the USA! MPS1992 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Cpurick, your "anti-Trump leftist" happens to be a journalist who writes for a reliable publication with an editorial board and all the other things that an RS requires. They are not opinion pieces; perhaps you are not acquainted with with (investigative) journalists do. I don't care if you're disgusted by your own imagination ("It borders on criminal that leftist academics steward so much of our knowledge" is just a bunch of uneducated nonsense), but I do care that you mistake this talk page for a forum. See WP:FORUM. Ima leave a note on DS that are relevant (all of a sudden) to this field on your talk page, and let this serve as a public reminder to stay on topic and not abuse Misplaced Pages for spreading poorly informed opinion. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Drmies

""your "anti-Trump leftist" happens to be a journalist who writes for a reliable publication with an editorial board and all the other things that an RS requires."

The two are not mutually exclusive. Lately a journalist with an editorial board is more likely to be an anti-Trump leftist than not.

The liberal moderation continues to ignore that detainees are in the US illegally and therefore lawfully detained under the rule of law and with due process. They are not held indefinitely but are each scheduled for adjudication, and that they are all free to leave the US and detention anytime, such that their detention is conditional only on their resolve to remain in the US, and not as part of some plan to detain arbitrary populations.

None of that is consistent with any other example of internment, and one does not need to be a leftist journalist to recognize that.

The assertion that the border facilities are internment is political. The suggestion that "a journalist" is necessarily apolitical is also political. The defense of the political mischaracterization of this "internment" is political. Denying that it is political is political. Use reason, and not politics, and remove the ridiculous example. Cpurick (talk)

Whatever. "Lately a journalist with an editorial board is more likely to be an anti-Trump leftist than not": Misplaced Pages has no room for your conspiracy theories. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

3 million Uyghurs?

The sources for 3 million Uyghurs being detained are quite old. Every estimate I've seen in 2019 - and this is an issue I follow quite regularly - has indicated it is thought to be around 1 million. 18 month old outdated sources should be removed and the most recent estimates should be given.

Philologick (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a highly misleading wiki entry.

It mixes up re-concentration camps : "accommodation for the non-combatants of a district" and concentration camps "prisons where people are deliberately held in harsh and overcrowded conditions possibly awaiting execution or slave labour"

These are not the same things!

It claims that the re-concentration camps in Cuba(Spanish), the Philippines(American) and South Africa(British) were prisons. Does any one have any good sources to support this?

--Cheezypeaz (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The above appears to be a failure to understand Spanish reconcentrado; there are no "re-concentration camps" in English. Spanish reconcentrar means 'to concentrate, bring together'. Doremo (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The contributor also seems to have invented his/her own definition of the term ("prisons where people ..."). We should stick to objective definitions, such as this from Merriam-Webster: "concentration camp: a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or foreign nationals) are detained or confined and sometimes subjected to physical and mental abuse and indignity" Doremo (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the definition of reconcentrar. I did not know this. However my point still stands.

The article defines internment as being imprisonment and concentration camps as a type of internment. Therefore concentration camps must be prisons. Were the Spanish, American and British camps prisons? If they were then OK. If not then the article is misleading.

The definitions I gave were based on what I remembered of the OED (V2) definitions. The correct definitions are...

OED v2 : concentration camp, a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African War of 1899–1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939–45;

OED v3 (current)

1. Military (orig. and chiefly U.S.). A camp for the concentration and temporary accommodation of large numbers of troops awaiting active service

2.a. A camp in which large numbers of people, esp. political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution.

2.b. figurative. Something likened to a concentration camp, esp. in being a place of oppression, suffering, and inhumanity.

The Spanish, American and British camps now seem now to fall under 2.b. "figurative" for the following reasons 1) they were for people who happened to be living in a particular area where there was military activity - they were not political prisoners, they were not members of a persecuted minority. 2) The British camps were not prisons, I doubt if the Spanish or American ones were. 3) no forced labour or executions.

The Webster definition is less exacting but it still contains "detained or confined" which anyone will read as imprisoned. This definition is so imprecise it means that all prisoner of war camps and foreign national internment camps are automatically also concentration camps.

