This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
is there any rhyme or reason in the order in which the countries are listed? why is Cuba first, the Netherlands last? ✈ James C. 21:08, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
The following section deleted. This article about very specific term: "concentration camp" , and there is no reason to have a section about some similarly sounding word, not to say with incorrect explanation.
mikka (t) 16:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
--Sweden-- I have taken the liberty of editing this page so that the wartime Swedish government is not calles a "pro-Nazi regimé" are there any resonable objections? Pelegius 15:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Roma people has been nominated to be improved on the Improvement Drive. Support this article with your vote and help us improve it to featured status!-- Fenice 10:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Please have a short look. I didn't know these US-details. ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konzentrationslager )
[quote]
USA
Zu Beginn des 2. Weltkrieges richteten die USA Concentration-Camps für alle potentiell gefährlich werden könnenden Bürger japanischer oder deutscher Abstammung ein. Bekannt wurden insbesondere die kalifornischen Camps, weil sich dort die meisten japanstämmischen Familien aufhielten. Gerichtsbeschluss war weder damals noch heute nötig für die Zwangseinweisungen.
Heute betreiben die USA Konzentrationslager auf Kuba (US-Stützpunkt Guantanamo Bay) und auf einigen weniger bekannten Inseln im Pazifik. Es genügt der Vorwurf, einer bestimmten Gruppe anzugehören. Neben diesen Offshore-Konzentrationslagern betreiben die USA auch Konzentrationslager auf US-Territorium. (vgl. [8] ( http://www.bunkahle.com/Forum/YaBB.cgi?board=neues;action=display;num=1097833121))
Eine besondere Form neuzeitiger US-KZs stellen die Tiefbunker-KZs dar, die in vielen US-Bundesstaaten neuerdings entstanden sind, bei denen an der Oberfläche ein freundliches, überschaubares Verwaltungsgebäude hinter Stacheldraht steht, und die Insassen mehrere Stockwerke tief niemals das Tageslicht zu sehen bekommen. Meist sitzen dort Lebenslängliche, Mörder und sonstige nie wieder die Freiheit bekommen sollende Personen dort in hochmodernen Kaninchenställen bis zu ihrem Ende. Einen Aufruhr oder Protest dort ist noch nie bekannt geworden.
Die US-Konzentrationslager dienen nicht der gezielten Vernichtung. Unzweifelhaft ist jedoch, dass die "Haltungsbedingungen" der Internierten, welche von Menschenrechtsorganisationen scharf gerügt werden, geeignet sind, um die Insassen der Konzentrationslager physisch und psychisch zugrunde zu richten. [9]
[quote/]
If this bold-marked information should be correct ... -- 217.64.171.188 10:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
rachel & wanda was here 2005 holla @ cha gurlz<3
The entire section on Argentina was deleted, without explanation:
16:54, 16 February 2006 207.232.162.3 (→Argentina)
I have reinstated it. If anybody notices a repetition, perhaps they would care to re-reinstate. The content is here (comment updated 1Mar06):
08:30, 1 March 2006 Gbinal
Pol098 23:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
why is it that Soviet camps are described in the first line of the article, but nothing else is stated after that? I have been trying to find out information on German WWII POWS and can find absolutely none on wikipedia. I know there is loads of information on the topic out there, but it is nowhere on wikipedia. I give one big WTF to wikipedia, so much for it being a source of knowledge. I dont know how such a huge website with information about everything on non-importance can miss such a huge section.
-- Jadger 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is having a link to the Prison Planet (anti-NWO website) article out of place here? Just because the authors of that site believe "that there are concentration camps being constructed in the U.S. to house anyone that is considered a threat" doesn't make on par with links to articles of actual concentration camps. -- mtz206 12:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Donnog has made some pretty dramatic changes to the article; let's discuss them here. To me, they seem strongly POV. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The dramatic and strongly POV change was rather that the anon deleted the section dealing with concentration camps in Poland. I've translated the text from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konzentrationslager#Polen Donnog 12:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The text is a direct translation of the German article. If you have a problem with anything, discuss it first at the discussion page here. Donnog 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
German article on concentration camps states:
"Nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg wurde in Polen in den vorher - bis 1918 - zu Deutschland gehörenden Gebieten das ehemalige deutsche Kriegsgefangenenlager Szczypiorno vom polnischen Staat als Internierungslager für die in ihrer Heimat verbliebene deutsche Zivilbevölkerung weitergenutzt, ebenso das Lager Stralkowo. Es kam dort zu schwersten Menschenrechtsverletzungen und unmenschlichen Quälereien (Folter) wie sie für Konzentrationslager kennzeichnend sind. Nach 1926 wurden weitere KZ eingerichtet, nicht nur für Deutsche, sondern auch für Ukrainer und andere Minderheiten in Polen sowie für polnische Oppositionelle, die Lager Bereza-Kartuska und Brest-Litowsk. Über die Zahl der dort Inhaftierten und Ermordeten wurden offizielle Zahlen nicht bekanntgegeben. Von Anfang bis September des Jahres 1939 kamen weitere Lager für Deutsche hinzu, u.a. in Chodzen. Es kam in diesem Zeitraum zu einer gesteigerten Anzahl von Massenverhaftungen und Pogromen an der deutschen Bevölkerung, die zur Flucht von Zehntausenden führte. Aus 1131 Ortschaften in Posen und Pommerellen kam es zu Verschleppungsmärschen in Lager. Nach dem Einmarsch der deutschen Wehrmacht am 1. September 1939 kam es zum Pogrom des sogenannten Bromberger Blutsonntag vom 3. September 1939."
