|WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|The content of Concentration camp was merged into Internment. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
- 1 on the citing of definitions, i.e., the definition of "concentration camp" in particular
- 2 Internment as a legal term
- 3 Wikiproject Prisons
- 4 Added
- 5 Internment vs concentration camp
- 6 Internment in Britain in the 1980s
- 7 Internment in current Palestina
- 8 Gaza Strip
- 9 ridiculous british bias
- 10 concentration policy
- 11 British and US camps
- 12 GULAG
- 13 Norway
- 14 Sentence very hard to follow
- 15 Improvement in order
- 16 Inclusion of specific items
- 17 Japanese Americans and internment of Italians
on the citing of definitions, i.e., the definition of "concentration camp" in particular
For decency's sake--why not cite the ENTIRE OED definition of "concentration camp"? As opposed to your exceedingly biased--i.e., via selective focus--because truncated quote, of a SEGMENT of the COMPLETE definiton. And, do look up "bias," amd "selective" while you're there...
The Random House Dictionary defines the term as: "a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc.", and, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it thus: "A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions." Finally, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as : "a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined."
Through any of those THREE definitions, Guantanammo does, in fact, fit.
Stonewhite 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Concentration Camp" is usually used when referring to the WW I German camps run by Hitler. Interment Camps have a WAY different meaning. The Japanese were not beaten or tortured, as the word "Concentration Camp" implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JellyBellyFred (talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Internment as a legal term
As there is a good article "List of concentration and internment camps". I think that this article should concentrate on the legal aspects of internment. Ie the legislation used to send people to internment camps, and those caught up in that legislation.
- I 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)
I have redacted "a modern example of which is the Guantanamo Bay detention camp" Guantanamo Bay does not fit the definition of a concentration camp. Reasons: 1. The Oxford dictionary definition requires concentration camp inhabitants to be originally "of a district". Guantanamo Bay does not fit that definition. 2. Mainstream media, and generally accepted usage, does not refer to Guantanamo Bay as a concentration camp. 3. As an expansion on #2 and the Wikipedia description, concentration camp traditionally means that inhabitants are not given proper nourishment or medical care. Neither is the case at Guantanamo Bay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafgreen (talk • contribs) 01:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
More info of post-war use of German camps as transit points for transfered Germans and prisons for Polish resistance against Soviet rule as well as members of ethnic minorities.--Molobo (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Internment vs concentration camp
With both internment camp and concentration camp redirecting here, and with Nazi death camps being near synonymous to concentration camp in popular parlance, I think we need to make the distinction clear, both in the article and in our editorial policies (WP:WTA, etc.).-- 18:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Where you do feel this distinction is unclear?
- The article currently states, "In the 20th century the arbitrary internment of civilians by the state became more common and reached a climax with Nazi concentration camps and the practice of genocide in Nazi extermination camps, and with the Gulag system of forced labor camps of the Soviet Union. As a result of this trend, the term "concentration camp" carries many of the connotations of "extermination camp" and is sometimes used synonymously. A concentration camp, however, is not by definition a death-camp. For example, many of the slave labor camps were used as cheap or free sources of factory labor for the manufacture of war materials and other goods."
- - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Right, the problem is, however, that as long as the "the term "concentration camp" carries many of the connotations of "extermination camp"", should we avoid using the term "concentration cam"p in articles and use "internment camp" instead, unless we are speaking of Nazi/Soviet camps? I've seen several heated debates about specific cases, in which one part wanted to use the term "concentration camp" when both terms were used by sources, obviously pushing certain POV. I think we should prefer the use of internment camp for all non-obvious cases, and add a note to WP:WTA that the term "concentration camp" should be avoided.-- 18:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose we should use whatever term was used by authorities at the time and/or what is most common when discussing that particular camp. Yes, using the term "concentration camp" can be just POV pushing, but I'm not sure that it always is. And to some degree, either choice is somewhat of a POV issue. ie. Trying to make a "concentration camp" more neutral by using words is also POV to some extent. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see no reason for restricting the use of the term "concentration camp" to Nazi/Soviet camps. Where the designation is used on the basis of a thorough analysis of the nature of the camp and its operation that desigantion should be accepted. For example the Bassiouni Commission Report - UN Document S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. I) of 28 December 1994, "FINAL REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSIONS OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 780 (1992)- ANNEX V THE PRIJEDOR REPORT" is quite unequivocal in its use of teh term in relation to camps in the Omarska-Keraterm-Trnoploje-Manjaca complex established in the early days of the Bosnian war.