I know this topic is very political. I'm arguing that we don't mislead our readers by trying to cram everything in to one definition. If we do that the Spanish/American/British camps are no longer concentration camps. ( and arguably aren't given the current meaning of "concentration camp".)

P.S. I was probably mislead about the term "reconcentration camp" by this article which contains the following "The English term concentration camp was first used in order to refer to the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps)"

Cheezypeaz (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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 enforcement and immigration detention facilities are by definition not internment camps. Unless they are designated so by a legitimate governing body of merit (the UN specifically panned the facilities, but did not designate them as refugee/internment/concentration camps), or if there is a peer-reviewed journal entry / body of work in an esteemed journal of history or related subject that specifically outlines why the immigration detention facilities are internment camps, then I will continue to remove this factually incorrect entries. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Entry is well-cited, using Misplaced Pages-acceptable reliable sources that all call these concentration camps concentration camps and all rely on content experts to make that determination. The entry is therefore factual and a valid example for inclusion on this page. Do not delete again without specific reliable sources questioning their labeling as concentration camps. --Pinchme123 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Entry is well-cited, using Misplaced Pages-acceptable reliable sources that all call these concentration camps concentration camps and all rely on content experts to make that determination.

The entry is not well-cited, and the source is opinion piece written by journalists. The source you're citing does not cite any official designation by a governing body 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),

I'll repeat myself again since it's apparently not getting through to you: "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". These 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. I will remove the offending entry once the ban is lifted due to the fact that their inclusion in this article is factually incorrect.

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

German South-West Africa camps

I see above there is some discussion of whether or not to actually include the examples section, but, if it's kept, I think a mention of the camps in the Herero and Namaqua genocide would be notable as the first in the list that mentions Unethical human experimentation (there was already Unethical human experimentation in the United States on prisoners and slaves). Especially as it occurred at the start of the last century by the German Empire, which the genocide article shows has been linked to the Nazi's later experimentation it should go in the examples, if not in the definition along with the UK&USA camps. The article is a bit small and messy in general, but I don't know enough to really help in expansion, nor would I know where to start. What does strike me as odd is the Chilean & British-Kenyan camps going in before 'during the 20th century' rather than after (maybe in the paragraph of, but before, the Chinese re-education camps?) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Clinton, Obama, and Trump concentration camps

The article currently lists this as an example of an internment camp:

• Trump administration migrant detentions as part of immigration detention in the United States (2018–present)

References

1. Hignett, Katherine (June 24, 2019). "Academics rally behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over concentration camp comments: 'She is completely historically accurate'". Newsweek. Retrieved August 23, 2019.
2. Holmes, Jack (2019-06-13). "An Expert on Concentration Camps Says That's Exactly What the U.S. Is Running at the Border". Esquire. Retrieved 2019-07-03.
3. Beorn, Waitman Wade (June 20, 2018). "Yes, you can call the border centers 'concentration camps,' but apply the history with care". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 30, 2019.

However, according to The Esquire, " the Obama administration ... pioneered some of the tactics the Trump administration is now using to try to manage the situation at the border" and the system was "set up by the Bill Clinton administration, built on by Barack Obama's government. Moreover, according to Politifact, overall, experts say US detention facilities are not similar to earliest concentration camps or Nazi camps.

What should we do to bring this article closer to neutral point of view?

1. Change the entry to Immigration detention in the United States in the United States since Bill Clinton admnistration.
2. As above, but also cite experts to highlight that the viewpoint is highly disputed.
3. Add separate lines for Clinton, Obama, and Trump administrations.
4. As above, but also cite experts to highlight that the viewpoint is highly disputed.
5. Remove the entry, but use an entry pointing to Immigration detention in the United States in See also section, possibly with a brief annotation.
6. Something else. Why?

Comments? Politrukki (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I would argue, as I have elsewhere on Talk:List of concentration and internment camps, that the second sentence in full is important: "But by Pitzer's measure, the system at the southern border first set up by the Bill Clinton administration, built on by Barack Obama's government, and brought into extreme and perilous new territory by Donald Trump and his allies does qualify." To me at least, this is describing how the situation has changed from the past, to explain why the current concentration camps weren't concentration camps before. As for the first quote you've used, you've cut off the beginning of the sentence where it specifically states that it refers only to Fort Sill. It does not describe all immigration detention centers, and even in the part of the quote you included makes it clear it's only referring to some of the things Trump administration does and not all of them. It's the totality that explains why these are concentration camps now and weren't under the Obama, Bush, or Clinton administrations.

