From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of prisons and penology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

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

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 (talkcontribs) 18:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is mentioned in the article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
But, to JellyBellyFred:

The Japanese were not beaten or tortured[citation needed]

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

Internment as a legal term[edit]

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

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

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

Wikiproject Prisons[edit]

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

I have redacted "a modern example of which is the Guantanamo Bay detention camp" Guantanamo Bay does not fit the definition of a concentration camp. Reasons: 1. The Oxford dictionary definition requires concentration camp inhabitants to be originally "of a district". Guantanamo Bay does not fit that definition. 2. Mainstream media, and generally accepted usage, does not refer to Guantanamo Bay as a concentration camp. 3. As an expansion on #2 and the 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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

Where you do feel this distinction is unclear?
The article currently states, "In the 20th century the arbitrary internment of civilians by the state became more common and reached a climax with Nazi concentration camps and the practice of genocide in Nazi extermination camps, and with the Gulag system of forced labor camps of the Soviet Union[7]. As a result of this trend, the term "concentration camp" carries many of the connotations of "extermination camp" and is sometimes used synonymously. A concentration camp, however, is not by definition a death-camp. For example, many of the slave labor camps were used as cheap or free sources of factory labor for the manufacture of war materials and other goods."
- TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Right, the problem is, however, that as long as the "the term "concentration camp" carries many of the connotations of "extermination camp"", should we avoid using the term "concentration cam"p in articles and use "internment camp" instead, unless we are speaking of Nazi/Soviet camps? I've seen several heated debates about specific cases, in which one part wanted to use the term "concentration camp" when both terms were used by sources, obviously pushing certain POV. I think we should prefer the use of internment camp for all non-obvious cases, and add a note to WP:WTA that the term "concentration camp" should be avoided.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we should use whatever term was used by authorities at the time and/or what is most common when discussing that particular camp. Yes, using the term "concentration camp" can be just POV pushing, but I'm not sure that it always is. And to some degree, either choice is somewhat of a POV issue. ie. Trying to make a "concentration camp" more neutral by using words is also POV to some extent. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason for restricting the use of the term "concentration camp" to Nazi/Soviet camps. Where the designation is used on the basis of a thorough analysis of the nature of the camp and its operation that desigantion should be accepted. For example the Bassiouni Commission Report - UN Document S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. I) of 28 December 1994, "FINAL REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSIONS OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 780 (1992)- ANNEX V THE PRIJEDOR REPORT" is quite unequivocal in its use of teh term in relation to camps in the Omarska-Keraterm-Trnoploje-Manjaca complex established in the early days of the Bosnian war.
Throughout the report you will find references to the concentration camps of Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje.
"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
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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Strip[edit]

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.

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

ridiculous british bias[edit]

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 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

concentration policy[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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

This link [1] is about the Mallnitz (Concentration camp) in Norway, where cannibalism allegedly took place. --Orncider (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Sentence very hard to follow[edit]

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[edit]

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

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

Peter Isotalo 09:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% about the hatnotes. You don't think the article does a good job of describing the term concentration camp? I think by explaining that it had the same origins as internment camp (and other terms) but took on a different social meaning following the Holocaust, it does a great job. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I mostly meant that any reader who types in "concentration camps" (or follows a link, like I did) and pops up here should be treated to the term in bold in the lead. That's why I added them in the lead. Just wanted to add a reminder here in case the problem of hatnote bloat began all over.
Otherwise, I think the article kinda suffers from what many high-level topics suffer from: lack of serious, content-related attention. It's a massive topic, but has virtually no coverage. I really think it would be an improvement if some of the more general content from Nazi concentration camps and Gulag was added here as well, perhaps minus some detail.
Peter Isotalo 16:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of specific items[edit]

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.[2] 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)
OK, I don't know of any sources, though such undoubtedly exist, and that seems a good setup to aim at. Some of the information in the "List..." article should end up in this one, while the genuinely listy information could be kept separate. W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Americans and internment of Italians[edit]

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)

Concentration camps after Nazi camps[edit]

The world changed during WWII. "especially any of the camps established by the Nazis" Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