What are you objecting to? Donnog 14:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need the Holocaust template in the Germany section? And if we do, could someone maybe fix it so it doesn't generate so much whitespace? -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Internment meets the definition of Concentration camp in this article. The fact that Internment offers only Anglophone countries, suggests a POV fork, for people who don't want to think of Concentration camps happening in their countries. If there's a difference, it needs to be way more clear.-- TheMightyQuill 12:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess not every case of internment involves a concentration camp, so I don't think a merge would be a good idea. -- 790 09:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I think we're getting closer to agreement.
Please, see the article we are discussing
Concentration_camp#History_and_usage_of_the_term.
It says:
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. defines concentration camp as:
a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45
In the English-speaking world, the term "concentration camp" was first used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa during the 1899- 1902 Second Boer War. Originally conceived as a form of humanitarian aid to the families whose farms had been destroyed in the fighting, the camps were later used to confine and control large numbers of civilians in areas of Boer guerilla activity.
a) I doubt Concentration Camp is a translation of Konzentrationslager if it was used in 1899. b) it doesn't exclude the interment of enemy nationals during wartime.
I suggest we have one page under Internment, but using the current definition of Concentration Camp which does mention: "Over the course of the twentieth century, the arbitrary internment of civilians by the authority of the state became more common and reached a climax with the practice of genocide in the death camps of the Nazi regime in Germany, and with the Gulag system of forced labor camps of the Soviet Union. As a result of this trend, the term "concentration camp" carries many of the connotations of "extermination camp" and is sometimes used synonymously. A concentration camp, however, is not by definition a death-camp."
Then we have a separate list of Internment and Concentration Camps. People can make up their own minds which is which. Of course, Nazi extermination camp should be kept separate, but linked to from the other two pages.
What do you say? -- TheMightyQuill 12:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this page, and Internment should be replaced with something like Wikipedia:Sandbox/Internment. The country by country listing on this page should move to List of concentration and internment camps.
Any discussion? -- TheMightyQuill 16:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I became very confused reading this article on which note numbers referred where. There were at least 3 schemes of references, one with all number 1. There were thus about seven "note 1" items. I'm not claiming I have tidied these into "the definitive reference scheme", but I have made them self consistent by using cite.php for all and gathering them automatically at the foot of the article in "Notes" where there is an explanation (when you edit) for the uninitiated on how to use the cite.php scheme. Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Does this qualify for incorporation into this article? The movie, Rabbit Proof Fence provides a drama documentary of the attempts by the Government of Australia (Great Britain) to remove half caste children from their families to seek to ensure racial purity. I don;t have the data to do this myself, but, if it is valid, perhaps someone would take it on?
The children were first "concentrated" in schools a great distance from their families in order to learn how to be good servants before being "issued" to white families (according to the movie which states that the story is true) Fiddle Faddle 10:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll be unprotecting the page now, but I will continue to watch it. Carbonate, you have received plenty of feedback from several distinct Wikipedia editors about the paragraph you wish to insert on this page. The comments here, on Talk:Internment, on your talk page, and even the arbitrator's comments when rejecting this on WP:RFAR have unanimously not been in support of your view. They have however included some polite and constructive explanations of how the paragraph violates WP:NOR and how it might possibly be rewritten to amend this. Carbonate, you reverted this paragraph 5 times in as many days. While not technically in violation of 3RR, the reverts were clearly opposed to the spirit of the 3RR rule. In unprotecting this article, I am trusting you not to continue blindly reverting the paragraph or reverting it with minor cosmetic changes as you have been doing. I suggest you leave the article alone for a while. If you must edit it, please work with the comments you have been given, and keep in mind that other editors will be reviewing your contributions. If you choose to continue to edit war, I can guarantee you that some administrator will protect it again, and you may find yourself blocked; so please, take this as friendly advice to calculate your steps. -- woggly 07:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Aside from the complete lack of sources, the content of the section leaves open the likelihood that the example does not qualify as an internment/concentration camp, in that the place of resettlement was not guarded and the occupants were free to come and go as they pleased at all times. This example is essentially an eviction, likely with eminent-domain elements, where the US Department of Agriculture provided replacement dwellings near each other. Even forcible resettlement to a specified place does not qualify to create an internment/concentration camp. -- Joe 14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Bogdanovka was a Romanian concentration camp.-- Jaro.p 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Israelis want Palestinian ethnic cleansing. Carbonate 03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
could you please chance the names of Slovak towns as follows:
I would do it myself, but the page is locked. Thanks, -- Maros 09:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
A couple points: 1) Isn't it time this article got unprotected? What are we waiting for, exactly? 2) This section is just silly. Violates NPOV, OR, RS, pretty much everything. Thoughts? IronDuke 02:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Syrenab 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Syrenab 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to see that this article is finally unlocked, so that proper editting can proceed.
