Talk:List of concentration and internment camps

Jew misspelled

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

Soviet Camps

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

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

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

Murder/Execution

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

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

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

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

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

Churchill in the Boer War

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

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

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

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

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

Rummel's estimates

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

China

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

United States (WWII)

What about US camps for Americans of Japanese origin during WW2 ? --Taw

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

Canada (WWI)

WRT the claims of Canadian concentration camps during WWI, could somebody provide some evidence please? --Robert Merkel

• I was just thinkgin that, I'm putting the Totally disputed tag. And Ukraine was not part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire but the Czarist Russia. Falphin 7 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"The former Austrian-Hungarian Empire was spread over a large part of Central Europe, comprising the present countries of Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slowakia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Croatia as well as parts of present Poland, Romania, Italy, Ukraine, Moldova and Yugoslavia. Therefore most territorial arms within the empire no longer correspond to present states or provinces, and are discussed in this section. Parts that do correspond with present territories are dealt with in their respective modern countries, such as the present Austrian States, or are dealt with both in this section and in the appropriate country section not included here. (http://www.istrianet.org/istria/heraldry/austria-hungary/)"

--

a very small part belonged to Austri-Hungary pre WWI, Ukrainians were stuck between a world war forced on them and the soviet empire. Those who wanted none moved to the Austrai-Hungary part of the country to have the ability to emigrate to Canada. Because USA was very much against the Eastern European imigration they cut almost all imimigration from E. Europe. Canada was the opposite, oppened more imigration to E. Europe then to W. Europe. Ukraininas were of the majority. The concentration camps were not really concentration camps that Canada had for Japanese and Germans during the second world war, they were ungaurded and well thought of, more like cheap labor then slave labor, they were fed, cleaned etc.

Sergei Candell

I putting a few of my reasons here for the tag.

1. Ukraine was not part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire(at best some of the Western portion was.
2. The article does not distinguish about the U.S. intermnent camps for Germans and Japanese compeltely different.
3. Unsourced
4. It states that the Canadians put them in Ukrainians for cheap labor, definetly needs a source.
5. The article does not distinguish the difference between a Concentration camp, and an Internment camp.

I have other objections but this is a start. Falphin 7 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

I'm moving the offending paragraph here:

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

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

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

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

[1] Here's a source, in case we want to put it back in.

Japan (WWII)

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

Theresienstadt

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

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

--Korpo

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

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

--Richy

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

--Paul

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

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

Guantanamo Bay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"arresting suspected criminals"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rheinwiesenlager

How many people died in the Rheinwiesenlager?

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

Amnesty International's phrasing

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

---

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

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

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

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

Exile 15:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gulag

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

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

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

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

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

Harald

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

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

Cyprus?

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

UK

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

Listing order of the countries...

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

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

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

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

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

Chronological is not doable because for some countries the page describes various periods - which do you choose for the US, the date of the first camps (Indian removal), or the date of the last ones (Guantanamo)? --Joy [shallot] 09:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see two options - either split up entries per chronological periods (meaning some countries would be mentioned more times), or sort countries alphabetically. The former option sounds better to me, because it makes sense to bind all the WWII camps together etc. --Joy [shallot] 09:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As Joy suggests, it makes some sense to refactor the article into time periods: perhaps before 20th century, WW1, WW2, post WW2. The price - that you have to read several places to see what any one country did - seems a small one.

More simply (or as an interim measure) the countries could be ordered chronologically. Pragmatically, I would suggest earliest use of concentration camps - if only because "latest use" is theoretically subject to change and could see countries jumping around the article. And countries change their names (The Congo -> Zaire -> Demoratic Republic of Congo; Russia -> USSR -> Russian Federation, etc), so that's less stable too. - Paul 12:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

German concentration camps

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

I found this a while ago: http://www.deathcamps.org/websites/jupeng.htm

Mackerm 00:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Ropers' Sept 11 edit

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

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

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

Israel/ Sabra and Shatila Massacre

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

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

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

Saipan Internment Camp 1944

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

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

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

"This article should include material from ESMA"

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

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

early French colonization in North Africa

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

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

anybody here who understands German well?