There exists inherent difference between internment and concentration and e.g. 20% pro year mortality in a Nazi concentration camp or in a Soviet correctional camp. Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what is the precise mortality rate that defines a concentration camp vs an internment camp? And you figure, if anyone is planning to achieve that rate of mortality in the future, they will be sure to call their facilities "concentration camps" rather than "internment camps" ? I'm not arguing that there is no difference between different camps, but I do disagree that the terms themselves have any inherent difference in meaning. Death camp, on the other hand, is inherently different. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Please provide references which describe the difference between the terms. I agree that some words catastrophically changed their meaning ("swastika"), but you have to provide solid sources which say that the change of the meaning of the word "conc camp" is a commonly accepted opinion. Please notice that it is an English-language encyclopedia, and we describe primarily en: usage. At the same time if the word has become a kind of "false friend", we can mention the peculiarity of its usage in other langauges (again, if you have sources which claim that). Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There existed a whole spectrum of camps and the main difference was the mortality rate, not the name, responsible state or political system. You both admit that the name concentration camp is a weasel word. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
English Wikipedia contains also the article Extermination through labor which says Extermination through labor is a term sometimes used to describe the operation of concentration camp, death camp and forced labor systems.Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Please read , also available in German and Italian.Xx236 (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Many words changed their meaning: socialism, final solution, holocaust, party. Please show me your sources that 20th century genocides didn't change the world. Because the USA and UK weren't occupied so they can believe the world is still like it was around 1900. Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way, please don't mix apples and oranges. Indeed, in early days pre-GULAG camps were described as "concentration camps" even by Soviets, because their primary goal was to isolate the "social parasites". But at their height you can hardly call GULAG camps "concentration": they were commonly described by scholars as penal labor camps. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that if we are to continue to mix "internment" and "concentration" in the same article, then we need sources explicitly saying that they mean the same thing, or at least specifying the relationship between them. One of the several major problems with this page is that it seems to be trying to deal with both of these two, apparently quite distinct, topics at one time. If this can't be justified by sources, then Poeticbent's suggestion of re-targeting the "concentration camp" search term seems a good and long overdue one (though exactly where to target it remains a matter for discussion). Like I said somewhere up this page, it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia that "concentration camp" currently redirects to this rather crappy article; it's also something of an embarrassment that we don't have a proper article about internment, because nearly all information about any actual cases of internment is forcibly shunted off into a separate and misnamed article ("List of ... camps"). W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, since you asked (I think I posted this already): Euphemisms, Concentration Camps And The Japanese Internment Among the choice quotes: "a concentration camp, such as those operated by the British during the Boer War, does not in and of itself suggest atrocity"; "The [Oxford English Dictionary] defines a concentration camp as, 'a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the Boer War (1899–1902); one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939–45.'"; "Roger Daniels, a historian and author, wrote an analysis for the University of Washington Press called 'Words Do Matter: A Note on Inappropriate Terminology and the Incarceration of the Japanese Americans.' He concludes that, although it's unlikely society will completely cease to use the phrase 'Japanese internment,' scholars should abandon the term and use 'concentration camp.' He considers internment a euphemism that minimizes a tragic time in American history." "...the Japanese American Citizens League, the oldest Asian-American civil rights group... sides with Daniels. It calls the camps concentration camps." The same article also presents a quote by historian Alice Yang Murray who argues, like you do, that although things were different in the past, today the "concentration camp" essentially means "extermination camp" in some people's minds, but there is certainly a debate worthy of representing here on wikipedia.That's precisely what I've been trying to do with this article, to show the history of the terms and how they have changed in some people's minds. If you want to add content from that article to the wikipedia article, that's fine with me, but I'm against splitting it. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this certainly ought to be included. Though I'm still not sure that the information/debate on the term "concentration camp" belongs in an article that ought to be about internment in all its aspects, particularly if it's going to end up dominating the latter article as it does at present (and will do even more when we start adding information like you've just provided). W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • W. P. Uzer is correct. This discussion although insightful on its own, did not help resolve anything with regard to a WP:redirect from the "concentration camp" to a totally unexpected, underdeveloped, and confusing entry. I just performed a Google search. The phrase "concentration camp" yielded 6,460,000 results for me. So, I removed the phrase "internment" from my search, i.e. "concentration camp" -internment and still, there were 6,340,000 results for the search. The word "internment" is not a prerequisite to concentration camps. Poeticbent talk 19:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
How internment is not a prerequisite? You are saying that inmates of concentration camps were not interned against their will? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read what I said, the word "internment" is not a prerequisite to a phrase "concentration camp" meaning, the phrase "concentration camp" itself should not be redirecting to "internment" per Wikipedia:Common name policy guideline. Poeticbent talk 19:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In this case your statement is meaningless: any word is not a prerequisite to any other phrase: anything can be explained in some other words. On the other hand the concept of internment is a prerequisite to the concept of "concentration camp", and this is relevant to our discussion, because we are encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and for us the article is about atopic, not about a word which names the topic (with some exceptions, when the word is an encyclopedic topic itself). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way, your Google logic is faulty as well. "concentration camp" gives 1 zillion hits and "concentration camp" -Nazi gives 0.98 zillion hits (check actual number yourself). Therefore "Nazi" is not a prerequisite for "concentration camp, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The words as such are extremely important. I'm sorry my statement is meaningless to you in the context of this discussion. However, it was just words that prompted UNESCO to change the official name of Auschwitz from "Auschwitz Concentration Camp" to "former Nazi German concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau" in order to make clear what the foreshortening words actually stand for. Wikipedia:No personal attacks please. Poeticbent talk 22:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I did not say the words are not important. I said your phrasing is meaningless and explained why. And I explained how I think the concept of "prerequisite" may be relevant to encyclopedic definitions, as distinguished from dictionary definitions. As for UNESCO, my point exactly. "Concentration camp" and "Nazi concentration camp" are two different subjects, and UNESCO decided to use the precise terminology. Also, I fail to see how a logical discussion you see a personal attack; please be specific in your accusations. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Google lists almost only texts about Nazi concentration camps. Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Recentism. But still: "Inside an American concentration camp" and much more. Prevalence of usage does not trump the accepted dictionary definition. By the same logic we would have to redirect Communist state to Soviet Union yesterday and to China today. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