Finally, in response to the Politifact article, the question isn't whether or not these concentration camps are similar to others of the past or Nazi-specific camps, but whether or not experts today identify them as camps. And I think the sources here already make clear, experts do call them concentration camps, under the Trump administration.

So my vote is to keep it as is. If others show consensus that more sources are needed, then we can add others.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Extermination vs internment

See this article, this book, this book, or this book for a discussion of the terminology. In RS, internment is defined as "Internment may be defined as an extra-judicial deprivation of liberty by executive action" An extermination camp does not fit that definition as people are not deprived of their liberty but killed more or less immediately.

Also, it is not correct to say, "The paragraph should stay, until such a time sources can be produced on the talk page to explain otherwise."—see WP:ONUS. The one who advocates keeping material should be able to produce sources for it. (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Onus does not apply, as this is a dispute over removal of existing content based upon your unsupported assertion that the content is inaccurate, not the inclusion of new content that has a source but may not be necessary. The paragraph is both accurate and useful to readers.

Regarding sources provided, linking to a bunch of books and vaguely claiming they support your assertion is not enough. Provide specific citations, including pages.

I'll get you started with one of my own. Per Encyclopedia Britannica: Extermination camp, German Vernichtungslager, Nazi German concentration camp that specialized in the mass annihilation (Vernichtung) of unwanted persons in the Third Reich and conquered territories..

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica is not necessarily a RS. it is a general rather than scholarly encyclopedia. As for the USHMM source you cited, it states: "In time their extensive camp system came to include concentration camps, where persons were incarcerated without observation of the standard norms applying to arrest and custody; labor camps; prisoner-of-war camps; transit camps; and camps which served as killing centers, often called extermination camps or death camps." The distinction between concentration and extermination camps is upheld.

USHMM also states in a different article: "Many people refer to all of the Nazi incarceration sites during the Holocaust as concentration camps. The term concentration camp is used very loosely to describe places of incarceration and murder under the Nazi regime, however, not all sites established by the Nazis were concentration camps." It cites "killing centers" (i.e. extermination camps) as separate from concentration camps. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) buidhe I see no reason to discount Encyclopedia Britannica as an unreliable source at this time for this particular subject. Its author is Michael Berenbaum, who helped create the USHMM. He's a Holocaust scholar working at American Jewish University.

Further, the USHMM source specifically backs up the sentence to which it is attached as a reference. From the Wiki: The label concentration camp is often additionally used for . From the source that you've also quoted, with emphasis: In time their extensive camp system came to include concentration camps, where persons were incarcerated without observation of the standard norms applying to arrest and custody; labor camps; prisoner-of-war camps; transit camps; and camps which served as killing centers, often called extermination camps or death camps. Also: The concentration camps, standing outside the reach of the German justice authorities, had always been places where the SS could kill prisoners. After the beginning of the war, however, the camps increasingly became sites for the systematic murder of individuals or small groups of persons. And then: In Auschwitz-Birkenau, the SS had within the concentration camp system a killing center that had four gas chambers and that, at the height of the deportations, could kill up to 6,000 Jews each day. This source explicitly states, some types of concentration camps are often called "extermination camps;" it does not state that the labels are mutually exclusive.

Next, I took a look at the first source you provided (two of the books were inaccessible and the other was in German). It too does not claim mutual exclusivity of concentration camps and extermination camps, but rather that the latter is a specific extreme kind of the former. In fact, its argument is about the distinction between internment camps and concentration camps, since, after the atrocities of the Holocaust became known, the term concentration camp was inextricably linked to Nazi death camps. This is a powerful argument in support of the paragraph explicitly outlines the distinction between concentration camps that are synonymous to internment camps and concentration camps that are of the extermination kind.

Thus, the distinction is in specificity, not exclusivity, and this should be clearly spelled out in the article. Which is why the paragraph should remain.