Please have a short look. I didn't know these US-details. ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konzentrationslager )

[quote] USA

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

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

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

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

[quote/]

If this bold-marked information should be correct ... --217.64.171.188 10:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It's a crock. It's calling maximum security prisons concentration camps, which they are not. (They're horrible dreadful things, but they aren't concentration camps.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) Why not? --172.177.188.17 23:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

France

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

[[[2]]]

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

Gurs concentration camp and the other camps for Spanish Civil War refugees should be mentioned.--84.20.17.84 11:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

cuba deleted

The following section deleted. This article about very specific term: "concentration camp" , and there is no reason to have a section about some similarly sounding word, not to say with incorrect explanation.

--Cuba--

The word "concentration" in the context of forcible internment was first used during the Third Cuban War of Independence (1895-1898) by the then Spanish military governor, Valeriano Weyler. Weyler's policy of "reconcentración" () resulted in the mass movement of rural populations to suburban areas of large cities, in an effort to cut off the widespread support the Cuban rebel government then enjoyed. The measure was a product of Spanish desperation at its army's mounting losses in men and territory to the rebels, and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths (largely of women, children and the elderly) to disease, overcrowding, and exposure. The policy left a bitter legacy in the Cuban political consciousness, felt even to this day, and the worldwide horror that such an atrocity inspired (fomented by the yellow journalism of the Hearst newspapers) rallied support in the United States for a war against Spain.

• It was reconcentraion", not concentration
• It was "resettlement" or population transfer, not "internment"
• Such movement of population is not Cuban/Spanish invention
• We are not going to explain who first used the word camp, do we?
• If it was a notable phenomenon, why not write a separate article about it?

mikka (t) 16:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Improvement Drive

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

Argentina

The entire section on Argentina was deleted, without explanation:

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

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

08:30, 1 March 2006 Gbinal

Pol098 23:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spain / Franco

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

Donnog's changes

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

The dramatic and strongly POV change was rather that the anon deleted the section dealing with concentration camps in Poland. I've translated the text from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konzentrationslager#Polen Donnog 12:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed your entry again. You're putting in propaganda as fact. See Bromberg Bloody Sunday. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

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

German article on concentration camps states:

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

What are you objecting to? Donnog 14:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Proposed Merger of Internment; Proposed Split of Concentration Camp

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess not every case of internment involves a concentration camp, so I don't think a merge would be a good idea. -- 790 09:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

But what's with dissidents in, say, China? Or with that Russian Chodorowsky millionaire? I think there are enough examples of internment without concentration camps. And what's with Camp X-Ray? Clearly there are people interned there, but I don't think it would be consensual to call it a concentration camp. -- 790 14:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would camps for dissidents in Communist Russia be placed in "concentration" camps, but dissidents in China placed in "internment" camps? What's the difference? I don't know which Russian millionaire you're talking about. You could argue that camp x-ray is more like a POW camp, even if they aren't treated as POW's. That's a little tricky, but I would say language surrounding the inmates is uhh... cloudy at best. A better example might be child soldiers, who are not treated as POWs, but I don't think concentration camp (or internment camp for that matter) would accurately describe their detainment centres, since concentration is not the intention, but (hopefully) rehabilitation. -- TheMightyQuill 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Wait, by your definition, there's a difference between dealing with enemy aliens and imprisoning people because of ethniticy? The wording you are using is so clearly POV: by "dealing" you are avoiding the word imprisoning, and germans are an ethnic group. Canadian Japanese weren't interned based on their support for Japan, but based on their ethnicity. Full stop. Neither were they necessarily "aliens" since full citizens with Japanese heritage could also be interned. Whether it was justified is POV. Please note that not ethnic Iraqis in Australia/Canada/USA were all interned during the gulf wars. Draw your own conclusions.

If you want to merge everyhting under "internment camp" that's fine for me, but seems a little strange since "concentration camp" is obviously a more well known word. I realise you feel there is a difference, but the fact that you are unable to clearly define the difference suggests to me a POV. -- TheMightyQuill 10:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. defines concentration camp as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to Prison Planet?