- Throughout the report you will find references to the concentration camps of Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje.
- In PART ONE - VI CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND DEPORTATIONS
- "22. As the "informative talks" or interrogations basically took place in the Omarska and Keraterm camps, it can be concluded that more than 6,000 adult males were taken to these concentration camps in the short period they existed (from the end of May to the beginning of August 1992). Since only 1,503 were moved on to Manjaça camp according to Mr. Drljaça, a limited number transferred to the Trnopolje camp, and almost none released, it may be assumed that the death toll was extremely high, even by Serbian accounts. The concentration camp premises were sometimes so packed with people that no more inmates could be crammed in. On at least one occasion, this allegedly resulted in an entire bus-load of newly captured people being arbitrarily executed en masse. Some 37 women were detained in Omarska, whilst no women were kept over time in Keraterm."
- And shortly after, at para. 27, under VII THE STRATEGY OF DESTRUCTION, Bassiouni gives an explanation of the purpose of these concentration camps - the reason why the camps were used to "concentrate" key members of the Muslim and Croat communities.
- "27. Despite the absence of a real non-Serbian threat, the main objective of the concentration camps, especially Omarska but also Keraterm, seems to have been to eliminate the non-Serbian leadership. Political leaders, officials from the courts and administration, academics and other intellectuals, religious leaders, key business people and artists - the backbone of the Muslim and Croatian communities - were removed, apparently with the intention that the removal be permanent. Similarly, law-enforcement and military personnel were targeted for destruction. These people also constituted a significant element of the non-Serbian group in that its depletion rendered the group at large defenceless against abuses of any kind. Other important traces of Muslim and Croatian culture and religion - mosques and Catholic churches included - were destroyed."
- The .pdf version can be downloaded from www.law.depaul.edu/centers_Institutes/ihrli/downloads/V_a.pdf
- Boundaries may sometimes be difficult to establish but the downplaying of the identity of concentration camps as a preliminary stage in a progress towards large scale deliberate or neglectful killing by subsuming the separate treatment of "Concentration camp" into an article on internment is unwarranted. There have been strong and arguably motivated efforts elsewhere to confine the use of the term "Concentration camp" to the Nazi camps (for example in the LM controversy over Trnopolje). The applicability or distinct identity of the term should not be restricted unless specific issues have been discussed and resolved.
In principle I agree with Piotrus. But because the term "concentration camp" was used both about british internment camps and nazi death camps, the article should reflect both meanings. The nazis of course used "concentration camp" as a euphamism, just like the bosnian-serb used "interrogation centre" as a euphamism for concentration camp (during the Bosnian war). It is not the aim of WP to affect the way these words are used, but instead to very clear in specifying the various meanings attached to these words. I also agree with Themightyguill that using only the term "concentration camp" can in some cases be POV pushing, particularly if the term is not used by sources or if the reasons for using the term is not specified; using a more neutral term can also be POV pushing if the term is in fact used by the sources. In any case, WP can not make it's own conclusions based on the evidence, this would constitute original research. Best regards, Mondeo (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Internment in Britain in the 1980s
I don't really know much about the editing and stuff so I'm sorry if this is done wrong, but I noticed in this article it talks of internment in Britain in 1939/40 but mentions nothing of the internment the British imposed in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s a much more recent example. Surely there should be a section in the article on that?
- Please see List of concentration and internment camps. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
So why does Internment in the 1940s merit a place in the article but internment thoughout the 60s 70s and 80s in Ireland not?
Internment in current Palestina
In my opinion, the current situation in Palestina should be referred to as internment. The people are denied free movement, trade and so on, but since some may find this controversial, I want others opinions on this here first Rkarlsba (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Quoting obvious political sensational statements in a supposedly factual article seems to me fundamentally wrong. The Gaza strip is not a camp and so the term internment camp is irrelevant, much less concentration camp with its derived connotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, The Gaza Strip section needs revising. It's overtly biased and doesn't fully reflect the opinion of Israel, United States, and several popular Muslims who have spoken against Hamas and the countries that enable it.
Factually speaking, Israel does not control the conditions of the refugee camps. Yes they have imposed sanctions against the territory, but only in response to the increasing rocket attacks and Hamas onsistently violating truces/cease fires/etc (though Israel still wanted to extend the cease-fire).
Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Jordan are the primary contributers to the refugee camps, and continue to enable Hamas through fundamentalist schools and turning a blind eye to the terrorist-breeding inside the camps. Any intervention by Israel is immediately met with violence by the Palestinians. As far as I know, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that offers Palestinian citizenship (10,000 a year since 2001 mostly persecuted Christians) whilst the neighboring Arab states refuse the admittance of ANY Palestinians as they have turned Israel into the ultimate scapegoat. Though technically, Jews have always bared the harshest punishment since the rise of the Ottoman Empire and before.
Obviously my opinion might conflict with the NPOV rules of wikipedia, but the section clearly needs some additions to create a better sense neutrality and not be yet another propaganda/overly biased article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I retract my statements. I've discovered that the extremely disputed arguments inferring that the Gaza Strip refugee camps are "internment/concentration centers" render its inclusion here unnecessary and false. For starters, it's absurd to compare the Palestinian situation to concentration camps. The concentration camps existed to systematically erase the Jews of Europe (and eventually of the world). The refugee camps exist in Palestinian to contain the population and curb the suicide bombings/rocket attacks/assaults against Israel, and also demonize Israel. Israel has never intended to destroy the Palestinians, and in fact has done everything in its power, even risking its own safety, to create a more healthy environment for these people. After the Palestinians elected a terrorist organization as their government, any hope for their own state is basically gone. And as far as I know, no other article on wikipedia excluding Israeli Apartheid Analogy compares the Palestinian refugee camps to concentration camps. But remember, that article is still in start-class and heavily disputed.
ridiculous british bias
Wiki has massive POV problems. Looks like a British nationalist wrote it or something. The Boer concentration camps were "ostensibly" to help them? Hillarious, since those families were denied food if their male head of household was believed to be still fighting. Whole thing needs rewritten to be inclusive of other issues that could fit under the definition of being a camp.
- I think the term ostensible (meaning "professedly" or "pretended") suggests there was likely another motivation, doesn't it? I'm not saying you are wrong, but motivations are hard things to prove. I'm not terribly familiar with the topic.
- More importantly, I don't understand you last sentence. What other issues do you feel need to be included? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If you knew your history you'd understand that the British used them to contain the families of the Boer Rebels who were supplying the enemy (which makes sense). The camps were fine until disease broke out and the British had no means of treating such a mass of people. As a result people bacame undernourished and with outbreaks of cholera and dysentry they had no chance. As for them being denied food specifically as a punishment, I'd like to see you prove that. They were ALL put in there because their "home owners" were fighting the British. Clearly you are yet another colonial with anti-British POV. I guess it's a shame the Boers weren't black in this instance. What a field-day you'd have with that!
If you knew your history you'd know that there were concentration camps for blacks during the Boer War run by the British and they also died in their thousands. What do you think of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I came to the article trying to find out about the origin and history of population concentration policies. My impression is that population concentration policies are generally directed at dispersed members of a community who are felt to be different from dominant members in some way (mostly ethnic) and as such pose a 'problem' that can only be addressed when those people are concentrated in a specific location. 'Addressing the problem' may run the gamut from aid and education/conversion to extermination. From this perspective, concentration camp just refers to a particular type of location suitable for carrying out the concentration policy. But not all concentration locations need to be camps (they may be reserves or regions) and not all concentration policies involve internment. My feeling is that the way the article is now set up, the larger issue of population concentration policy is not covered. I just raise the issue here, as I am not an expert on population concentration policy, and would probably not do well if I tried to write the article. However, I know that concentration was an explicit policy in the 19th century directed at native americans, and this concentration policy antedates most of the references I have seen on the subject in various Wikipedias. Zwart (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
British and US camps
Perhaps, in the interest of neutrality, it would be best to have a small section about British and US concentration camps, instead of one solely focusing on Nazi and Soviet camps. This bias is clear in our countries' history textbooks but it doesn't need to be here on Wikipedia. If no one objects, I will add an appropriate section. Kernow (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
The reference seems to say that it was an extermination camp for prisoners who were too sick to work, and that the food rations were half of what was "normal". 3 prisoners accused of cannibalism were executed by gunfire to the stomach. --Orncider (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Sentence very hard to follow
The sentence “It is also known to confine those persecuted within a country's boundaries” in the lead makes barely any sense to me — perhaps someone who knows what is intended could clarify it? PJTraill (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Improvement in order
If a term like concentration camp is going to be a redirect here, this article needs to make a minimum of effort of actually describing the concept. Otherwise, list of concentration and internment camps will serve readers much better.