Not to mention, you're deleting the entire paragraph, which was fully sourced, all because you seem to misunderstand the last sentence of it. Please immediately reinstate it.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not fully sourced, you're misrepresenting the source to say something other than what it says. "Camp system" is a vague term, and more broad that "interment" or "concentration camps". I am still waiting for the source that says that extermination is a type of internment.

I did not say that concentration and extermination camps are mutually exclusive; just that the latter is not a subset of the former, as your preferred texts states. I am still waiting for a source which states that explicitly. Auschwitz, Jasenovac and Majdanek are all correctly described as both extermination and concentration camps, fullfilling both functions simultaneously. But Chelmno, Treblinka, etc. are not concentration camps or sites of "internment". (t · c) buidhe 04:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

buidhe: Please do not change indenting style mid-conversation. It is highly distracting. I've fixed it for you.

So now you're demanding sources to support specific label for specific camps? None of these are listed in the paragraph in question and so no, I don't see a reason to meet your goalpost-moved demand. I provided a specific source and pointed out in two of your specific sources how "extermination camps" is considered a specific kind of "concentration camp," complete with emphasized uses of "concentration" and "extermination." You've so far only provided one source that claims this is not the case. I count three to one, in support of already-existing content in the article. At best, the fact that two USHMM sources contradict one another probably means it should be dropped from consideration, leaving two sources in support.

But fine, reinstate the paragraph and remove the two words "the subset" if it'll make you happy. The rest of the paragraph is fully acceptable though and is a necessary clarification for why, despite often being called "concentration camps" the specific type "extermination camps" or "death camps" are excluded from this article.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

However you cut it, the information you are adding is not sourced correctly. "The label concentration camp is often additionally used for the latter , such as those created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya, Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and Soviet gulags in operation into the 1980s." Cited source does not mention Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian colonization of Libya, or gulags. Furthermore, it does not say that "Nazi concentration camps" are a type of extermination camp. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the following wording would be a verifiably sourced and accurate compromise:

The term "concentration camp" or "internment camp" is used to refer to a variety of systems that greatly differed in their severity, mortality rate, and architecture; their defining characteristic was that inmates were held without due process or the rule of law. Extermination camps or death camps, whose primary purpose was killing, are also imprecisely referred to as "concentration camps".

"Stone 2015" is already cited in the article (t · c) buidhe 06:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Stone 2015, pp. 9–10.
2. "Nazi Camps". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 3 October 2020.

(ec) buidhe: Again, stop changing the indent style. Repeatedly changing it after being asked to adhere to normal talk page behavior is disruptive and reflects poorly on your willingness to discuss things civilly.

I wrote a reply to your first comment, but since you've suggested alternative language, I'll delete that reply and instead respond to the alternative. No this isn't acceptable, because it does not explicitly explain why some camps labeled concentration camps by scholars are excluded. They are excluded because, although they are specifically labeled as such, they are of a certain kind – they are extermination camps or death camps – and so are covered under their own article. It also inaccurately describes the label, and is only supported by part of one of the sources you've provided, and no others so far. The source you're basing it on comes from a publication that even has conflicting explanations. I'll take the multiple sources supporting the 'subset' distinction – including the one that explicitly states this distinction outright – over the conflicting source.

So again, I'm asking you to reinstate the paragraph.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, talk page guidelines do not ban {{outdent}}ing. Second, I will not restore your preferred version because it is not compatible with core content policy, specifically WP:V. Where are the souces saying explicitly that extermination camp is a subset of concentration camp? The only source that you quoted, the encyclopedia brittanica source, seems to me to be stating that some nazi concentration camps were also extermination camps. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't object to outdenting (nor did I anywhere claim a "ban" on anything) and you'll notice I never changed the outdenting. You repeatedly used bullets rather than indents. Thank you for not doing it again.

I am asking you restore the original stable version – not "(my) preferred version" – from before this dispute began, for while we are resolving the dispute. Verifiability/ONUS doesn't apply here because this is a dispute about removal of already-established content, not insertion of new content. So yes, the stable version does in fact "comply with core content policy."