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

• Agree. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust template

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

Proposed New Page

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

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

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

Reference System

I became very confused reading this article on which note numbers referred where. There were at least 3 schemes of references, one with all number 1. There were thus about seven "note 1" items. I'm not claiming I have tidied these into "the definitive reference scheme", but I have made them self consistent by using cite.php for all and gathering them automatically at the foot of the article in "Notes" where there is an explanation (when you edit) for the uninitiated on how to use the cite.php scheme. Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks for your help cleaning up this page. --TheMightyQuill 14:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. I have not checked the notes for relevance. I trusted previous editors for that. The tables were a by-product of dealing with the refs They were a mess. They are not perfect now, but they are maintainable and where in HTML are valid html. Fiddle Faddle 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Australia and the Half Caste resettlements

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

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

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

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

to your BTW I now know better :). I had thought this phenomenon was an "Empire" thing. The include vs exclude argument I do not feel strongly about one way or the other. It was curiosity that prompted the question. The movie made me feel that it was zealous ethnic purification (not "cleansing" in the recent sense). "After 6 g--80.127.21.134 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)enerations there is not a trace of black" was a paraphrased (or mis) quote from the script. Fiddle Faddle 17:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Czech republic - Terezin

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

Sweden

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

Camps in Cuba?

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

Does anyone know anything about this?

Gaza Strip

Despite the undoubtly horrible living conditions within the Gaza Strip, it simply cannot be called a camp, and thus it has no place in this article. Furthermore, I consider it either a bait, or at least a severly NPOV comment. I have thus deleted it. --80.127.21.134 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For what reasons can it not be considered a concentration camp?

• The people inside are not free to leave
• It has the highest concentration of people on the planet
• The army outside is shelling and bombing the people inside
• The country that runs it sends in assasination squads
• The country that runs it denies the people inside water, food, electricity and medicines

It is only bait if you believe it is a just way of treating people and you support its existance. Or do you think the country that runs it has some special right to do so? If the details of the entry are not neutral than please correct the wording but the inclusion of the camp its self in NPOV.

Carbonate 00:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that most people who find this item controvertial are probably mostly offended by the implication that the Israeli state would be involved in the same type of discrimination that the Jewish people were subjected to by the Nazis. But consider the stigma that is freely applied to all the German people for the actions of a few. Whether you aggree with it or not, the situation will not begin to change until we start calling things by what they really are and the Gaza Strip is really a concentration camp.

Carbonate 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a camp. Whether the living conditions are good or not is irrelevant, as this article clearly speaks about camps, not provinces or cities. Let's look at the definition of a camp:

camp Pronunciation (kmp) n. 1. A place where tents, huts, or other temporary shelters are set up, as by soldiers, nomads, or travelers.

2. A cabin or shelter or group of such buildings: gathered branches and grasses for a makeshift camp; had a fishing camp in Vermont.

3. The people using such shelters: a howl that awakened the whole camp.

1. A place in the country that offers simple group accommodations and organized recreation or instruction, as for vacationing children: a girls' summer camp; a tennis camp.

2. Sports. A place where athletes engage in intensive training, especially preseason training.

3. The people attending the programs at such a place.

3. Military service; army life.

4. A group of people who think alike or share a cause; side: The council members disagreed, falling into liberal and conservative camps.

The Gaza Strip cannot be defined as a camp by any stretch of the word, that's why the main populated area of the Gaza Strip is called Gaza City which isn't filled with barracks. tents or huts but with high-rises (which cannot be called a temporary shelter.) I am not going to accept your bait into turning this a debate on whether the human rights are good, because such a debate is irrelevant to the point I have been making.

If you truly need to comment on the living conditions in either the Gaza Strip or Gaza City, I'd suggest you go to the relevant article, not to an article about camps

--80.127.21.134 09:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "concentration camps" is more than the sum of its parts. You can not justify the removal of the gaza strip because it does not satisfy the meaning of one word. If you look at the chinese labour camps, they were organised as factorise and not temporary housing.

Carbonate 11:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

China has nothing to do with this, I am removing the Gaza Strip because it's just not a concentration camp.

