Talk:Internment/Archive 1

message: I remove the part ", since the President charges you and hears your appeal" of the sentence " Those who have been charged face Military Commissions (rather than the court martials or civilian federal courts to which they are entitled) condemned by many as unfair, since the President charges you and hears your appeal" since I do not understand it. Does it mean that military commissions are under the direct supervisions of the president and not the Justice department? Or does it refer to the facts that the accusee only has limited means of defending himself? Or something else?
UnHoly 01:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004

message: This is the definition from the OED, printed in 1989:
:7. attrib.: concentration camp, a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45
Note that Konzentrationslager (abbreviated KZ) is a literal translation from the English term. 
Mackerm 15:26, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
deathcamps.org/websites/jupeng.htm seems up-to-date (List of German KZ camps for future reference). Mackerm 15:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This definition was removed form text by kwertii, but the info about Lord Kitchener is nowhere else. Must be restored. Mikkalai 15:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concentration camp definition in Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. 

message: Who wrote that alien thing in this definition?:
A concentration camp is a large detention center created for political opponents, aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, often during a war.
:I believe it's meant to reflect those that are not citizens of a given area, not extraterrestrials. Pacifiedcitizen 21:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aliens? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed New Page =

message: I'm not very happy with this merge. Maybe my concerns stem from a different use of the term "Konzentrationslager" in German language, where it is in general used more exclusively for extermination and death camps. But as I pointed out on talk:concentration camp, there are many forms of internment which have nothing to do with concentration camps, e.g. "Camp X-Ray", e.g. temporary internment of, say, anti-nuclear protesters, etc. I really think these articles should be separated. -- 790 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this merge was incorrect. Whilst both bad, I would not put Internment in Northern Ireland with concentration camps.  Chwyatt 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to merge 

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

message: I've edited the sentence reporting this to reflect that labor at Auschwitz and other such places was devoted to the increasingly urgent German war effort rather than to the garnering of profit by private owners of German corporations. I do not deny that German "corporations" set up and operated portions of the labor operations for the production of "their" products, which were then "sold" to the German government in virtually all cases, but to style such operations as "corporate" is to perpetuate the fiction that German corporations were privately owned and operated for the benefit of their owners in the manner that corporations ostensibly are in the United States in 2006.
Corporations during the Nazi period in Germany were taken over by the state in every respect but formal (see Reimann, Guenter, The Vampire Economy, Vanguard Press, New York, 1944). Owners neither controlled their corporation's operations nor received any material profits from such operations, particularly after the beginning of hostilities on September 1, 1939 (a date that predates the operation of any of the labor camps). The production of slave camps may have benefitted the German war effort, and even the consumer economy of Germany, such as it was. It may even have appeared in some fashion on the financial statements of some German corporations. But it did not reflect, nor contribute to, the profit-motivated operations of any group of private owners in any sense. --Joe 16:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German "Corporate" users of labor camps 