The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't say "some nazi concentration camps were also extermination camps." It says, extermination camps are a type of concentration camp. This is approaching WP:IDHT.

Finally, I look forward to your responses to the other objections I raised to your compromise.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS refers to all material in mainspace: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." If you disagree with my behavior, feel free to report me to the admin noticeboard of your choice.

In the meantime, I await the sources that actually support the entire content in your preferred version of the content. I refer to it as your preferred version because it is the one that you continue to support. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The quote you've just provided, it's literally about including new content, not about eliminating existing content.

I've already provided multiple sources that explicitly state the language used. You've even wholly reversed the language of one of those sources in a dishonest attempt to claim it says the opposite.

Looks like this needs dispute resolution.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

buidhe: Please note, you have once again shifted the goalposts. The article content in question – which you still have not reinstated, despite WP:BRD – does not state "concentration camps are a subset of extermination camps" as you claimed at the dispute case; but I pointed out that many sources, including ones you yourself provided, do in fact describe them as such, as a part of my argument for why this content should remain in. Claiming some Misplaced Pages policy about extraordinary claims should apply in support of you deleting content that doesn't even include the so-called extraordinary claim is... I don't even know what to label it.

The fact is, the sentence as stated is perfectly factual and backed by the sources I added: the extermination camp label is in fact applied by many, many scholars to "extermination camps," or "death camps," or, as USHMM even calls them "killing centers." That the concentration camp label is applied to them, and an explanation for why this specific article does not deal with them, should be included for reader comprehension.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

More top-tier secondary sources that describe concentration camps as including extermination camps:

JANM: During World War II, America’s concentration camps were clearly distinguishable from Nazi Germany’s. Nazi camps were places of torture, barbarous medical experiments, and summary executions; some were extermination centers with gas chambers.

The Guardian: ...use of concentration camps by Nazi Germany in its effort to exterminate Jews. (previously unsigned; one of these days I won't forget --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC))

Since buidhe sees fit to keep updating their summary at dispute resolution, I'll continue to do what is asked of editors there and refrain from such changes, instead using the Talk page.

Apologies for characterizing you having reversed the wording of a source, more than once (, , in order to claim it says the opposite as a "dishonest" action. Feel free to explain your completely innocent reason for doing so here.

But it is not a personal attack to point out the shifting target of your argument in the face of sound sourcing, and to label that shift as "moving the goalposts." Personal attacks are against individuals, not their content.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said before, I do not dispute that *some Nazi concentration camps were also extermination camps*. These sources do not support the statement in the previous version of the article: "This article involves internment generally, as distinct from the subset, the extermination camps, commonly referred to as death camps". And yes, calling another editor "dishonest" is a personal attack. (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I see you're still unable to adhere to ongoing indenting. Here, I'll fix that for you again.

Apologies for characterizing you having reversed the wording of a source (), apparently in order to claim it says the opposite, as a "dishonest" action. Feel free to explain your completely innocent reason for doing so here.

But it is not a personal attack to point out the shifting target of your argument in the face of sound sourcing, and to label that shift as "moving the goalposts." Personal attacks are against individuals, not their content.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's my working version of the disputed content, with reliable sources added. Not WP:OR involved.

This article involves internment generally, as distinct from the subset, the extermination camps, commonly referred to as death camps.. The label concentration camp is often additionally used for the latter, such as those created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya, Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and Soviet gulags in operation into the 1980s.

References

1. Berenbaum, Michael. "Extermination camp". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2020-10-02.
2. "CONCENTRATION CAMP SYSTEM: IN DEPTH". Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 2020-10-02.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: are extermination camps a subset of concentration camps?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the current paragraph in the lead:

This article involves internment generally, as distinct from the subset, the extermination camps, commonly referred to as death camps. The label concentration camp is often additionally used for the latter, such as those created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya, Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and Soviet gulags in operation into the 1980s.

be replaced by:

The term "concentration camp" or "internment camp" is used to refer to a variety of systems that greatly differ in their severity, mortality rate, and architecture; their defining characteristic is that inmates are held outside the rule of law. Extermination camps or death camps, whose primary purpose is killing, are also imprecisely referred to as "concentration camps".