--80.127.21.134 11:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons listed.

Carbonate 13:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite acknowledged similarities between the situation concerning Gaza on the one hand and concentration/internment/refugee/POW camps on the other, I feel characterizing Gaza as a concentration camp does not contribute either to understanding the term concentration camp OR the situation of Gaza. What I see here is an argument between two parties, neither of whom will identify themselves to any extent, that harms the content of Wikipedia both here and in the Internment Camp article. I am very new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I will begin now to try to bring the attention of an administrator to this matter to decide it and apply any enforcement measures that may be required to restore order to the content.

--Joe 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Users Carbonate and 80.127.21.134, go to WP:ARFAR and there view a Request for Arbitration that I have entered in this matter. The Request invites comments from each of you, which you may wish to make in support of your position and/or your editing privileges on Wikipedia. I hope this process will put an end to the "edit war" you are conducting.

--Joe 16:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Arbitration is not the appropriate place to bring up edit wars like this. Earlier stages of dispute resolution should be tried first, such as WP:RfC or WP:AN/I - aribtration is only to be turned to when all else fails. --woggly 09:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I agree. I was quite taken aback by the RfA, especially coming from 3rd party and after less than a week of discussion... Carbonate 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The link is WP:RFAR.

Carbonate 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section as the first sentence is verifiably inaccurate. The population density of Macau is 17,310/km², much more than the given 3,824/km² for the Gaza Strip. Also, the section did not cite sources (see WP:CITE). --Goobergunch|? 06:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Added sixth qualifier to agree with wiki ranking and adjusted population density down to agree with encartia. Added encartia citation.

Carbonate 09:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

All of this is straight original research. If you want it included you need to cite at least one and prefereably several reliable secondary sources which specifically identify the Gaza Strip as an internment or conentration camp. Just zis Guy you know? 15:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That is wrong, a number of primary and tertiary sources are also valid. Please don't try to make up rules just to dismiss the sources I have already given. Carbonate 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so where are these sources to support that the Gaza strip is a concentration camp? The section clearly lacks NPOV. "Isreal is currently operating a concentration camp" is simply not a fact, admittedly, it is conclusion you have come to based on your reasoning above. I don't know if you've heard, but you can't have original research on Wikipedia. You have to find some scholar who has come to the same conclusion, cite them, and then rephrase it appropriately to "so-and-so concluded that..." You must only list facts, and then cite them. Saying that it is "tightly controlled" by Isreal is also not appropriate tone for an Encylopedia. List what they are doing which leads you to the conclusion that they are tightly controlling the area, and list those facts, not your conclusions. Where are your sources showing that everyone is in agreement that the bombings in the Gaza strip are indiscriminate? Does Isreal agree with this statement? If not, then it's not NPOV. Regardless of all of that, your reasoning is also invalid. As has been pointed out, the concentration is not the highest in the world, nor does the shelling and bombing of a country make it a concentration camp by any stretch of the imagination. I have to ask you, are the 5 higher density areas in the world also concentration camps? Is the entire east coast of the US a concentration camp? How about India? Was Afganistan a concentration camp because the US started shelling it? CaptainManacles 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to unindent my response to CaptainManacles because I want to use bullets.

• Sources have been cited on Talk:Internment
• You do not get to decide what are and are not facts
• How is the statement "Isreal is currently operating a concentration camp" not neutral? It is certianly a normative statement.
• Everyone does not have to be in agreement. Wikipedia does not require consensus eg abortion.
• Israel's agreement is not required and does not determine NPOV. Israel is most certianly not neutral
• I corrected the density to indicate its rank as sixth according to List_of_countries_by_population_density
• The access to areas you listed are not controlled by other states

Please don't try to prove your point by comparing obviously dissimilar situations and please don't try to make up rules about what is and is not NPOV. Neutral does not mean 'what you agree with'.

Carbonate 09:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, and cut the personal attacks. The "dissimilar situations" fell under the criteria you provided for concentration camps, you can feel free to clarify your possition, but you don't need to be rude, especially when your position is so baffling. And where in my reasoning did I make the assumption that neutral is "what I agree with"? To respond to your points.