By the definition at the head of this article: "..a camp or group of camps is assigned to the country whose government was responsible for the establishment and/or operation of the camp regardless of the camp's location..", Nazi concentraion camps in France and Netherlands should not be listed under these country's names, at the time they were occupied countries. These camps are already properly listed where they belong - in the List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany, I have deleted from "FRance" and "Netherlands".
Syrenab 19:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The text that says France only had one Nazi camp is misleading. There were several concentration camps in France before and during World War II. For example, Jews from Baden and surrounding areas were deported to Camp De Gurs and others in the Pyrennes in October of 1940. Gurs was originally for refugees from the Spanish Civil War, but was adapted as one of the first concentration camp for German Jews. More information at this link.
The entry (and the list of German concentration camps) should be updated.
The section "Germany" talks ONLY about "concentration camps" for which there is a separate Main article.
Ther is no mention of "Internment Camps" Ilag for Allied civilians, which were run, at least at the beginning by the German Army, and later by the police organization Schutzpolizei (NOT the SS). I would add this myself, but the page is locked. I am writing separate articles for the most important Ilags.
Syrenab 18:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Syrenab 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the following claim: "The Nazis realized that this was a criminal act and the action was shrouded in secrecy." It is certainly true that the Nazis concealed the holocaust, but I think the notion that Nazis in general considered the holocaust a criminal act (as opposed to merely fearing the consequences should they lose the war) is stretching the evidence. I have added a fact tag to this, so please either source this or rephrase it. Bgeer 21:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter has written a book called " Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". Read it befor removing the Israel section. Carbonate 03:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"Some 20 thousand pro-Russian Ukrainians were incarcerated in concentration camp Talerhof (Austrian province of Styria) from September 4, 1914 until May 10, 1917. A full third of the prisoners held died either by being shot, gassed, or from shock after experimental surgeries by doctors who were figuring out the pain threshold of humans."
Where on earth does this information come from? Most improbable....but no citation...
-- Train guard 10:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The figures quoted are only true if you accept the idea that the fortified villages were prisons; since they did not function as such, the figures in this ection must be viewed with caution. They are derived from the writings of Elkins, whic are not written from a NPOV. Pabailie 17:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Has Israel ever put Palestinians in concentration camps? The Gaza Strip looks suspiciously like a very big concentration camp to me, who's never been there, but reads about it. Rickyrab 05:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Did the Sabra and Shatila Massacre involve concentration camps? If so, who the heck ran them? Rickyrab 06:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think refugee camps can count as Concentration Camps if the refugees are not imprisoned, and are allowed by whoever runs the camp to leave (to go home, say) - Paul 4 October 2004
Saipan Internment Camp 1944
But now the wall is being built, is it still not a concentration camp?
>>The wall isn't to keep anybody in. It's to keep terrorists out. The refugee camps certainly can't count, as they aren't even prisons, let alone concentration camps. The residents of the Palestinian refugee camps, allegedly "run off their ancient homeland" by Israel, have numerous Muslim nations to immigrate to, and have had over half a century to do so. The reason they continue to avoid moving to a more stable community (Are there such things in the Middle East?)is that their leaders continue to tell them that by sacrificing their lives to disgrace Israel, they will assure their passage into heaven. And calling ANYTHING a concentration camp besides Hitler's camps, or Stalin's gulags, is demeaning to the tortures endured by the suffering inmates there. Imprisoned for no reason but the insanity of their leaders, with no imaginable justification, and forced to undergo the most horrendous, nightmarish torments in all of History.
I am not a historian, but just have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereza_Kartuzka#Polish_political_prison
"Following the Polish legislative election, 1930, and the OUN terrorist campaign in the early 1930s, which included the assassination of the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs, Bronislaw Pieracki, and the deputy head of BBWR organisation Tadeusz Holowka, the former tsarist barracks and prison were turned into an internment camp for both Polish right wing extremists from the ONR, Ukrainian separatists from the OUN and members of the Communist Party of Poland and the Communist Party of Western Ukraine, and later also for member of oposition parties, journalists critical of the government (including Stanisław Mackiewicz) and even people suspected of common crimes."
"the total number of people who were imprisoned there was about 16 thousand. Depending on which source is quoted, between 3 and 20 people died during its operation."
and compare it to what is written in the concentration camps list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#Poland :
"After 1926 several other concentration camps were erected, not only for Germans, but also for Ukrainians and other minorities in Poland. It included camps Bereza-Kartuska and Brest-Litowsk. Official casualties for the camps are not known, however it has been estimated that many Ukrainians died."
Does it really qualify as a concentration camp? I feel that comparing it to Soviet or German death factories is deeply unfair. It was just a prison, and even if several people were mistreated there- well, this has been always happening in prisons, hasn't it? Calling it "a concentration camp" is misleading and not objective.