That would constitute WP:FORK and an invitation to WP:SYNTH to prove a point at the expense of another point, namely, they are one and the same. You say they are supposed to differ by the level of atrocities, if I understand correctly. But first, we already have emotional term "death camp". And second, the extreme atrocities of Nazi camps do not devaluate atrocities elsewhere to the level of "mere inconveniences". (Someone already mentioned that "internment camp" was simply an euphemism for an unpleasant concept, akin to "pacification" and others. And, by the way, I have an impression that the term "pacification" today means not how it sounds. Does someone want to take on "Pacification (brutal suppression)" article?) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
To be exact we have the Extermination camp article, and the Death camp is a redirect.
This Wikipedia doesn't have an article about concentration camps, so such article has to be written and any discussions about it should go to Talk:Concentration camp.
80 years since the creation of Nazi camps and 70 years since the end of WWII isn't recentism.
You are using real problems to prove that creation of an ideal article is impossible. But we don't create ideal articles, we are humans and we create human description of the world and the world changed in the 20th century. Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
What you mean to say is that Wikipedia doesn't have an article titled concentration camps. It *does* have an article about concentration camps: this one. You are suggesting that there is a valid reason to have two separate articles Concentration camp and Internment which both mean, at their basic level, the exact same thing. Some people assume "Concentration camp" means "Nazi concentration camp", a subject which *does* deserve it's own article, which is why we have one: Nazi concentration camps. Since you don't seem to think "concentration camp" means the same thing as internment but rather, if I understand correctly, means "Nazi concentration camp" any suggestion to createa separate concentration camp article would just duplicate what already exists at Nazi concentration camps. Instead, we have one dictionary definition article here where "Internment" and "Concentration camp" are discussed as the same phenomenon, with plenty of visible links to Nazi concentration camps. I really can't see why that is an insufficient compromise for you. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Even if you are right this is not an article but a stub, which isn't any form of a compromise but rather of neglecting the subject. It doesn't link the Extermination through labor article, which describes, among others, concentration camps.
The List of concentration and internment camps is controversial, it doesn't explain the level of cruelty. The Russia and the Soviet Union section is unproportionally short, it doesn't inform that Polish POWs of 1920 war were kept in concentration camps, later Poles were interned and murdered, which is known as Katyn massacre. These aren't details.
There exists a Wikidata problem - reading this article you hardly can find an artcle about concentration camps in many languages. ( concentration camp (Q152081) )Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Poles were interned in Lithuania 1939-1940, not listed, which ws good for them, but should be mentioned. Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

I mean that all prisoners of a concentration camp can be murdered outside the camp and the world would pretend it doesn't know anything about the murder during 50 years. It belongs to the definition of a concentration camp.Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess I disagree. I don't think it's especially relevant to this article. I'm no expert on Katyn, but weren't those killed there military prisoners? It doesn't seem to be mentioned at Prisoner-of-war camp. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia really shouldn't have "dictionary definition" articles, or should try not to. Here, under the title Internment, there should be a full article about internment, incorporating information about the many cases and forms of internment that have occurred (much of it is already available in the wrongly titled "List of ..." article; it just needs to be moved to here, leaving only actual lists in the list article). "Concentration camp", however, is a different subject - most definitely not the same phenomenon, as most people presumably know. As neutral encyclopedia writers we would not attach the label "concentration camp" to just any internment facility. Our article on concentration camp would be about the facilities that we can neutrally call concentration camps, and about the usage of the term (and debate around such usage). It seems somewhat warped to do as we virtually seem to be doing at the moment - putting the concentration camp article at Internment, and the internment article at List of concentration and internment camps. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Concentration camps may refer to:

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

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

English Wikipedia is the ONLY Wikipedia in the world redirecting the search "concentration camp" to the "internment". No other Wikipedia edition does that.[3] – This is the reason why we're having this discussion. Please take a look. A full list of sister Wikipedias where concentration camp is the actual target article ... not a "redirect" includes entries written in 58 languages. The "Internment" is a different article in a number of languages, twelve to be exact.[4] – In all cases from above, the target article "concentration camp" features the actual description of the Nazi concentration camp as well. Poeticbent talk 19:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

the dictionary - but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, so quoting a dictionary is only the beginning;
and various other published references - really various which means here accidental. No academic text about internment or concentration camps in general.Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC) There exists a book in French and German [5] (I haven't read it).Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a great source. Did you read the article? Definitely worth including, and along with a dictionary definition, it's a better starting point than google hits or "what other wikipedia projects do." - Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC) It's a 2003 article, I hope it was deveoped later. Kotek is an academic historian.Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The List of concentration and internment camps is a synthesis of many sources, which is close to OR, because the editors have to create the general image, e.g. the limits of the description and the allotement of space - according to what: the number of camps, number of prisoners, number of death victims, death ratio, period of existence, cruelties (medical experiments) or none, which means bias. Xx236 (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Were exactly a rhetoric of dehumanization, of depersonalization is mentioned here?Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The references of this article are listed. What is the logic? They are all in English, they are about Nazi, English and US camps.
Firstly, you are complaining about the sources all being in English? That's actually preferable according to WP:RSUE.
Second, the article mentions camps established in Poland by the Russian empire, and Spanish camps established in Cuba, and German camps established in German South-West Africa. It also includes, for no apparent reason, an image of Italian camps established in Libya. There is no mention of "US camps" aside from American camps established in the Philippine–American War. Are we reading the same article? Themightyquill (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The name of one Soviet camp was "concentration camp Kozielsk-1". Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

The Soviet camps weren't obviously POW camps, there are many questions. There was Soviet law and documents about the camps.
I don't know contemporary Russian law but the Russian Wikipedia says that concentration camps are also for POWs, which continues Soviet line: Polish POWs were kept in concentration camps around 1920, not in POW camps.
The SU hasn't declared war against Poland in 1939, it was rather a humanitarian mission (according to Soviets). So (Internationally) legally Poles (not only army officers but all unifermed men including foresters plus one woman) were interned, not POWs. Accordingly the camps were concentration camps, not POW camps.
I'm sorry for my spelling error, the English name of the town is Kozelsk, which makes ""concentration camp Kozelsk-1". It's a translation of Russian концлагерь «Козельск-1», I don't know what the name comes from. The legal name was probably simply Козельский лагерь (Kozelsk camp). One of documents [6] says interned people (интернированных) but NKVD camps for POWs (лагерях НКВД СССР для военнопленных). Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, xx236, but it all sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. And even if you had sources to show that Kozelk is commonly described as a concentration camp, I still don't see why it is especially notable from among all the examples in List of concentration and internment camps. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The French article describes the process of evolution of the cc to the Nazi camps.Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Collins definition[edit]

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)

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

Spanish Republicans at Meheri Zabbens and Argelès-sur-Mer[edit]

MPS1992 just added the following:

"In the late 1930s, over 100,000 defeated or interned personnel of the Spanish Republican armed forces, along with civilians, were held in concentration camps by France, including at Meheri Zabbens,[Ref Almirante Valdés (VS o AV)] and at the Camp de concentration d'Argelès-sur-Mer in southern France. Some of these managed to go into exile or went to join the armies of the Allies to fight against the Axis powers,[Ref 24 au 26 août 1944 Libération de Paris par les chars... espagnols de la nueve ] while others ended up in Nazi concentration camps.[Ref “Republicans deportats als camps de concentració nazis” ]."

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

The importance could certainly be debated, but it seems very clear to me that its relevance in this article cannot be disputed. The scale is surely significant, as the sources appear to indicate over 100,000 internees at various points. This compares dramatically with the widely-cited Boer War example, which currently in this article implies a much smaller number of internees, and the other earlier examples in this article, which are not clear about the numbers involved but seem likely to be fairly small.
The date is a complication. Uses of "internment" before the Nazi actions tend to be considered more worthy of mention. The French actions came after the Nazis began using internment (and concentration) camps, but before the outbreak of World War 2, which many associate closely with Nazi extremes.
Certainly I think this instance of internment is important, both for its similarities to other cases (numerous deaths resulting from poor conditions, limited legal basis), and also for its differences (the Spanish internees were there for completely different reasons from most of the other examples in the article). And, as I said, the scale. MPS1992 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@MPS1992: Maybe you could stress those notable qualities in the text (with functional references of course) to show why it's important. I'm not sure that internment prior to the Second World War is in itself noteworthy, especially given the significant numbers of internments around the world during the First World War. See List of concentration and internment camps for examples. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Internments by Japanese during WW2[edit]

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 (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Soviet camps[edit]

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

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