• Sources need to be listed on List of concentration and internment camps and not some other talk page, and you have not addressed my points about the wording used.
• I certainly do not determine what is and is not fact, but "Isreal is currently operating a concentration camp" is not a fact, regardless of what you or I think. Facts are things like "the sky is blue" or "this glass has 2 oz of water in it". Facts are used as the basis for conclusions, such as "Hitler is evil" or "Isreal is currently operating a concentration camp". The truth of these statements or our opinions have no bearing on their status as fact.
• "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted" The statement "Isreal is currently operating a concentration camp" does not present all views fairly, it doesn't even present all views. It also asserts one views as true, failing the policy on both counts.
• I'm not sure what your reasoning is in terms of the abortion page, but let's look at that policy again. "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted" So, if there are conflicting views, you need to present them fairly, not pretend that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
• Let's look at that policy one more time. "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted" So if an entity, such as the state that you are making a claim about, disagrees with that claim, you need to present their view fairly.
• That you made corrections to your work is irrelevent to any of the points I made.
• So now your requirements for something to be a concentration camp is that it has to be controlled by an outside state? So any concentration camps in Germany were, in fact, not concentration camps by your standards? CaptainManacles 09:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(Commenting due to RFC) - Carbonate, for a novel claim such as this it is vital to have solid reliable sources to back up the claim. If you have sources that call the Gaza Strip a concentration camp, then you need to cite them here, and not at Talk:Internment. In the article, say who holds this oppinion and cite them. Otherwise it is your personal oppinion, and to put it in the article would be original research. Blueboar 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I find the

Don't stuff beans up your nose

Don't rush to head off new ideas for vandalism, as you may give vandals that very idea:

"Prophylactic admonition may trigger novel mischief"-- From Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point"

part of WP:POINT quite ap propo. Carbonate 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been spread over multiple talk pages. I apologize if my citations have also become segmented. Please see talk:internment for links to Popes and UN officials stating "Gaza is a concentration camp" amongst others (well, only one pope and only one UN official but more than one of the others).Carbonate 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. IronDuke 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I'll be unprotecting the page now, but I will continue to watch it. Carbonate, you have received plenty of feedback from several distinct Wikipedia editors about the paragraph you wish to insert on this page. The comments here, on Talk:Internment, on your talk page, and even the arbitrator's comments when rejecting this on WP:RFAR have unanimously not been in support of your view. They have however included some polite and constructive explanations of how the paragraph violates WP:NOR and how it might possibly be rewritten to amend this. Carbonate, you reverted this paragraph 5 times in as many days. While not technically in violation of 3RR, the reverts were clearly opposed to the spirit of the 3RR rule. In unprotecting this article, I am trusting you not to continue blindly reverting the paragraph or reverting it with minor cosmetic changes as you have been doing. I suggest you leave the article alone for a while. If you must edit it, please work with the comments you have been given, and keep in mind that other editors will be reviewing your contributions. If you choose to continue to edit war, I can guarantee you that some administrator will protect it again, and you may find yourself blocked; so please, take this as friendly advice to calculate your steps. --woggly 07:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Shenandoa

Deleted. Aside from the complete lack of sources, the content of the section leaves open the likelihood that the example does not qualify as an internment/concentration camp, in that the place of resettlement was not guarded and the occupants were free to come and go as they pleased at all times. This example is essentially an eviction, likely with eminent-domain elements, where the US Department of Agriculture provided replacement dwellings near each other. Even forcible resettlement to a specified place does not qualify to create an internment/concentration camp. --Joe 14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaza

So no matter how accurate or reasonable, anything that portrays Israel in a bad light is unacceptable to User:IronDuke? How is that a defensable position? Carbonate 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Accurate and reasonable things that portray Israel in a bad light are welcome. What you have inserted into the article is neither. For one thing, it is a dog's breakfast of complaint about Israel -- are "ghettoes" concentration camps? And what has population density to do with it? I understand the population density of Manhattan is pretty high -- concentration camp? Most of what you have written is just POV-pushing complaint about Israel -- nothing to do with camps even it were all true. But in any case, making odious comparisons of the territories to concentration camps doesn’t make them camps. It just means someone’s drawing an idiotic comparison.