Survey

• Support.
  1. There is no dispute in scholarly sources that extermination camps, whose purpose is killing people, not interning them, are not a subset of concentration camps or a type of internment. (The term "concentration and extermination camp" is often used for sites that fulfilled both purposes.) Scholarly encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Der Ort des Terrors classify extermination camps separately. (Sources: )
  2. In addition, the classification of German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya, Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and Soviet gulags in operation into the 1980s as extermination camps is not accurate. Although a list of sources was provided at WP:DRN, these fail verification. (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support I'd prefer the distinction between a concentration camp and an extermination camp to be reduced to a footnote, not explained in the lead. FDW777 (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: How does "outside the rule of law" get added to the definition? This means that under a regime where concentration camps are permitted by law they are not concentration camps. The use of the past tense (differed, was, were held) also makes it sounds like concentration camps are a historical phenomenon that cannot exist in the modern world. Doremo (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion moved below. (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per Buidhe. I think "outside the rule of law" could be better phrased on the basis of the source provided, but it is certainly better than the alternative. Perhaps "outside the scope of ordinary criminal law"? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Bad open: this is already being discussed via an open case at dispute resolution and opening this here is WP:FORUMSHOPping. Should this not be immediately closed, I propose the existing text be updated with the already provided factual citations, which support each portion of it. It is deeply disingenuous for it to have been posted without those updated citations, given OP's knowledge of them from DRN. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(threaded discussion moved to discussion section)

References

1. Stone, Dan (2015). Concentration Camps: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 122–123. ISBN 978-0198790709. Concentration camps throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are by no means all the same, with respect either to the degree of violence that characterizes them or the extent to which their inmates are abandoned by the authorities... The crucial characteristic of a concentration camp is not whether it has barbed wire, fences, or watchtowers; it is, rather, the gathering of civilians, defined by a regime as de facto 'enemies', in order to hold them against their will without charge in a place where the rule of law has been suspended.
2. "Nazi Camps". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 3 October 2020.
3. As Dan Stone writes on page 4, "No one was ‘concentrated’ in the Nazi death camps of Chełmno (which was actually not really a ‘camp’ in any meaningful sense), Sobibór, Bełżec, or Treblinka, where Jews (and a small number of Roma and Sinti) were sent to die." (OUP) The canonical usage of extermination camp refers to Auschwitz, Majdanek, Sobibór, Bełżec, Treblinka, Chełmno, and sometimes other places (especially Jasenovac). Only two (or three) of these were also concentration camps. If some extermination camps are not concentration camps, it is logically impossible that extermination camps are a subset of concentration camps.
4. Under the heading "Mass murder outside the concentration camp system" (emph. added) Dieter Pohl states

   The major sites of mass murder in 1942 were the killing fields in the occupied territories of Eastern Poland and the Soviet Union and the extermination camps of ‘Action Reinhardt’, Belžec, Sobibór, and Treblinka, which had been established by the regional SS and Police Leader in Lublin, Odilo Globocnik. A further extermination camp existed in Kulmhof (Chełmno) in the Warthegau (part of occupied Poland incorporated into the German Reich), where gas vans were used to murder Jews.

   — "The Holocaust and the concentration camps", Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany, Routledge pp. 152–153

5. Piotrowska, Małgorzata; Otlewska, Anna; Rajkowska, Katarzyna; Koziróg, Anna; Hachułka, Mariusz; Nowicka-Krawczyk, Paulina; Wolski, Grzegorz J.; Gutarowska, Beata; Kunicka-Styczyńska, Alina; Żydzik-Białek, Agnieszka (3 October 2014). "Abiotic Determinants of the Historical Buildings Biodeterioration in the Former Auschwitz II – Birkenau Concentration and Extermination Camp". PLOS ONE. 9 (10): e109402. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109402. ISSN 1932-6203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
   Mailänder, Elissa (2014). "A specialist: the daily work of Erich Muhsfeldt, chief of the crematorium at Majdanek concentration and extermination camp, 1942–44". In Dreyfus, Jean-Marc; Gessat-Anstett, Élisabeth (eds.). Destruction and Human Remains: Disposal and Concealment in Genocide and Mass Violence. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 46–68. ISBN 978-1-78170-787-6. JSTOR j.ctt1wn0s3n.7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Discussion