Bereza_Kartuzka was not only one camp.Szczypiorno, Lola Potok, Czeslaw Geborski, Salomon Morel and Jaworzno-- Jaro.p 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed under "Serbia" and "Crotia" etc that the only concentration camp listings were of those maintained by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Don't the camps maintained by various Serb and Croat forces during the 1990's consitute concentration camps? The recent court documents on the subject show a lot of evidence in favor of labeling them as such... Any experts on the subject? Bob the Jokester 21:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would have liked to help with the article, but I think that the Rheinwiesenlager should not be part of this list. The rheinwiesenlager were camps for prisoners of war. There were old men, youngs and women, because in the last days of the third Reich everyone including Hitlerjugend (members of the NSDAP youth organisaton) and Volkssturm (men, to old for regular army, wearing an armlet as a uniform)So everyone, who was wearing a kind of uniform or seemed to ba an enemy soldier was captured and brought to these camps. Mistakes were made but this does not change the classification as camps for prisoners of war. Thw1309 16:23, 30. Mär. 2007 (CEST)
As weird as that sounds, I believe it was recently publicized in the media that there are indeed internment camps (I wouldn't call them "concentration camps," rather something less pejorative) being constructed under a federal contract by some engineering subsidiary of Halliburton. Very strange, although perhaps there is a viable explanation. I'm no conspiracy theorist. Salva 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the list of internment camps is going swimmingly in alphabetic order until the entry for the United Kingdom which is just below Austria Hungary when it should clearly be at the bottom of the list? 86.16.139.140 ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Have now corrected this 86.16.139.140 ( talk) 16:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Australia
In World War I 2,940 German and Austrian men were interned in ten different camps in Australia. In 1915 many of the smaller ones were closed and their inmates transferred to others. The largest camp was at Holsworthy in New South Wales.[3] Their families were placed in a camp near Canberra.They also .... people until they die. While during the Second World War, 4,721 Italian migrants were interned in Australia.[4] -- 201.230.6.142 ( talk) 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Despite the undoubtly horrible living conditions within the Gaza Strip, it simply cannot be called a camp, and thus it has no place in this article. Furthermore, I consider it either a bait, or at least a severly NPOV comment. I have thus deleted it. -- 80.127.21.134 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
For what reasons can it not be considered a concentration camp?
It is only bait if you believe it is a just way of treating people and you support its existance. Or do you think the country that runs it has some special right to do so? If the details of the entry are not neutral than please correct the wording but the inclusion of the camp its self in NPOV.
Carbonate 00:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to add that most people who find this item controvertial are probably mostly offended by the implication that the Israeli state would be involved in the same type of discrimination that the Jewish people were subjected to by the Nazis. But consider the stigma that is freely applied to all the German people for the actions of a few. Whether you aggree with it or not, the situation will not begin to change until we start calling things by what they really are and the Gaza Strip is really a concentration camp.
Carbonate 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not a camp. Whether the living conditions are good or not is irrelevant, as this article clearly speaks about camps, not provinces or cities. Let's look at the definition of a camp:
camp Pronunciation (kmp) n. 1. A place where tents, huts, or other temporary shelters are set up, as by soldiers, nomads, or travelers.
2. A cabin or shelter or group of such buildings: gathered branches and grasses for a makeshift camp; had a fishing camp in Vermont.
3. The people using such shelters: a howl that awakened the whole camp.
1. A place in the country that offers simple group accommodations and organized recreation or instruction, as for vacationing children: a girls' summer camp; a tennis camp.
2. Sports. A place where athletes engage in intensive training, especially preseason training.
3. The people attending the programs at such a place.
3. Military service; army life.
4. A group of people who think alike or share a cause; side: The council members disagreed, falling into liberal and conservative camps.
The Gaza Strip cannot be defined as a camp by any stretch of the word, that's why the main populated area of the Gaza Strip is called Gaza City which isn't filled with barracks. tents or huts but with high-rises (which cannot be called a temporary shelter.) I am not going to accept your bait into turning this a debate on whether the human rights are good, because such a debate is irrelevant to the point I have been making.
If you truly need to comment on the living conditions in either the Gaza Strip or Gaza City, I'd suggest you go to the relevant article, not to an article about camps
-- 80.127.21.134 09:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The term "concentration camps" is more than the sum of its parts. You can not justify the removal of the gaza strip because it does not satisfy the meaning of one word. If you look at the chinese labour camps, they were organised as factorise and not temporary housing.
Carbonate 11:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
China has nothing to do with this, I am removing the Gaza Strip because it's just not a concentration camp.
-- 80.127.21.134 11:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree for the reasons listed.
Carbonate 13:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Despite acknowledged similarities between the situation concerning Gaza on the one hand and concentration/internment/refugee/POW camps on the other, I feel characterizing Gaza as a concentration camp does not contribute either to understanding the term concentration camp OR the situation of Gaza. What I see here is an argument between two parties, neither of whom will identify themselves to any extent, that harms the content of Wikipedia both here and in the Internment Camp article. I am very new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I will begin now to try to bring the attention of an administrator to this matter to decide it and apply any enforcement measures that may be required to restore order to the content.
-- Joe 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Users Carbonate and 80.127.21.134, go to WP:ARFAR and there view a Request for Arbitration that I have entered in this matter. The Request invites comments from each of you, which you may wish to make in support of your position and/or your editing privileges on Wikipedia. I hope this process will put an end to the "edit war" you are conducting.
-- Joe 16:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The link is WP:RFAR.
Carbonate 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the section as the first sentence is verifiably inaccurate. The population density of
Macau is 17,310/km², much more than the given 3,824/km² for the Gaza Strip. Also, the section did not cite sources (see
WP:CITE). --
Goobergunch|
? 06:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Added sixth qualifier to agree with wiki ranking and adjusted population density down to agree with encartia. Added encartia citation.
Carbonate 09:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to unindent my response to CaptainManacles because I want to use bullets.
Please don't try to prove your point by comparing obviously dissimilar situations and please don't try to make up rules about what is and is not NPOV. Neutral does not mean 'what you agree with'.
Carbonate 09:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
wikipedia should be apolitical. Gaza meets the definition of a concentration camp.
From wikipedia:
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. defines concentration camp as: a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated....Use of the word concentration comes from the idea of concentrating a group of people who are in some way undesirable in one place, where they can be watched by those who incarcerated them...
Most Gazans are non-combatants. They are undesirable. They cannot leave. They live behind a walls with guard towers. Israel controls everything officially entering or leaving. The amount of food and medical aid entering Gaza has been severely restricted to the point where people suffer disease and malnutrition as a direct result. If it isn't a concentration camp than what is it?
I know there are people here who don't like the idea of labelling Gaza as a concentration camp for political reasons. But wikipedia should be apolitical...
-- Fiolou ( talk) 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
So no matter how accurate or reasonable, anything that portrays Israel in a bad light is unacceptable to User:IronDuke? How is that a defensable position? Carbonate 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
“ | The term concentration camp lost some of its original meaning after Nazi concentration camps were discovered, and has ever since been understood to refer to a place of mistreatment, starvation, forced labour, and murder. | ” |
-- Fiolou ( talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Carbonate, by continuing to edit war on this article, I feel you have abused my trust. You should work towards reaching a compromise with the editors who oppose the paragraph you've been trying to add, rather than simply push it again and again, accusing them of political motives. Everybody has political motives - you do too. For personal reasons, I can't spend time on wikipedia in the upcoming weeks. You are welcome to seek the assistance of other administrators to unprotect the page, as long as they read the talk page and look at the history of the article, which I am sure any administrator will do before unprotecting, I will not consider it wheel-warring. -- woggly 05:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I did respond to your Pope comment.
"Oh, and I don't think the pope is an expert on concentration camps or Israel/Gaza, AFAIK."
The Pope is a notable figure, but not an authority on Gaza.
You may not be aware of this, but comparing Israelis to Nazis is a classic sign of antisemitism. I’m not saying you are an antisemite, but many intelligent, sensitive, good people would quickly label you one for making the comparison. The reasoning behind that is that implying the Israelis are like Nazis lessens the import of their suffering in the Holocaust; it is as if to say “You are as bad as the people who persecuted you, therefore you are not entitled to sympathy.” It is brought up in a Middle Eastern context when the idea that the Jewish people are entitled to a safe haven somewhere is being disputed. It’s also a form of Holocaust Denial.
Now, people get compared to Nazis all the time. Everyone from George W. Bush to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But comparing Jews to Nazis is particularly odious. Let me see if I can give you an example. If I said to a Russian person I didn’t like, “Hey, why don’t you go ride a camel off a cliff?” That would just be hostile. But if I said it to a Saudi, for example, it would be anti-Arab as well. You see how context matters?
I know that you feel personally very strongly that Gaza is a concentration camp. But just because you can cobble together other people to hurl that epithet at Israel doesn’t mean it’s encyclopedic. I can find notable sources who’d say black people are lazy and shiftless. But we wouldn’t have a special section on black people under lazy, would we?
IronDuke 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You keep making rediculous comparisons to inclusion of other articles. This is about concentration camps and gaza is a concentration camp. It is not a small minority that feel this way. Today the United Church announced they will be boycotting (at first they said divesting) companies that profit from the occupation of Palastinian lands. This represents "many intelligent, sensitive, good people" as you say. The Pope may not be an expert on concentration camps but he is certianly an expert on human suffering and poverty. If you want an expert, Jean Ziegler most certianly qualifies as he is the special reporter for the right to food for the UN, its his job to know.
You keep saying that I have cobbled this together and while it is hard to find much documentation in the American dominated media, I'd wager there is much more in the Arabic community if I could access it. I think also that Israel's more recent and outragous acts of violence against a neigboring democracy will reduce the level western nations are willing to indulge Israels actions of oppression. And when it comes to oppression, the degree provides no justification. The Nazi's after all didn't start with extermination camps, the worked up to them. No matter how offensive it is (in or out of context) the past does not give Israel writ to repeat history against otheres, or do you think Israel should be appeased until they go as far?
Carbonate 04:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Israel is guilty of decades of crimes against the Palestinians but that Gaza simply does not fulfill the criteria of "concentration camp." Jonathan Tweet 18:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Fiolou ( talk) 16:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, has feathers like a duck, webbed feet like a duck.... A good chance its a duck...
Of all the countries who have had concentration camps in their long, LONG histories as countries, the largest content on this subject is on the USA. The USSR killed millions in their camps. The British had camps all over the world with horrible conditions. But the USA's section is the largest. You filthy hatemongering pukes. Gaza, Gaza, Gaza, GITMO, GITMO, GITMO. Do you know how many millions of people have been killed in Communist camps in history? The people on Wiki are morons with an agenda.
The camps in sri lanka are refugee camps. It would be wrong to call them internment camps without concrete evidence, ie a conviction by a international court of law. Calling them internment camps based on *allegations* biased newspaper reports, also on biased human rights groups (it is well known that Amnesty international has a axe to grind with sri lanka) would be wrong. Also it is wrong to state that 1400 people are dying every week, based on controversial information. If the US government states that 1400 are dying every week, then its a reliable cite, but not from a biased newspaper with questionable sources. N.B - The real reason for this controversy is that the certain sections of the diasspora are mad with our governments stunning victory over the LTTE terrorists and want to defame our government by brining questionable allegations etc. Kerr avon ( talk) 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Some sections have been deleted at some time. I can't find anything in Talk about it. I have recovered the sections on Argentina and Chile, which I think are relatively uncontroversial: these camps have been recognised and condemned by the relevant governments. I would expect other sections to have been deleted too. I have reinstated these sections from old versions, unchanged. Pol098 ( talk) 18:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The sections on Argentina and Chile were deleted as unsourced: 17:28, 9 April 2009 Luis Napoles The section on Argentina had a reference to a comprehensive government report, and a link to a relevant Wikipedia article (the section had actually been written as part of the old "concentration camp" article, and moved into this List long ago when the article was broken up; an actual list of more than 100 camps is included in the Report referenced). The Chile article indeed had no references, though it did link to one article that described and referenced one camp (do List articles require references from listed items, even if linked to an article?). This would seem to be an attempt to "sanitise" the list for POV purposes; however the sourcing is criticised, there was enough to merit a discussion in Talk, and the facts are well-known. More references would help (later note: several have been added), but the sections are notable and correct. Pol098 ( talk) 18:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Other unjustified changes and deletions may have been made at the same time and may still be in the current version; I have only checked and corrected (and added to) Chile and Argentina. I suggest that the changes made in this revision be checked and, where appropriate, reverted. Pol098 ( talk) 11:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Should some of POW camps used during the U.S civil be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.146.167 ( talk) 13:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes this is an excellent idea Imersion ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
I would like to add information about the Yugoslvian internment camps - Gakovo, Krushiwl, Mitrovica, etc. Some of these camps were in what is now Serbia, others in Croatia and Slavonia and Rumania; but they were all in Yugoslavia in 1945 - 1947 (before WWII end and in the aftermath). These camps are apparently not yet acknowledged by the former Yugoslavia and its successor states. I was in one of these lagers as a child, but have no special expertise abot them. However, the German Wiki has a straightforward article that I could translate. It places them under Yugoslavia. Is that how I shoudl do it as well, or should I ry to place them in the appropriate successor states, such as Serbia?
Here is the list from the German Wiki: (todesfallen == dead)
In der Batschka: Lager Jarek (Bački Jarak) mit 7.000 Todesfällen Gakowa (Gakovo) mit 8.500 Todesfällen Kruschiwl (Kruševlje) mit 3.000 bis 3.500 Todesfällen
Im Banat:
Lager Molidorf (Molin) mit 3.000 Todesfällen Rudolfsgnad (Kničanin) mit 11.000 Todesfällen
In Syrmien:
Lager "Svilara",Seidenfabrik in Syrmisch Mitrowitz (Sremska Mitrovica) mit 2.000 Todesfällen
In Slawonien:
Walpach (Valpovo) mit 1.000 bis 2.000 Todesfällen Kerndia (Krndija) mit 500 bis 1.500 Todesfällen
Thanks for any help or adivce.
Imersion (
talk) 11:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Pannonia has made changes to the translation without discussing them with me or making any reference to this secion. This is not a friendly act. I put this notice up specifically to reduce this kind of dispute. I would hope that any changes made in the future would first be discussed here. I will attempt to correct the changes and will then be open to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion Imersion ( talk)-->
Imersion, can you understand two simple things: 1. interwiki links are posted only on the far bottom of the page and 2. Articles in other Wikipedias are not acceptable as reliable sources - you have to provide real sources for your additions (books, external links, what ever). Please stop your aggressive and nonconstructive revert warring and read Wiki rules and policies about these issues. PANONIAN 21:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Good idea Pannonian. Would you please put the interwiki link in the right place then. Thanks.
Imersion (
talk) 21:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a highly dubious statement that any German Luftwaffe were interned in Glencree however German military are interred in a specially dedicated (9 July 1961) cemetery in Glencree which is a few hundred yards south of the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation. As I understand it all interment, both Axis and Allied took place only at the Curragh Camp. Perhaps the editor adding this confused interned with interred. I will check some other source I have in my library. ww2censor ( talk) 03:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
A new subsection to the UK section detailing the internment of Italian colonists/civilians in East Africa (particularly Somalia, not sure if similar interment occurred elsewhere) by the British Empire during and after the East Africa Campaign. -- NEMT ( talk) 00:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
From Concentration camp: "Although exact numbers will never be known, it is estimated that approximately six million Jews and 600,000 homosexuals were murdered in Nazi concentration camps."
"Murder" implies extrajudicial killing, which is exactly what the Endlosung was not. Suggest changing to "executed" or some term which recognizes this.
The correct term is clearly 'murder'. The reason is the actions would be considered as murder by every fair court of law on the planet.
Ok :-) You the writer. You seem to know what you're doing.
Murder is correct, because even the Nazis haven't changed the law in a way, that would have maken the Endlösung legal.
I am suprised to see Churchill cited as a member of the British military during the Boer War. It was always my understanding he was there purely in the capacity of a war correspondent. sjc Later: he left the army in 1899, and became a war correspondent. While reporting the Boer War he was taken prisoner by the Boers but made headline news when he escaped, and, on returning to England, he wrote a book about his experiences. sjc
See this graphic for Rummel's estimates: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.TAB1.1.GIF
I made a number of changes to the China entry to make it more NPOV. I removed the statement that China currently has hundreds of concentration camps which isn't factual unless you want to define any prison as a concentration camp. Also, the statement that prison goods make up an insignificant part (i.e. less than 1%) of China's exports also needed to be in there. -- Chenyu
What about US camps for Americans of Japanese origin during WW2 ? -- Taw
WRT the claims of Canadian concentration camps during WWI, could somebody provide some evidence please? -- Robert Merkel
Ukraine was never part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During WW1 it was part of the Russian Empire until 1917, when it seceded, although its independence was not recognised. You will have to find some other reason why the Canadians put Ukrainians in camps. Adam 15:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I putting a few of my reasons here for the tag.
I have other objections but this is a start. Falphin 7 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
I'm moving the offending paragraph here:
There. No ugly template on top of the *whole article* is needed. -- Joy [shallot] 7 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
And could someone write about the internment by the Japanese of American, Canadian and European civilians during World War II? A Japanese woman I met in 1988 showed me a book describing the conditions in the Japaneses-run internment camps, and if I recall correctly they were much worse than Manzanar -- not that this excuses or justifies anything. I would just like to see things put in perspective. Ed Poor
I can find very little information (here) on the WWII Japanese camps of Asia and the Pacific.
My father and uncle were interned at Santo Tomas University, Manila, PI. from ~ Dec. 1941 to Feb. 1945, with appx. 3500 American and European civilians. Unknown if any Canadians were at this location. My grandparents both died at Santo Tomas, from complications related to malnutrition (grandfather, Jan. 1945) and shelling (grandmother, Feb. 1945, after liberation). Conditions were very poor during the last 6-8 months, mainly from lack of proper diet. Many internees suffered malnutrition, and significant weight loss. Widely rumored that the internees had established a system of food distribution that favored the youngest children, on down to the older males.
During the first two years, the internees were allowed to tend gardens.
Immediatly after the American forces had entered the camp, a group of older men and teenage boys (including my father and uncle) were held hostage by the Japanese in the education building. Eventually, everyone were freed unharmed, in exchange for the safe retreat to Japanese positions.
I have much more information, and I'll add this soon. -- Phil Brooks
AFAIK Theresienstadt was not a concentration camp, but a ghetto, and the Nazis put mainly old people there.
Should we correct this for accuracy's sake or should we leave it as it is a rather pedantic discrimination for most people??
-- Korpo
I've seen Theresienstadt defined as a "ghetto" (not sure about correct term, I'm translating directly from spanish here, "gueto de tránsito") by some scholars, like Christopher R. Browning on his book "Ordinary men".
But on the Wiki entry for Theresienstadt, it states that it really was a concentration camp disguised as a normal town, or ghetto. So, I wouldn't change it until we find a normative definition.
-- Richy
Theresienstadt was a ghetto and a transit camp (presumably what is meant by "collective point" -- must reword that). There were actually two seperate camps, the small fortress, which was used as a prison camp, and the large fortress which contained the town, and appeared more as a ghetto, though it was mostly a collection point for prisoners who had been transported from other ghettoes in the Reich, before they could be sent to other concentration or extermination camps.
-- Paul
Theresienstadt was a garrison town, along with a fort, before the fort became a prison and the town became a ghetto/ concentration camp. Rickyrab 16:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Theresienstadt was the model concentration camp where Hitler allowed the press and media to visit to report to the public what went on in the concentration camps, but it was a sham. Most of the people who were taken to Theresienstadt were moved months later to the death camps.
How many people died in the Rheinwiesenlager?
I remove this part of the article, because I think that the Rheinwiesenlager should not be part of this list. 'Prisoner-of-war camps which house enemy combatants, are a completely separate category. The rheinwiesenlager were camps for prisoners of war. There were old men, youngs and women, because in the last days of the third Reich everyone including Hitlerjugend (members of the NSDAP youth organisaton) and Volkssturm (men, to old for regular army, wearing an armlet as a uniform)was made soldier. So everyone, male as well as female, who was wearing a kind of uniform or seemed to be an enemy soldier was captured and brought to one of these camps. Mistakes were made, but this does not change the classification as camps for prisoners of war. Thw1309 16:23, 30. Mär. 2007 (CEST)
<quote> ... for instance, Amnesty International has criticized the US over allegations of mistreatment, but does not call Guantanamo a concentration camp. </quote> Amnesty is very carefully with its words and on the other site, the word they use can seen as proven facts. They avoid using a hard to define word like Concentration camp and wouldn't have used it for the Camps in Nazi Germany.
As so often, words acquire a meaning over time that conflicts with the original meaning - then that meaning is itself applied retrospectively.
Concentration camps were meant to "concentrate" the civilian population. They were not meant to be used to kill the inmates of the camps, or to punish them (they were not accused of any crime), though conditions in the camps were appalling and thousands died.
The Nazis applied the same term to camps that were in fact prison camps, or slave labor camps - a different thing entirely. The "death camps" are now synonymous with "concentration camps" - so we now have to coin a new phrase "internment camps" to describe what the concentration camps actually were - whilst giving Nazi apologists the chance to claim the British invented concentration camps - which while strictly true is extremely misleading.
Example - detention centres for Asylum seekers are "concentration camps" in the original meaning - but are clearly not "concentration camps" in the Nazi sense.
Exile 15:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I am not sure that the section about Soviet syslem of camps belong here at all, besides a summary and reference. Gulags *never* were considered as "concentration" camps. Their tradition is in the penal system of the Imperial Russia called katorga. It perfectly fit the idea of the "leading role of the working class", and the Soviet labor camps were claimed to serve the goal of "reeducation by labor", with a special term "reforging"("perekovka" in Russian). That they actually served as death camps by the virtue of extremely hard labor in extremal conditions is another issue, similar to the deadly irony of Nazi's " Arbeit macht frei" of Dachau, Sachsenhausen and Auschwitz. Mikkalai 17:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am not sure that we should say that "at least 10 million died in the Gulag" without giving a reference. I presume this is an estimate in the Conquest-Pipes tradition. Recent scholarship disputes this. See
J. Arch Getty, Rittersporn, Zemskov, "Victims of the Soviet Penal System In the Pre-War Years, " American Historical Review, Vol. 98, no. 4 (1993), 1017-1050
Perhaps we should state how many deaths are backed by documentary proof, and then go over different people's estimates?
Harald
You are referring to a tertiary source. We ought to read what "Western scholars" are currently estimating. "At least 10 million" does not match with the figures provided by the main anti-Stalinist Russian human-rights organization, for that matter.
Should the camps for Jews who fleed Europe but were unable to reach Eretz Israel under the British mandate of Palestine because of the immigration quota and therefore were being "concentrated" in Cyprus be also included here? --- Humus sapiens Talk 00:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
'Irish nationals' were not interned in the UK. At least not as described here. There was 'selective internment' in Northern Ireland. This did not lead directly to Home Rule as stated here. It could be considered to have contributed to the imposition of direct rule of NI from London.
I can't find an article on German concentration camps during WWII. There are separate entries for Holocaust, Final solution, different camps listed separately, there is even a list of Camps in Poland during World War II. However, I can't find a list of all German camps during WWII wherever they were. Is there such a list? [[User:Halibutt| Halibu tt]] 23:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me - I pasted this below in error - I guess my comment goes in this section:
I also can't find a listing of German concentration camps during the second world war. I was particularly looking for a listing of camps (and information about those camps) in Romania - I found web information, but some of it, through the Wiesenthal Center, is being updated at present, and therefore unavailable.
I disagree with the changed definition. I plan to replace it with the Oxford English Dictionary'd def. because it is a touchy subject.
The entries should also be kept in chronological order, rather than alphabetical. That's the way the page was originally, and it gradually got mixed up. Mackerm 05:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I also can't find a listing of German concentration camps during the second world war. I was particularly looking for a listing of camps (and information about those camps) in Romania - I found web information, but some of it, through the Wiesenthal Center, is being updated at present, and therefore unavailable.
This article has been prefixed "This article should include material from ESMA". I have the opinion that it should not, and that this comment should be deleted, and the separate article on ESMA (which I had expanded) should also be deleted, but will leave it to others to decide.
There was originally a short section on camps in Argentina; and a separate article on ESMA, which was just one among many camps. I expanded the section on camps in Argentina, and included a link to a paper which, amongst other things, lists all known camps. Either no details of any camps should be included (as they are well documented in the link given); or a list of all camps should be included (possibly as a separate article). Singling out ESMA, alone, seems an aberration. 213.208.107.91 23:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do we have references for that? I must say that this is the first time I have heard of any such camps in the early French colonization in Algeria. David.Monniaux 09:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey... the concentration camps in spain under franco are missing... someone should add them.
Hi, add pls something about "Böhmen und Mären protectorate" - thats name for Czech republic (Czechoslovak)during WWII. In czech republic was lot of concentration camps and gethos, also. Try to start with getho called "Terezin". Jan
The information on WW2 internment camps in Sweden (for instance in Storsien) seemt to have been lost. I managed to find an old version and have restored and expanded it a bit. // Liftarn
This is directly wrong. The working units were a road construction army company not prisons. The once sent there was communist agitators and other non democratic elements of the conscript army. Not just communists was sent there also regular ppl who of a medical reason was unable to for fill there normal duties but had skills that was of use to the companies, for example horse care takers etc. The working company’s had the same rules as rest of army regarding leave and free time etc. During the Winter War three company’s was formed out of an army of 400 000 men witch also tells us that not all communist was not sent there but just the one who agitate in there units. The situation was absurd, Sweden was deeply affected and genuine support of the Finland cause during the Soviet aggression 1939-1940 toward Finland witch is a brother people of Sweden. At the same time some Swedish communists in the army agitated for the Soviet cause. This created an absurd situation where the communist agitators or the other bad morale elements were moved away from the rest of the units for the unit’s inner morale and for the safety of the agitators them selves. There duties were to build roads, and to maintain roads.
I've read of camps set up by Castro on Cuba to hold political prisoners, homosexuals, and so on.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Yesterday there was a list of current concentration camps in the USA. Today (April 11, 2007) they have disappeared. Please return the list to the article. Thank you.