Here's a sentence from the article you link to that may help:

“ The term concentration camp lost some of its original meaning after Nazi concentration camps were discovered, and has ever since been understood to refer to a place of mistreatment, starvation, forced labour, and murder. ”

It would take a pretty extreme POV to try and liken the Gaza strip to Auschwitz. Does that mean there aren't people out there who would make that comparison? Sure -- you're one of them. But in addition to being grotesquely antisemitic, it's irrelevant. A few fringy people making this disgusting argument doesn't mean we treat it like it's true. Plenty of notable folks compare Bush to Hitler. Do we put that in the Bush article? No. It's just partisan nonsense that has no place in an encyclopedia. Please don't help spread it. IronDuke 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I will counter only one of your arguments, a Pope does not constitute fringe. Carbonate 02:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would assume your failure to counter the other arguments means that you are unable to. But then, why would you revert? Oh, and I don't think the pope is an expert on concentration camps or Israel/Gaza, AFAIK. IronDuke 03:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I just consider most of them pointless. You haven't applied your rather high standards to any other item listed, why is that? I also note that I started the discussion and that you reverted first without disscussion. This content will be included in this article, I would encourage you to add to it if you feel it does not satisfy your sense of justice but you do not get to remove it just because you happen to find it offensive. Carbonate 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed offensive, although that is not why I removed it. I removed it because it violates WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:NOT. As for selectively applying standards, I don't believe I am. But your implication that it's okay to insert bad edits because others on a page may be bad just doesn't work, even as it confirms that your edits fail to meet that standard. And your "refutation" of my arguments as "pointless" simply confirms that you are unable to refute them. When you can muster a counter-argument, feel free to come back. IronDuke 04:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? This is the first time you have mentioned any of those wiki policies. Do tell how the content violates them. Carbonate 05:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought it as obvious. I'm a little reluctant to write a manifesto, as you've not yet addressed any of my other arguments. I'll just say that cobbling together derogatory material from disparate sources and pretending it's encyclopdic is POV in that it pushes an anti-Israel point of view, OR in that it synthesizes info in a novel way, and is propagandizing soapboxing. IronDuke 05:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And every other item listed portrays a strictly neutral point of view towards the countries listed? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't hold water. Although the balance is meager, its far more than has been presented in China section and it isn't nessisarily my responsability to provide that. The material is derogatory for a very good reason, they are running a concentration camp. Again, if you have a problem with the quality of the material you are free to improve it especially if it more eloquently presents the vast number of people (more than a million Palistinians) that also see the Gaza Strip as a concentration camp. The content as I wrote it makes no conclusions and provides far more references than any other section in this article. Despite your shoddy comparisons, this article does not belong to survivors of the nazi's concentration camps and in fact, one of the sources is decended from those survivors and he calls gaza a concentration camp. You may like to think of reporting facts as soapboxing, but what are you doing by removing it? Carbonate 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You have now replied to exactly none of my arguments. IronDuke 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Carbonate, by continuing to edit war on this article, I feel you have abused my trust. You should work towards reaching a compromise with the editors who oppose the paragraph you've been trying to add, rather than simply push it again and again, accusing them of political motives. Everybody has political motives - you do too. For personal reasons, I can't spend time on wikipedia in the upcoming weeks. You are welcome to seek the assistance of other administrators to unprotect the page, as long as they read the talk page and look at the history of the article, which I am sure any administrator will do before unprotecting, I will not consider it wheel-warring. --woggly 05:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In the blink of an eye we have a long list of Wikipedia policies being violated as well as an "abuse of trust". You are simply buying into the cabal (which IronDuke consistently sucks up to) of admins who have a strong pro-Israel bias. -- 207.118.5.65 07:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting this talk page, please don't forge comments by me anon user at 207.118.5.65. I did not make those comment and even tho IronDuke has responded to them already, I am putting the sig back to reflect the real source. Carbonate 16:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: those forged comments were made by someone stalking me who is not part of this discussion. IronDuke 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I will keep an eye open for them and just change the sig back instead of reverting if it happens again. Carbonate 17:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have actually, I said the Pope was not fring and you never retorted. As I said before, I see many of you arguments as pointless. Your "dirty jew" comment for example, this page is not the domain of "jews" and Israel has no special writ to commit the same crimes that were inflicted on the jewish people (and others I might add, but you rarely hear of their suffering do you?). You have also started throwing around the "anti-sematism" line. Being against Israel does not make you an anti-semite but you seem to want to blur that distinction. Israel does not represent the jewish people just because it is a jewish state. There are many arab israelis and they are persicuted in Israel much the same way that the jews were in germany. Carbonate 17:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I did respond to your Pope comment.

"Oh, and I don't think the pope is an expert on concentration camps or Israel/Gaza, AFAIK."

The Pope is a notable figure, but not an authority on Gaza.

You may not be aware of this, but comparing Israelis to Nazis is a classic sign of antisemitism. I’m not saying you are an antisemite, but many intelligent, sensitive, good people would quickly label you one for making the comparison. The reasoning behind that is that implying the Israelis are like Nazis lessens the import of their suffering in the Holocaust; it is as if to say “You are as bad as the people who persecuted you, therefore you are not entitled to sympathy.” It is brought up in a Middle Eastern context when the idea that the Jewish people are entitled to a safe haven somewhere is being disputed. It’s also a form of Holocaust Denial.

Now, people get compared to Nazis all the time. Everyone from George W. Bush to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But comparing Jews to Nazis is particularly odious. Let me see if I can give you an example. If I said to a Russian person I didn’t like, “Hey, why don’t you go ride a camel off a cliff?” That would just be hostile. But if I said it to a Saudi, for example, it would be anti-Arab as well. You see how context matters?

I know that you feel personally very strongly that Gaza is a concentration camp. But just because you can cobble together other people to hurl that epithet at Israel doesn’t mean it’s encyclopedic. I can find notable sources who’d say black people are lazy and shiftless. But we wouldn’t have a special section on black people under lazy, would we?

IronDuke 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

---

You keep making rediculous comparisons to inclusion of other articles. This is about concentration camps and gaza is a concentration camp. It is not a small minority that feel this way. Today the United Church announced they will be boycotting (at first they said divesting) companies that profit from the occupation of Palastinian lands. This represents "many intelligent, sensitive, good people" as you say. The Pope may not be an expert on concentration camps but he is certianly an expert on human suffering and poverty. If you want an expert, Jean Ziegler most certianly qualifies as he is the special reporter for the right to food for the UN, its his job to know.

You keep saying that I have cobbled this together and while it is hard to find much documentation in the American dominated media, I'd wager there is much more in the Arabic community if I could access it. I think also that Israel's more recent and outragous acts of violence against a neigboring democracy will reduce the level western nations are willing to indulge Israels actions of oppression. And when it comes to oppression, the degree provides no justification. The Nazi's after all didn't start with extermination camps, the worked up to them. No matter how offensive it is (in or out of context) the past does not give Israel writ to repeat history against otheres, or do you think Israel should be appeased until they go as far?

Carbonate 04:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

---

You have repeated this argument ad nauseam and have yet to convince anybody. There is no credible evidence of anyone other than Ziegler considering Gaza to be an internment camp, your arguments are a novel synthessis from multiple sources (i.e. original research). In rejecting this content dispute, ArbCom members also concluded that it is original research. What you'd wager is irrelevant per verifiability. Your edit summary stating that other editors should come to Talk before reverting is a reversal of the burden of proof: the onus is entirely on you to prove your case. Thus far you have failed, and if you insert this claim into this or any other article again without first achieving a consensus for addition, I will block you for disruption. Just zis Guy you know? 11:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, you keep presenting falsities, just because Ziegler is the authority for the UN (and an elected official and university professor) does not mean he is the only one I have presented or can even quote. I have reference many scholars. I also have references to other elected officials that I have not yet included. I have also presented material from a decendant of holocaust surviors... I wonder why you need to colour the argument with lies? Carbonate 15:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Carbonate, please stop turning WP into a soapbox. Your idea is not going to stick here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Israel is guilty of decades of crimes against the Palestinians but that Gaza simply does not fulfill the criteria of "concentration camp." Jonathan Tweet 18:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Poland

I am not a historian, but just have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereza_Kartuzka#Polish_political_prison

"Following the Polish legislative election, 1930, and the OUN terrorist campaign in the early 1930s, which included the assassination of the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs, Bronislaw Pieracki, and the deputy head of BBWR organisation Tadeusz Holowka, the former tsarist barracks and prison were turned into an internment camp for both Polish right wing extremists from the ONR, Ukrainian separatists from the OUN and members of the Communist Party of Poland and the Communist Party of Western Ukraine, and later also for member of oposition parties, journalists critical of the government (including Stanisław Mackiewicz) and even people suspected of common crimes."

"the total number of people who were imprisoned there was about 16 thousand. Depending on which source is quoted, between 3 and 20 people died during its operation."

and compare it to what is written in the concentration camps list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#Poland :

"After 1926 several other concentration camps were erected, not only for Germans, but also for Ukrainians and other minorities in Poland. It included camps Bereza-Kartuska and Brest-Litowsk. Official casualties for the camps are not known, however it has been estimated that many Ukrainians died."

Does it really qualify as a concentration camp? I feel that comparing it to Soviet or German death factories is deeply unfair. It was just a prison, and even if several people were mistreated there- well, this has been always happening in prisons, hasn't it? Calling it "a concentration camp" is misleading and not objective.

Bereza_Kartuzka was not only one camp.Szczypiorno, Lola Potok, Czeslaw Geborski, Salomon Morel and Jaworzno--Jaro.p 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You forget that Poland the small country of less Germany and to it had small concentration camp. The main thing that there placed people without court only on political grounds it was Ukrainian patriots, Belarus иntellectuals, Jews, communists. And the most awful that to people tortures applied, mockeries and famine.--Nikkolai 09:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Romania

Bogdanovka was a Romanian concentration camp.--Jaro.p 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary

"Some 20 thousand pro-Russian Ukrainians were incarcerated in concentration camp Talerhof (Austrian province of Styria) from September 4, 1914 until May 10, 1917. A full third of the prisoners held died either by being shot, gassed, or from shock after experimental surgeries by doctors who were figuring out the pain threshold of humans."

Where on earth does this information come from? Most improbable....but no citation...

--Train guard 10:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

Israelis want Palestinian ethnic cleansing. Carbonate 03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong spelling of Slovak camps

could you please chance the names of Slovak towns as follows:

• Novaky -> Nováky
• Sered -> Sereď

I would do it myself, but the page is locked. Thanks, --Maros 09:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam

Please add to article: Following the fall of Saigon, hundreds of thousands of people connected to the government of South Vietnam were rounded up and sent to re-education camps (trại cải tạo). Ostensibly, internees were to be inculcated with Marxism for several months, but they were in reality forced labor camps located in remote areas. The last internees were released in the late 1990s. Tens of thousands of people died in these camps. DHN 02:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WWII German Internment Camps

The section "Germany" talks ONLY about "concentration camps" for which there is a separate Main article.

Ther is no mention of "Internment Camps" Ilag for Allied civilians, which were run, at least at the beginning by the German Army, and later by the police organization Schutzpolizei (NOT the SS). I would add this myself, but the page is locked. I am writing separate articles for the most important Ilags.

Syrenab 18:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection, Gitmo

A couple points: 1) Isn't it time this article got unprotected? What are we waiting for, exactly? 2) This section is just silly. Violates NPOV, OR, RS, pretty much everything. Thoughts? IronDuke 02:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the sections on Israel/Palestine and Guatnamo Bay which are generating such heated verbal infighting should remain "protected"

The rest should be unprotected so that those of us who want to clean up some of the sections can proceed; for example the listing of "Internment Camps" in Germany as opposed to "Extermination camps" and "punishment camps" (that is the word the Nazi gobernment used themselves (Straflager)

Syrenab 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)