• I would alternatively support the distinction between concentration and extermination camps being discussed in a footnote, per FDW777. (t · c) buidhe 08:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(moved from above)

1. Doremo, "rule of law" is not quite synonymous with what is legal in a particular country. However, if the prisoners have been convicted of something defined as a crime (even something like "criticizing the Communist Party") then it is not a concentration camp/internment. According to Stone, "The crucial characteristic of a concentration camp is not whether it has barbed wire, fences, or watchtowers; it is, rather, the gathering of civilians, defined by a regime as de facto ‘enemies’, in order to hold them against their will without charge in a place where the rule of law has been suspended." (emph added) Historian Anika Walke said, "Today, there is a scholarly consensus to define concentration camps as camps in which large groups of civilians are held without trial or even without having violated any laws." Historian Andrea Pitzer, who wrote a book on the subject, said that "mass detention of civilians without trial" is a concentration camp.
2. Good point, I changed to present tense. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I find the distinction between "rule of law" and "legal" to be rather slippery and unhelpful. For example, if the Herero are deemed to have rebelled against the legal German authorities (on whatever grounds), then this would imply that the Shark Island concentration camp was not a concentration camp. I would think that a concentration camp is where, to put it plainly, people are concentrated ("a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or foreign nationals) are detained or confined and sometimes subjected to physical and mental abuse and indignity", to cite Merriam-Webster) without introducing legal squirminess to the definition. People can be concentrated in a camp and treated unfairly whether or not the rule of law—which varies between places and times—is followed. Doremo (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Or, to offer a hypothetical example, if the German legal authorities had suddenly declared in 1944 that the Dachau camp was operating legally and everyone at the camp was thereby summarily and legally convicted en masse of crimes against the state (and it continued business as usual), would that suddenly make it not a concentration camp? Doremo (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see what you're getting at here. However, the absence of criminal charges, trial, or conviction is the definition of "internment/concentration camp" used by scholars. 1) The prisoners at Shark Island were not convicted of any crime. Many were children, women, or other noncombatants. 2) The authorities can't just declare someone guilty of a crime. It requires a court to enter a guilty verdict. Which even in Nazi Germany required a certain amount of process.

To give a different counterexample, consider prisons in Alabama in 2020. People are concentrated there against their will, and systematically mistreated but they are not "concentration camps". Why not? (t · c) buidhe 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it's a degree of meeting the criteria. Two men individually convicted of a universally acknowledged offense (say, murder) sharing a prison cell are not in a concentration camp (even if treated poorly), but thousands of people indiscriminately rounded up and held without charges are (even if treated decently). And somewhere in between is, say, people summarily or even systematically convicted of violating more arbitrary laws (political, moral, racial, religious, etc.) that are shipped off to a camp. Being legally sent to Dachau after being convicted as a Jehovah's Witness or homosexual, and therefore an enemy of the Reich, doesn't seem to make it not a concentration camp. Or, say, that the Jehovah's Witness and homosexuals at Dachau were not in a concentration camp, whereas the Catholics and heterosexuals at Dachau at the same time were in a concentration camp. For example, at Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany we have "Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced. Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps." The "rule of law" argument suggests that these 5,000 to 15,000 were not actually in concentration camps if they were officially sentenced. Doremo (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit complicated. However, during Nazi Germany prisons continued to operate. These prisons arguably meet the Merriam-Webster definition of "concentration camp" (conditions were poor; many prisoners were convicted of political offenses, homosexuality, being conscientious objectors, etc.) yet nevertheless scholarship distinguishes them from Nazi concentration camps. (t · c) buidhe 14:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

(moved from above)

Additionally, at DRN, the sources OP claims failed verification in fact passed verification, as the moderator found the original text with added sources to have been factual. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that people might continue voting, despite the forum-shopping, I also think it's important to provide the version of this that passed verification with its sourcing:

This article involves internment or concentration camps generally, as distinct from the subset, the extermination camps, commonly referred to as death camps.. The label concentration camp in particular is often additionally used for the latter, such as those created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide, Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya, Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and Soviet gulags in operation into the 1980s.