message: The present article — which appears to have resulted from at least a partial merger — seems to conflate the form of concentration camp that involved execution and the kind that did not. While I don't disagree with their being in the same article — I do understand the euphemism and etymology issues — at present it's hard to disentangle the items referencing the internment camps that focused on segregating "enemy aliens" from the general population but did not seek their death. The mention of Japanese and Japanese-American camps in the United States, for example, occurs in the middle of a section about camps that came to be associated with execution or otherwise deliberately causing death. This has misleading results. 
The present article is confusing for those who arrive here from links that referenced "internment" as a concept but were not talking about death camps at all. I think that this could be handled by  establishing a separate section for discussion of other particular kinds of camp (the Australian example already given on this talk page would also go in the section). We could even have sub-headings and sections for the largest cases, building from the existing "list of concentration and internment camps," and summarizing, but not repeating, the relevant articles. I don't think that doing this is necessarily supporting euphemistic language, nor saying "it's OK to imprison a whole ethnic group as long as you don't actively kill them," but rather delineating historical groupings. Lawikitejana 07:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have editted the article by removing the paragraph about "concentration camps" from the Section "camps" to the section "concentration camps"  I have added some examples of typical "internment camps" hoping this will clarify the issue. Syrenab 19:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think that "concentration camps" belong asa subsection, why do you object (and removed) examples of camps which are "internment camps" in the strict meaning of the term, without the derogatory character of concentration camps as they are widely understood today. Even in Nazi Germany not all internment camps were straflager, which is what the KZ were.
BTW, if you think I am trying to whitewash Nazi Germany, I am not - because I am an ex-POW myself. I just want to get the facts straight. Isn't that the purpose of an encyclopedia?
Syrenab 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I go aalong with that.  But then, as pointed out by the unsigned contibutor in the next section, the details in paragraphs about the Boer War concentration camps are also out of place and should be reoved to the "List...".
I would also like to clean up the "Germany" section in that list, but it is blocked. Are you an Administrator? If so maybe you can use your influence. Syrenab 00:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need separate section on different camp types 

message: The original text of Tukhachevsky and Ovseyenko orders, (where the term Concentration camps is explicitly mentioned) is being translated and will be soon wikipied. For russian-readers, some are available on the web, 
* Tukhachvsky role in the Tambov revolt, including the text of commands given to the red army concerning the use of war gases, taking and executing hostages, deporting of peasant families to Concentration camps.
AbuAmir 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't say it's the first example of the term "Concentration Camp" being used when it occurred in Russia, and the orders were written in Russian. This certainly should be included in List of concentration and internment camps but I'm not so sure it belongs here. - TheMightyQuill 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right, perhaps, at least technically. However, I think the Bolshevik conc. camps were the first time this term signified something pre-Nazi. I should emphasize that nowhere and at notime did Bolsheviks use Camps to murder people, it was intended Exclusively to exploit the slave work power (usually until they died out, due to the dreadful conditions. The mass extermination of humans was not a primary aim of that regime, at least not after Lenin's death).
AbuAmir 06:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: well, I agree to wait until it is settled. 
I also accept your point and agree to remove the claim of the first usage of the term was during the boer campaign.
Now to the matter itself: The Nazi term Konzentrationslager is German after all, and the English translation to Concentration camp seems authentic. Let  the Russian концентрационные лагеря be acceptable as well. Otherwise I feel here some very common bias, to deny that Bolsheviks could  evil.  
If you put aside the Nazi extermination camps, you may discover that the Nazis copied from bolsheviks not only the term, but also the very concept.
Finally, what settlement do you suggest?
AbuAmir 11:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I spent the last year living in Eastern Europe - I'm quite aware of the damage inflicted by the Soviet Union. In fact, the article already states "In the 20th century the arbitrary internment of civilians by the state became more common and reached a climax with Nazi concentration camps and the practice of genocide in Nazi extermination camps, and with the Gulag system of forced labor camps of the Soviet Union." The Konzentrationslager were undoubtedly translated at the time as Concentration Camps, but I'm not sure you can prove the Tambov Rebellion camps were. And besides, the Tambov rebellion still doesn't pre-date the Boer War. My solution was given in my first post: Add these camps to List of concentration and internment camps along with every other example of concentration camps. There's nothing particularly special about them, that they should be in this article. - TheMightyQuill 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: well, I too spent several years there, as a Diplomat, and I know these things very closely. Some places I saw with my very eyes, and I spoke with survivors. Now please excuse, I understand that this article is about the -term- and -conception- of Conc.camp, without going into details. I shall rewrite my contribution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AbuAmir (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concentration camps in [[Tambov_rebelion]] 

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

message: Either provide source info or this article may be deleted. 65.173.105.125 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you mark those places that need references with Kgrr 06:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source data

message: Over 500 articles make reference to this article either directly or through redirects.
All these pages re-direct to Internment:
*Concentration Camps (redirect page)
*Concentration camps (redirect page)
*Concentration camps. (redirect page)
*Concentration Camp (redirect page)
*Concentration camp (redirect page)
*Internment Camp (redirect page)
*Internment camp (redirect page)
*Interment Camp (redirect page)
*Internment camps (redirect page)
*Internment Camps (redirect page)
*Interned (redirect page)
*Reconcentration Camp (redirect page)
*Relocation camp (redirect page)
*Relocation center (redirect page)
*Detention camp (redirect page)
*Detention centre (redirect page)
*Detention centres (redirect page)
but Detention_center re-directs to Prison
According to the current definition, Guantanamo Bay detention camp qualifies as an detainment camp / concentration camp / internment / relocation camp.  It holds  political opponents, enemy aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, usually during a war. The inmates are selected according to some specific criteria, rather than individuals who are incarcerated after due process of law fairly applied by a judiciary.  I.e. are imprisoned without habeas corpus rights, no right to see an attorney, no charges, no court trial, no jury... Thus Camp Delta, Camp Echo, Camp Iguana (for Children) and Camp X-ray are all concentration camps/internment camps/relocation centers/detention centers.  Same difference.  
Four words with one and the same exact meaning??  Same article to cover them all? 
Perhaps they all are used to reframe the same thing - an illegal prison for people that have not been accused of anything. I would think that there would be several opposing viewpoints here.  Im also astonished how this article dresses-down suspected torture camps, detention camps, and concentration camps to be mere internment centers.
"All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.)" -- President George W. Bush 2003 State of the Union Address
Kgrr 07:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of these redirects, but I think 'detention centre'->'Internment' is one too far. The most common use of the phrase 'detention centre', at least in the UK, is a structure or location for temporarily holding refugees and asylum seekers, particularly those whose claims for asylum have been rejected. In other words, more akin to a Refugee camp. Maybe I'm trying to draw a distinction that doesn't really exist, but is the detention centre at Sangatte fundamentally the same as a concentration camp? I doubt it. I will be listing this one on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion to see what other people think. Terraxos 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added: after a little more investigation, I've changed my mind - perhaps this is an appropriate redirect after all. 'Detention centre' turns out to have multiple meanings (including simply as a synonym for Prison), but it can and does also refer to the type of camps this article is about. The detention centres I referred to above, for instance, would come under the 'illegal aliens' category. Terraxos 02:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Detention Centre should have a disambiguation page, with links to Prison, Internment, Refugee camp and Youth detention center? - TheMightyQuill 05:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Detainment Camp=Internment Camp=Relocation Camp=Concentration Camp? 

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

message: This article seems to get vandalised almost every day by anon users, perhaps it needs semi-protection? LDHan 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It is possible to get permanent semi-protection for an article? How do we go about it? - TheMightyQuill 19:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask at WP:RFPP, though to be honest this is not one of the worst articles on my watchlist in terms of vandalism.  Typically admins will only semi-protect against vandalism if you're in to the tens of edits per day.  David Underdown 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: Internment? Geez, what a bullocks. This article is about internment camps! Do you think people want to read about "camps set up by neutral nations (Switzerland and Sweden) for holding members of the armed forces of the warring nations, who had crossed their borders" when they click the link? The article on concentration camps should be on, guess what, the etymology, history, and examples of CONCENTRATION CAMPS (starting with the German Africa and Mengele Senior until North Korea nowadays). --HanzoHattori 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this article IS etymology, history, and examples of your understanding of concentration camps. I believe there is just one sentence about camps set up by neutral nations. I don't see why you are so upset by that. - TheMightyQuill 05:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of concentration camps was discussed in GULAG by Anne Applebaum - the first real concentration camps in the bad (and now the only used) meaning of this word were the German camps in Africa. Refugee camps for displaced persons outside their countries are UNRELATED. --HanzoHattori 08:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Redirected from Concentration camp"? 

message: The idea that concentration camps were invented by the British in South Africa during theBoer War (2nd Anglo-Boer War 1899-1902) was a creation of Goebels. If you repeat a lie often enough it will be believed.
If you read contemporary sources e.g. newspapers. you will find the term used was Campo de Concentrado, copied from the Spanish in Cuba. (I also read it in the diary of a New Zealand soldier at the time) The Spanish in Cuba appear to have been the first to have made use of barbed war to confine large numbers of people.
The problem is that since the Nazi era concentration camps have come to mean extermination camps.
There was a huge death toll in South Africa which is now part of the Afrikanner anti-British mythology, but this was largely due to disease and neglect. The Boers even claim that the British put broken glass in the mealie etc, but a large part of the problem was the lack of toilet facilities. The Boers had some habits which may have been aceptable on the open Veldt grassland, but which meant that when a large population was kept in close confinement disease spred rapidly.
(I have opened an account but Wikipedia wont accept my password.)
:Sources? - TheMightyQuill 13:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concentration Camps 

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

message: Deleted vandalism from: 75.108.2.193 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: VANDALISM

message: A guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, esp., any of the camps established by the Nazis prior to and during World war II for the confinement and persecution of prisoners.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.79.193 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A guarded compound

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Internment as a legal term

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Prisons 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added 

message: 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)
thread_title: Internment in Britain in the 1980s

message: 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)
thread_title:  Internment in current Palestina 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gaza Strip  

message: 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)
thread_title:  concentration policy 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  GULAG 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Norway 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ridiculous british bias

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sentence very hard to follow 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Japanese Americans and internment of Italians 

message: For the purposes of encyclopedia the def from Collins is useless. "Internment is being iterned". In a dictionary, you have a further link to the word. In wikipedia we don't link to verbs and adjectives. Therefore for the sake of completeness, "to intern" must also be defined. Otherwise it is just a tautology, see 'sepulka' :-)  Staszek Lem (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by Themightyquill. Thx, Staszek Lem (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collins definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Internments by Japanese during WW2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 . You can see his comments above. - Themightyquill (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet camps 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: without trial v before trial

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulag, again 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article heavily biased towards debate over the term - creating a section on historical examples 

message: There is clearly a concerted propaganda effort going on here to define only the Nazi camps as concentration camps. 
Concentration camp is not a pejorative term for an internment camp. It is a type of internment camp where people, often undesirables, are concentrated for a longer period of time, a type of permanent or quasi-permanent institution. An internment camp is a more temporary solution for the need to house people. I'd say the Cuban internment camps in the 60s in the US were just that while the camps to house Japanese in the US were concentration camps. Whether or not the current immigration camps are either is up to someone else to decide but this is bloody nonsense. It's also bloody fucking nonsense that when I google "concentration camp" in other languages that I know I get far more varied results than when I google it in English which always leads to the nazi terminology. 
Here's Swedish national radio historian arguing that it is damaging to only define concentration camps through the lense of nazi crimes:
https://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/785605?programid=503
Spanish link talking about the 300 concentration camps in Spain:
https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/Franco-campos-concentracion-Espana-calculado_0_876663097.html
Nurse in Australia that worked in detention centers defines these as concentration camps due to conditions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0bVvYk-jJk
If we are going to go after definitions then the dictionary definitions are clearly available: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/concentration-camp
"a place where large numbers of people are kept as prisoners in extremely bad conditions, especially for political reasons: "
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Anne Applebaum defines concentration camps as places where people are interned not for what they did but for who they are. Whether or not immigrants are "doing" something when immigrating or not is up to someone else to define but clearly families are being destroyed and seperated when US born children are taken away from their families or forced in together with their parents into these camps.  
Americans are ruining everything with their identity politics, but can we at least please not ruin wikipedia and can someone fix this??? 81.231.231.39 (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  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

message: 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)
thread_title: Death camps