Focus on placing more information in the lead and less into hatnotes. And please rethink whether it's relevant to mention "Internet" and "internship" here. There's a limit to how many misspellings we should take into account.
- I agree with you 100% about the hatnotes. You don't think the article does a good job of describing the term concentration camp? I think by explaining that it had the same origins as internment camp (and other terms) but took on a different social meaning following the Holocaust, it does a great job. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- I mostly meant that any reader who types in "concentration camps" (or follows a link, like I did) and pops up here should be treated to the term in bold in the lead. That's why I added them in the lead. Just wanted to add a reminder here in case the problem of hatnote bloat began all over.
- Otherwise, I think the article kinda suffers from what many high-level topics suffer from: lack of serious, content-related attention. It's a massive topic, but has virtually no coverage. I really think it would be an improvement if some of the more general content from Nazi concentration camps and Gulag was added here as well, perhaps minus some detail.
- Peter Isotalo 16:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Inclusion of specific items
Internment in Northern Ireland should be included under "See also" because it relates to something that was actually widely called "internment" (unlike most of the other subjects listed), so is relatively likely to be something people are looking for under this topic. I don't know why the reference to Shark Island should be removed - it seems to be one of the few places outside the Boer War/Nazi contexts that was called a concentration camp. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi W.P. Uzer. I'm sorry if the edit comment on my revert wasn't clear enough. Yes, Internment in Northern Ireland uses the word "internment." So do Ukrainian Canadian internment, Castle Mountain Internment Camp and Eaton Internment Camp, Italian-Canadian internment, Japanese Canadian internment, Valby Internment, Internment camps in France, Santo Tomas Internment Camp, Japanese American internment, German American internment and Italian American internment, Bagram Theater Internment Facility. Then we have all the places where the word "detention" was used in place of the word "internment" but with the exact same meaning. Instead of listing all of them at the bottom of the page, another separate list has been made. We don't need to privilege the importance of any of them, except when they were the first to use the term, or when they changed the meaning of the term. Internment in Northern Ireland and Shark Island Concentration Camp fit neither of these categories. And as far as I can see, Shark Island used a German term for Concentration Camp after it was already in use in English. Apparently, the term is also used elsewhere for non-nazi camps, see Luka camp for instance.
- As for your criticism of the lede. You're right, it isn't well worded. But your added sentence "Camps for the detention of large numbers of people may be called internment camps; in certain periods of history, particularly during the Nazi era, but previously also during British anti-guerrilla action in the Boer War, such camps have been called concentration camps" has no source. That makes it original research. I'll see if I can alter the intro in way that you'll find more appealing. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's original research, it's just a summary of what appears later in the article, which is what you'd expect in the lead. I partly agree about the separate list, but someone looking for internment in northern Ireland isn't going to look at a list of *camps*, they should be referred to a list of internment situations or something (can't think of the right word at the moment). I think the significance of the Shark Island camp is that it was actually officially called a concentration camp, rather than just referred to as such pejoratively. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, Luka camp and other similar camps are also referred to as concentration camps. President Roosevelt referred to Japanese internment camps as "concentration camps", and unlike the Shark Island camp, he called them that in English. The words are effectively synonymous, though connotations have changed since the holocaust. I see your point about a mismatch between the list title and Irish internment, but there are plenty of other examples of non-camp internment in the list too. You might suggest renaming it. List of internments and concentration camps ? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, thanks for improving the article, but there are still many problems with it. You seem happy to leave in obscure claims such as that of the Polish historian, while consistently deleting mention of a particular camp that was officially called a concentration camp (albeit in German, but this isn't an English dictionary, it's about the concept). You must realize (and this could probably be worked into the article) that "concentration camp" is often (and in a contemporary context probably exclusively) used pejoratively, by people talking about their enemies' internment facilities - that's quite a different thing than cases of camps which were actually called that by the people who set them up. Other problems with the article as it is now (perhaps you intend to improve it further, but still): there's almost nothing about "internment" except dictionary definitions, which is not what a Wikipedia article should be based on. Under the title "History of the terms..." there is nothing about the history of the term "internment". In fact I think we should stop trying to deal with these two rather different concepts in one article - it's an embarrassment that people typing "concentration camp" into Wikipedia are brought to this almost AfD-worthy page. I would send them instead to the Nazi concentration camps article, which is probably the primary topic, and includes all the significant information from this article (and more) regarding concentration camps, Nazi or otherwise. Then we would be left with a respectable stub on the subject of internment, which could be gradually built up into a reasonable article on the topic (without the undue emphasis on concentration camps and usage of that term). W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Being Polish doesn't make one obscure. He even has an English-language Wikipedia page, so he must be notable. He makes a stated claim about the first concentration camps, and it's referenced in a published book. There's no claim of notability for Shark Island (it's one of several konzentrationslager used by Germans), so such a claim can't be referenced. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
There are lots of claims that such-and-such was a concentration camp - this Polish one doesn't seem particularly different. I don't know what claim about Shark Island you think can't be referenced - that it was officially called a concentration camp? W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are we talking past each other here? Being a concentration camp isn't notable. As I have mentioned multiple times now, many different camps have been officially called concentration camps, and not just by their opponents. The Germans used the term in multiple places. At the same time as the Shark Island camp, the Germans had several others in German Southwest Africa. President Roosevelt referred to the camps for Japanese American set up during his time in office as "concentration camps." We have the first uses of the term listed, in Spanish, from which the English use of the term was taken. What does it matter if other languages also used the term afterwards? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Further thought: make Concentration camp into a disambiguation page, remove the section about concentration camps from this article (it already appears, in better form, at the Nazi CC article), and move everything from the "List of ..." article to here (we've already observed that it's not really a list of camps, but a whole load of relevant information), so that we will then already have a full-length article on internment. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, I really disagree. There is no functional difference of definition between concentration camp and internment camp or any of the other words used. Some are used as euphemisms to make one's own camps seem nicer, and some are used (as you mention) pejoratively to make one's enemies camps seem worse. Since there is no definition separating one from the other, we'd be doing Original Research if we select Camp X goes under "Concentration Camp" and Camp Y goes under "Internment Camp." I think redirecting people looking up what a concentration camp is to "Nazi Concentration Camp" is totally crazy - that's an extreme definition, not an encyclopedic definition. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
But you must surely recognize that what we have at the moment is unacceptable - this article is terrible, despite your efforts to improve it. What is your suggestion as to what we do with it? What is wrong with moving the material from the "List..." article back to here, and with making "Concentration camp" a disambiguation page? We can certainly make a distinction (as we already do, sort of) between those facilities which were officially called concentration camps, and those which may be called concentration camps by enemies or commentators. We have to do something about this. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I accept that it can be improved, but I don't accept that it's terrible. And no, I don't think there's a point in differentiating between those camps termed "concentration camps" and others. Should we also have separate articles for Detention Camps, Detention Centres, Detention Facilities, Prison Camp, Why would you? We don't have separate article for aubergine and eggplant. They're the same thing. Are you talking about the English words "concentration camp" or words in other languages that get translated to "concentration camp" ? Obviously, Konzentrationslager looks a lot like "concentration camp" but they also use the term to describe things that we call "internment camps". And what about Japanese or Chinese terms? I have no idea - they might translate into either concentration camp or internment camp. So then you're grouping camps based on the similarity of the languages in which their official names were used. It just doesn't make any sense, and I can't see the benefit. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not suggesting separate articles. I'm suggesting one article, called Internment, which includes proper information (not just a few dictionary definitions and a few random and disconnected facts) about the subject of internment - and that information can currently be found (to a first approximation) at the article that is misleadingly named "List of... camps". So merge that page into this one (or merge this into that one and then rename it). A second question is what to do with people typing in "concentration camp" - possibly they would like to read that article; more likely they want information about the Nazi concentration camps or other facilities that were officially or widely known as concentration camps. So the best thing to do for them would be a user-friendly disambiguation page, with the various target articles clearly listed and briefly described. Nothing you say seems to indicate any problems with that idea. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, now I see what you're saying about the disambig page, and finally understand where you're coming from. Sorry for my confusion. Following that logic, we should then also make disambig pages for detention camp and the various other euphamisms, with each one listing Internment at the top, but then a list things officially called detention camps (or whatever). If we decide to go ahead with this, I'm sure you would be okay with that. I'm still quite concerned, however, that it will be challenging to keep the list at Concentration camp (disambiguation) under control. It could be that each of those disambiguation pages will end up nearly as long as the current List article. "Surely people looking up concentration camp want to know about GULAGS..." or Guantanamo Bay, etc. etc. I still don't think it's easy to tell exactly which camps were "officially" called concentration camps, unless they happen to be run by people who spoke English, German or a handful of other European languages that visibly similar words. As for your merge suggestion - Personally, I think it makes sense to have a list separate from a "definition and history of the term" type article. I think they serve rather different purposes. That's just my opinion though. Perhaps we should bring in other voices/opinions in? Do you want to ask for input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities ? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, bring in opinions from anywhere you think appropriate. I don't think, though, that "definition and history of the term" is a basis for an encyclopedia article - it would be a basis only for a dictionary entry (unless we can find significant reliable non-dictionary sources actually discussing the use and history of the term "internment", as opposed to the use and history of internment - which I find unlikely, since it's just a fairly average word). W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but by "definition and history of the term" I mean, "the history of internment" without it just being a list. History being about change or continuity over time. Prison is neither just a dictionary definition nor is it a list of prisons. It's partly definition, but partly about what prisons have been, how they have been used in different ways, and so on. I'd be happy to include mentions of other internments and internment camps in this article if they were notable for some reason. Its use outside war, its use based on politics rather than ethnicity, etc. If you know of good sources describing the broad global history internment, please let me know. Perhaps they would give us ideas on how to craft the article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Japanese Americans and internment of Italians
I fully acknowledge that these are important events, but they aren't particularly important to our modern understanding of the term interment. Unlike GULAGS and Nazi death camps, they are fairly consistent with previous examples of internment. And if you look at the list of internments, there are hundreds of similar ones. The internment of Japanese Americans is notable, but not any more notable than the rest, unless you happen to be Japanese or American (or both). - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- So why don't we allow this article to contain information about these AND about all the others? This article will never develop out of its present sorry state if you just sit here removing anything anyone tries to add to it. Either we transfer the information wholesale from the (misnamed) "list" article, or we allow the article to grow organically as Wikipedia articles generally do. (Actually, since we already seem to have a great deal of information in the other article, the first option - wholesale transfer - would seem to be the best.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not just sitting here removing anything that anyone tries to add to it (and don't appreciate the accusation, thankyouverymuch). People have contributing valuable information that integrates with the article, and in those cases, I (and others) have left it alone. I'd love to see more of that. Most people, however, just add a sentence referencing whatever interment they happen to be interested in that doesn't contribute anything to our understanding of what internment is. Secondly, I think there is value in having an separate encyclopedia-style article talking about interment broadly, rather than just an introduction to a list. Why would the latter be better than the current setup? Park and Bridge and a great number of other topics have articles like this, and I think it works. I'm not sure Interment will ever be a long article, but I don't know that it needs to be. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well it needs at least to be something that reflects the subject. Someone reading the present article will have little idea of what internment means and has meant in practice, since only a few isolated instances (and pretty atypical ones) seem to be allowed to be referred to. As I said in previous threads, the actual lists, i.e. lists of camps, figures, etc., can be separated off, but it seems entirely unhelpful to exclude information about virtually all actual instances of internment from this article, leaving us with almost nothing of substance (and most of what we have probably belongs in a separate article about the concept of concentration camps). W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that someone reading the example would have little idea of what interment means. I think it currently informs people in the clearest way possible -- a way that avoids all the semantic posturing that governments do when interning people. It also generally avoids POV value judgements. That said, I'm not opposed to describing in more detail what the term means. If you and/or anyone else wants to illustrate different types of internment in prose style which happens to include examples, that's fine with me. But simply adding references to examples of internment without stating what makes them notable (among all the possible examples) isn't helpful. I don't, however, think that the government organizing the internment or the people being interned makes an internment notable. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Notable, I suppose, means that a significant number of sources have written about them. There are plenty of such cases, dealt with in the "List" article and elsewhere. It makes no sense to exclude all "typical" examples of internment just because there is no overriding reason to include some as opposed to others - we can see where this policy leads by looking at the article in its present form, where the few examples given mostly represent atypical forms of internment, or things that have rarely or never been referred to as internment at all. Surely you can see how this is totally unhelpful and highly misleading to readers? W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)