References

1. Berenbaum, Michael. "Extermination camp". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 6 October 2020. Extermination camp, German Vernichtungslager, Nazi German concentration camp that specialized in the mass annihilation (Vernichtung) of unwanted persons.
2. Peachy, Margaret (2009). "Subject Headings (Mis)Informing Memory". Faculty of Information Quarterly. 1 (3). Retrieved 6 October 2020. According to the authority record for concentration camps, the following terms all fall under that heading: death camps, detention camps, extermination camps, and internment camps.
3. "Concentration Camp System: In Depth". Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 6 October 2020. In time their extensive camp system came to include concentration camps, where persons were incarcerated without observation of the standard norms applying to arrest and custody; labor camps; prisoner-of-war camps; transit camps; and camps which served as killing centers, often called extermination camps or death camps.
4. Madley, Benjamin (2005). "From Africa to Auschwitz: How German South West Africa Incubated Ideas and Methods Adopted and Developed by the Nazis in Eastern Europe". European History Quarterly. 35 (3): 446. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
5. Mann, Michael (2006). The dark side of democracy: explaining ethnic cleansing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 309.
6. "Nazi Camps". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 6 October 2020. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |(empty string)= (help)
7. Applebaum, Anne (2003). Gulag: A History. Doubleday. p. 583.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is a non-binding process. Since you weren't interested in reconsidering your position in the face of contrary evidence, I decided to open a RfC to decide the matter. I will repost here what I found when I checked the sources above: (t · c) buidhe 15:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Madley says that "Though referred to as a Konzentrationslager in Reichstag debates, it functioned as an extermination center". It does not say that " created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide" (in general) were extermination camps. Also, is this just his opinion or is it widely supported?
2. The statement that "Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya" created extermination camps is not verified by the cited source.
3. The USHMM source does not say that "Nazi concentration camps" in general were extermination camps—they weren't. USHMM encyclopedia as stated above separates the two.
4. I cannot verify what it supposedly says in Appelbaum's book—quote would be helpful. However, it is not correct that Gulags were extermination camps either. Mortality rate was much lower, as we now know thanks to Soviet archives. "Mortality in Soviet gulag camps and labor colonies was 24.9% in 1942, 5.95% in 1945, and 0.95% in 1950." One of the primary purposes of Gulag was to support industrialization, not to kill prisoners.

References

1. Wheatcroft, Stephen (1996). "The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45". Europe-Asia Studies. 48 (8): 1319–1353. ISSN 0966-8136. The Gulag was neither as large nor as deadly as it is often presented, it was not a death camp, although in cases of general food shortage (1932-33 and 1942-43) it would suffer significantly more than the population at large. There were not 12 million deaths in the camps as suggested by Maier; and it seems highly unlikely that there were as many as 7 million deaths between 1935 and 1941 as claimed by Conquest citing Mikoyan's son.
2. López-Muñoz, Francisco; Cuerda-Galindo, Esther (2016). "Suicide in Inmates in Nazis and Soviet Concentration Camps: Historical Overview and Critique". Frontiers in Psychiatry. 7.

No one said DRN is binding, nor are you the arbitor of whether or not I am "interested in reconsidering position." What I said is you opening this while discussion is ongoing is a clear violation of WP:FORUMSHOP. Since I now know you've seen this text and are refusing to update the suggestions at the top of this RFC, I will go ahead and do so. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC question should not be changed, since several people have already given their opinion. However, you are welcome to support any version of text in your !vote. (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I expect you to reinstate the original RFC version then, since you already changed your own proposed langauge. Additionally, do not revert talk pages comments, as you did when you reverted my edit. I'm having an extremely hard time keeping up WP:AGF given all of your conduct. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Given buidhe's demand that RFC text not be exited once participation by others has begun, I expect their original language to be put back. Otherwise, let's close this given the forum-shopping and follow the correct process. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• The issue here is that the RfC proposes replacing current article text with a different version. You cannot go back and change the version that was present in the article when the RfC was started. This is important, because in the event of a no consensus result would default to keeping the current article text, not your altered version. (t · c) buidhe 17:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment