Talk:List of concentration and internment camps/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Guantanamo Bay

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

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

From a dictionary: "concentration camp n. 1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions." I don't think the number of inmates matters. --Wik 07:59, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)
I think that definition is a bit too broad. For example, one often hears of US soldiers held under harsh conditions in North Vietnamese POW camps, but I haven't heard these described as concentration camps. The latter term seems very much limited to situations where you're basically herding a group of people into camps based on some identifying characteristic, whether they've done anything or not. If we do expand the definition to include Guantanamo, we also need to include all the POW camps of WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and so on, none of which I think belong in this article. --Delirium 08:02, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)
The key word is "soldiers". The Guantamo concentration camp holds civilians. // Liftarn
Looking at the first paragraph of this article, stating that:
"A 'concentration camp' is a large detention center created for political opponents, aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, often during a war. The term refers to situations where the internees are persons selected for their conformance to broad criteria without judicial process, rather than having been judged as individuals. Camps for prisoners of war are usually considered separately from this category, although informally (and in some other languages) they may also be called concentration camps."
I think that Guantanamo Bay can be counted as a concentration camp (unless you want to call it a torture camp), because the center is designated for political opponents, as stated in the definition. Osama bin Laden's driver cannot be considered a prisoner of war, because no war has been declared against his country. Still, he is in Guantanamo Bay. I think that the first three definitions fit most of the estimated 500 inmates (I remember reading this from Amnesty International), who are political opponents of the current govenment of the United States (not of Cuba though...), are aliens in the country where the camp is located and all belong to, with very few exceptions, to a specific ethnic or religious group. I repeat, the inmates of this camp are not prisoners of war, as they have not been granted the status of a POW.
"arresting suspected criminals"
Criminals, as in "driving the wrong guy's car" or as in "trying to delay an invasion force". Would you also count the world war two partisans as criminals? Their activity is very similar when compared to the activity of "terrorists" (well except that jumbo jets did not exist in those times).
"The key word is "soldiers". The Guantamo concentration camp holds civilians."
Were the Japanese in American concentration camps soldiers? Were the jews, gays, gypsies, gay jews and gay gypsies in Nazi camps soldiers? No.
Were the partisans in some nazi camps soldiers? No. Were they terrorists, as the word is interpreted today? Yes. Were they in comncentration camps? Yes. Why shouldn't then the modern "terrorists" be classified as concentration camp inmates? You tell me. --HJV 22:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

Agree it does spark of a lack of NPOV to not include Guantanamo Bay on this article. Wikipedia is international, not a USonian propaganda machine, after all. The very fact we're discussing it implies that a reasonable proportion of people consider Guantanamo to be a concentration or internment camp, if you take wikipedians as representative of the world in general, and that by its nature makes it worth of inclusion. A note that there is disagreement on the matter, perhaps, but total omissions such as these undermine the credability of this project. 161.73.37.81 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be general agreement here that a concentration camp holds nonmilitary prisoners (Collins English Dictionary definition of concentration camp: "a guarded prison camp in which nonmilitary prisoners are held"). The question then becomes, Are Guantanamo detainees military prisoners? Urgos (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that a concentration camp generally holds civilians, although there are many examples of military prisoners being held in and executed in concentration camps (Russian officers at Dachau for example), However, this article includes internment camps. Both captured military personnel and civilians can be legally interned under the third and fourth Geneva conventions under certain circumstances. Generally people that are interned are not charged with any specific offence but are interned for "reasons of imperative military necessity". When those reasons no longer exist they are supposed to be released. My view would be that Gitmo contains captured combatants, and they are a mix of those actually charged with offences (and therefore they are detainees), and those interned due to the danger they pose (but not actually charged with anything at this stage, or at all for that matter). Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Expanded US section on Guantanamo Bay slightly

Guys, I've expanded the US section talking about Guantanamo Bay. I'm not sure what the history of the article is, but that part was conspicuously short and lacked information about the many controversies of reported abuse, torture, indefinite detention without legal process etc. I don't want this to become a massive chapter, but it seems only fair for the section to reflect what's been widely reported, in line with the sections discussing concentration camps in China and North Korea where people are routinely tortured and murdered. Destynova (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The picture in Finland section

User:FeelSunny, I ain't going to start an edit war so I open a discussion here even though you seem to have been experienced with this. The picture has gone trough of a lot of debate. Sources proving the photograph is staged: Sotilasaikakauslehti 11/2007, Muutosten maailma 4: Suomen historian käännekohtia (2005, WSOY), page 138 (ISBN 951-0-27645-6), Jatkosota Kronikka ISBN 951-20-3661-4, 1991 and the Continuation War historical researches published by Antti Laine. They all state that the photograph was taken by Galina Sanko who had come to the area one orfew days after the Soviets had occupied the area. The Muutosten maailma 4: Suomen historian käännekohtia is considered to be the most often cited/reliable source as it's qualified for high school education.

I know this will not end nowhere soon as you may have a very strong opinion on the picture. I do not want the picture to be removed - as in countless other Wikipedia Articles for the exact same reason - because the picture holds a strong historical evidence as the barbed wire and the sign are real. By the arrival of Galina Sanko the camp was cleared and thus the children in the background were gathered from nearby for a propagandist reason. It is very likely the children or atleast some of them were in the camp when it was Finnish-run and the picture is one of the fewest pictures of the camp so the picture holds historically a significant status and would be wrong to remove it. Thus it should be mentioned that the camp, barbed wire and sign were real but the picture was taken at time when there hadn't been no people in the camp for a while but instead the persons in the photograph were gathered for shooting of the photograph. Unfortunately there are very few known pictures of the internment camps in Eastern Karelia and all of them were staged one way or another. Possibly the best describing / the least staged photograph is used at http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/Lukijan+kuva+40-luvulta+Karjalan+ven%C3%A4l%C3%A4isi%C3%A4+koottiin+leireille/1135231331143 (shot by Medic Ltn Heikki Kalliala in 1943 in an Eastern Karelian internment camp). But I assume you have your personal interests in keeping the photograph shot by Sanko with a falsefied description attached to it and it will take a long time if ever been corrected in this particular article of Wikipedia. --Lihapulla1 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Soviet camps

Why isn't it mentioned that the USSR took over, and continued to run many of the Nazi camps in their territories after the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.174.101 (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Guantanamo?

The subsection of the US section on "current camps" currently says something that I do not believe is correct:

Whether or not the Guantanamo Bay detention camp qualifies as a prisoner-of-war camp or an internment camp is open to debate. In the view of the U.S. government, the detainees housed there fall outside the protections that the Geneva Conventions provide for lawful combatants. These detainees are, in this view, not prisoners-of-war, but instead criminals (i.e., unlawful combatants) who have been imprisoned, pending further adjudication.

  1. I believe it is not correct to state this is the view of "the U.S. government". The Supreme Court has made several rulings on the Guantanamo. The SCOTUS has over-ruled the POTUS on several aspects of the policy. At least one further habeas case has yet to come before the SCOTUS. They may yet over-rule the Bush Presidency over the POW status of the captives. It is premature to call this the view of the US Government. Far better to call it the view of the Bush Presidency.
  2. I believe it is not correct to call the captives "criminals". None of the captives has been charged in a civilian court of law, or before a military court martial. The so-called "military commissions" are neither.
  3. Four of the captives faced charges before version 1.0 of the military commissions in 2004. A further six captives faced charges before version 2.0 of the military commissions. These military commissions were those convened under the authority of the Bush Presidency. The SCOTUS overruled the POTUS. The POTUS didn't have the authority to convene military commissions. Only Congress could convene them. So, none of the charges against those ten men counted. So far only three men were charged under version 3.0 of the military commissions, the one authorized by the US Congress.
  4. "Further adjudication"? The 558 captives who remained in Guantanamo in the fall of 2004 had a Combatant Status Review Tribunal reconsider whether they should be classified as an enemy combatant. And most of the remaineder have annual Administrative Review Board hearings. But, as the captives have repeatedly been told, these are "administrative procedures" -- not "judicial procedures". It would be very incorrect to call these "adjudications". Saying the await " further adjudications falsely implies that they have already had some kind of judicial review.
  5. The DoD has been acknowledging for some time now that a maximum of 80 captives will ever face charges.
  6. US District Court justice Joyce Hens Green, when reviewing the habeas corpus requests of some Guantanamo captive, grilled some officials over the new definition of "enemy combatant" the Bush Presidency was using. (Paraphrasing)

Mr Official, am I correct that this definition of enemy combatant is so broad even a little old lady, in Switzerland, who donates to what she thinks is a legitimate charity, could be classified as an "enemy combatant" if a portion of her donation was secretly misdirected to a terrorist project.

The official confirmed that this hypothetical little old lady from Switzerland could be classified as an "enemy combatant".

Cheers~ Geo Swan 14:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Cheers! Geo Swan 14:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, not just those points but, it's the only one listed on here that holds detainees from a combat theater and not particular ethnic groups. mcornelius (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess what, the UN disagrees with the USA. Funny how one finds themselves not guilty of stuff all the time, a la "israel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.174.101 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam

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

I'm not sure about all of the above, but I will add brief mention of Vietnam (and also Malaysia) to this list. --Brian Z (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Refugee camps which were in Sri Lanka do not fulfill the criteria for inclusion in this list

The IDP camps which were in Sri Lanka can not be categorized in the same category as the camps this Wikipedia list is intended for, namely Concerntration and Internment camps, two words which are used synonymously with death camps and extermination camps.

These camps were setup by the UN to accomodate and help ca. 300,000 people who escaped the war zone. The socalled relibale sources spread rumours at that time that these were internment/concerntration camps and that the governement intends to keep these people in these camps indefinitely. They further made wild comparisions to notorious concerntration camps and claimed that the UN was not allowed in the camps and that people were starving and many other things, which as subsequent events have amply proven, were all untrue. While they were mass producing rumours and false allegations, the real situation was something quite different - there was an enormous effort being made by the govt and the UN refugee agency to erect enough tents and to look after the traumatized population, with many injured and some having lost their loved ones. Both Sri Lankan and foreign doctors in the camps were treating the injured who needed minor treatments and others were sent to hospitals. Even LTTE cadres found in the camps got the medical treatment they needed.

Even the citations you say are credible, are presenting very thin arguments for calling them internment camps and what they infact describe in the very same articles contradict their own classification. Eg: the citation from the CNN article dated 25th November 2009 calls them internment camps but goes on to describe something quite different where it says that people are moving out in large numbers, and refering to the 180-day resettlement plan. To begin with, as it is quite obvious, internment camps do not have resettlement plans and ongoing active resettlement, while refugee camps do, and thus the speculations by anti-Sri Lankans that these are internment camps and concerntration camps do not have any credibility. The whole IDP situation was an transient and ever changing event. It was only on the 19th of May 2009, the day the war ended, the flow of IDPs stopped, and all the IDP's have been resettled, and the camps closed down.

The process of establishing these camps, how they got filled with IDPs, the norms and plans set for these camps, the difficulties faced in handling such an enormous number of IDPs etc are very well described and documented in UN documents, interviews and press briefings given throughout the whole process, as well as govt documents. The UN has always been actively present in these camps, cordinating help and monitoring the camps. Another thing to note is that the UN time after time said that the UN was in the camps, but that was ignored and these socalled reliable sources kept on saying that the UN is not allowed in. For a relatively short period of time, there were some restrictions on movement, until the screening process was finished and the identities of all the people were established and ID-cards etc were issued. People whose identities were established and had places to go to, like relatives or host families were constantly leaving the camps. The process of identification and screening was completed for all the IDPs in November 2009, but as already pointed out, and as your own citations mention, even prior to this date tens of thousands of people left the camps (ref your own source from CNN dated 25th November 2009 and others, and John Holmes press briefing two days prior to that). The conditions in the camps were not luxurious but quite acceptable given the acute crisis our country was facing and our country being a poor country. Some claim that the most of the IDPs had better facilities than they ever had before. There was a massive effort by the govt with the help of aid organisations, to demine and rebuild the totally destroyed areas so that the IDPs could infact return within the 180 day plan the govt had. By and large they did manage to keep it, for most of the IDPs.

The intention and purpose of establishing these camps were to give shelter and aid and provide a place for the displaced to stay until resettlement. Therefore these camps do not satisfy the criteria for being categorized as internment camps or concerntration camps at all. Moreover they were established by the UN, and managed and run mostly by the UN and other organizations. In the criteria for this list, it says "Certain types of camps are excluded from this list, particularly refugee camps set up to house refugees who have fled across the border from another country in fear of persecution, or have been set up by an international non-governmental organization."

To avoid further lengthening of my post, I will quote one sentence from a UN statement released on 5th December 2009, in connection to the fully opening of the camps, which dismantles all these baseless allegations and outrageous categorizations:

"According to UNHCR teams on the ground, many people left their belongings in the camps, which is an indication that they intend to return".
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/search?page=search&docid=4b1a26619

Why would the people do that if the camps were internment camps? Would the Jewish people who were in Hitler's internment camps done that? Wouldn't they just have run for life?

See also:

1. UN press briefing, on 23rd April 2009, i.e right after the Sri Lankan army broke the sand bund on the beach where the LTTE was holding the civilians hostage, and thousands of civilians (103,000) escaped the war zone. The speculative question about these camps being internment camps were put forward already then, and answered by the UN (the link is to that part of the press briefing).

2. UN press briefing, on 24th April 2009 - UNHCR representative for Sri Lanka explains what is happening in regards to the IDPs and the IDP camps.

3. A full interveiw with the UNHCR representative - in this interview he explains how the camps are run and the troubles and difficulties the UN is facing, especially in regards to the organisation of services and the govt.

4. John Holm's press briefing on 23rd november 2009 - Compare this press statement from John Holmes with the socalled reliable source, namely CNN's article.

There are many documents available at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees's site unhcr.org about the IDP camps and the IDP situation in Sri Lanka. You can go through them and find one document which classifies these camps as Internment Camps. Then we will come back to it, but the outdated and poorly documented sources which are given as sources do not verify that these were internment camps/concerntration camps at all, therefore Sri Lanka should be deleted from the list, without delay. SriSuren (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not that interested in this discussion, I intervened mainly to stop your wholesale deletion of sourced material on both articles I mentioned. It is apparent from your recent edits that you yourself appear to be taking a strongly pro-Sinhalese position on a number of articles. However, a cursory look at former UN spokesman for Sri Lanka Gordon Weiss' 2012 book "The Cage", published by Random House (for example) indicates that these people were indeed interned by the Sri Lankan military. If you consider a specific source that is being used in the article is unreliable, I encourage you to take it and the material it is being used to support to WP:RSN for a wider community view. Alternatively, you may wish to consider posting a WP:RFC to get a community view on whether these camps belong in this list article. If your concerns relate to alleged POV, please take it to WP:NPOVN. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It's nice that while not being interested in this discussion at all and only taking cursory look at an opinion piece you decided indeed that these people were interned. The criteria for inclusion on this list is not that certain groups make a claim for internment. Rather it is the removal of civilians from their civilian homes and putting them in camps against their will, not placing displaced individuals in camps. This criteria is not met and it's not a valid inclusion. SinhaYugaya (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem with these IDP camps being listed here is that, these camps were established by the UN and also none of the sources given conclusively verify that these camps were Internment Camps. What is easily verifiable without going into too much detail is that the camps were established by the UN and not the govt, the criteria for inclusion in this list is thus not there. This much can be settled, without having to go through the cumbersome processes you mention. I think it is the people who want to include these IDP camps in this list that should go through these processes. I have already provided enough documentation from the UN and UNHCR that verifies that these camps were not internment camps but refugee camps. SriSuren (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, no. That is not how it works. You are the one that wants to remove them, and there are sources (that look reliable to me) provided. The onus is on you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
You missed the main point. The criteria to be added to this list is given in the introduction of the article. It clearly states: "Certain types of camps are excluded from this list, particularly refugee camps set up to house refugees who have fled across the border from another country in fear of persecution, or have been set up by an international non-governmental organization." I have provided enough documentation that these camps were set up by the UN to provide shelter for the refugees who fled the war zone, and that itself should be enough not to include these IDP camps in this list, therefore the opinions of indivudal journalists about the IDP camps or the reliability of the sources doesn't really count, in the context of this discussion and the list; they could count on the main article on the IDP camps, and there is a section on terminology used to describe these camps, where these sources are fully acceptable as reliable sources. If u bothered to read my post, u would have found out that these sources are not at all reliable sources to decide such a serious matter as to whether these camps were concerntration and internment camps. I have added a bit more information in the article, until the issue of inclusion in the list is settled. I have also gone through the list a bit, and this entry is the most misplaced and awkward entry in the entire list. SriSuren (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Sri Lankan governments setup the camps and people were forced to stay for months with no right to movement till the screening process was over.The UN did not set it up ,control it or manage it even access to the camps was restricted.Removed the youtube video as it not a reliable source.Gotabhaya (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely, I can't believe that SriSuren is so un-knowledgeable about his own country. These camps were set-up by the Sri Lankan military. International aid agencies (UN, ICRC etc) weren't allowed into the camps initially. When they were allowed in their movements were restricted and monitored by the military. Human rights groups and foreign media were also barred.--obi2canibetalk contr 16:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
They were camps to house displaced refugees after the war. That is what a refugee camp is. Refugees do not have to be guaranteed freedom to leave. SinhaYugaya (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
We do have an article called Refugee camp. ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any law which prevents a refugee camp from also being an internment camp? And could you provide a link to the law which says a government can keep it's own citizens locked up in a "refugee" camp? These camps have been called internment camps by numerous reliable sources: UN, AI, HRW, ICJ AJ, AP, C4,CNN, Guardian, MSNBC, SMH etc. According to your comments here only UN/AI/HRW/ICG could be used to justify inclusion. All four organisations have labelled these camps as internment camps.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Sources are not at issue. The exclusion of refugee camps from this list in the guidelines is what's important. Prisoners of war camps are also excluded and the now closed camps would constitute a mixture of both. (as one of their intents was to root out ex-combatants) SinhaYugaya (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If the sources are not at issue and the sources call them internment camps, then they stay on this list because... they are internment camps, and this is a list of internment camps (and concentration camps). It's pretty straightforward. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. SinhaYugaya, the lead only states that "refugee camps set up to house refugees who have fled across the border from another country" should be excluded. These camps weren't in another country, they were in the refugees' own country. These camps weren't prisoners of war camps because the overwhelming majority of the interred had no links to the LTTE and the government does not consider LTTE combatants to prisoners of war but terrorists.--obi2canibetalk contr 16:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Internment in Canada

I notice the bulk of the first two paragraphs under the sub-section relating to internment of Japanese has much material extraneous to the sub-section which would make excellent introduction to the group of World War II related Canadian sub-sections as a whole as it would put the internments of the various groups into context. I therefore propose to move the extraneous information to immediately after the section heading, while leaving the Japanese related detail in the sub-section. I have also chronologically moved the World War I related subsection to the head of the Canada section.Cloptonson (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Internment in Channel Islands

The figures for deaths of prisoners/slave workers at the four WWII Nazi labour camps on Alderney are not undisputed and at various times have been either exaggerated or understated. I have raised citation needs against the figure of 440 given in this article and 700 in another article (Alderney). The figures are examined extensively in Madeleine Bunting's book The Model Occupation, The Channel Islands under German Rule, 1940-1945 (1995), concluding (page 291, chapter headed 'Justice Done?'): The rough consensus is that between twenty and twenty-five per cent of the OT slave workers and SS prisoners on Alderney died, making a final death toll of between 1000 and 1250 on this one island.Cloptonson (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Internment in England

I notice the lack of a list of the camps in England. I know there was a concentration camp on Newbury Racecourse from Aug-Nov 1914 after which the internees were transferred to the Isle of Man. I suspect there were others.Newburychap (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Why no mention of Tarrafal camp?

Hmmm glaring absence of the Portuguese camp in Cape Verdi, I see. 81.129.127.230 (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarzed

Much to the canadian content seems to be plagiarized from http://www.petawawaheritagevillage.com/history/canadian-internment-camps or perhaps this site plagiarized wiki.Newtonsghost (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not gone through each and every edit but in a quick review of the history much of the Canadian prose was added in 2006 long before the 2011-08 date attributed by your link. ww2censor (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of concentration and internment camps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Israeli 'concentration' centre Kholot

Should Kholot imprisoning centre (https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%9F_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA) be included? The prison camp operates now only at night, and holds thousands of African asylum seekers and refugees without trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.16.235 (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Devil's Punchbowl Hoax

Claim of Union concentration camp has no credible source. Seems cut and paste from Atlanta Blackstar who in turn got it from a paranormal "researcher." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.248.77 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of concentration and internment camps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

checkY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of concentration and internment camps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Takei's description of camps as 'worse' than Japanese internment

I'm not sure if Takei's comments should be included in the article. While many people have made the comparison something along the lines of "even during Japanese internment, families were not separated", this doesn't seem to be true. Personal Justice Denied (produced by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians) showed that family separation did occur to many Americans of Japanese ancestry who were interned ([1]). As Wikipedia prevents synthesis, I suggest we should remove Takei's comments, as they give a misleading generalisation. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with this, even regardless of Bangalamania's point that there appears to be evidence to the contrary of Takei's statement. While Takei does have a bit of additional authority as a person who experienced interment, his opinion on the relative severity of the matter isn't particularly more deserving of inclusion over the many other people who have their own opinions, and have their own reasons why their opinion is particularly noteworthy. Further, given that this is an overarching list article, such details should really be pared down. So at best, interpretation of the situation should be remaindered to the main article, and I question if it is appropriate to include it there either. -Verdatum (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Government officials' defense of border separations

Multiple government officials have made statements defending the border "detention centers" against accusations of being "concentration camps." This include CBP deputy commissioner calling them "very well-appointed"[1] and Attorney General Jeff Sessions claiming that "We're doing the right thing. We're taking care of these children; they are not being abused."[2] How should this article address these claims, if at all? Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 21:50, 19 June 218 (UTC)

Probably add something along the lines of "the administration defended accusations of setting up concentration camps by saying..." and then add the relevant text. Would this work? Also, this is obviously turning into a very controversial article, so I think that a broader discussion on the issue may be needed. Jdcomix (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "'Be More Accurate': Border Official Slams Media for 'Crazy' Border Detention Comparison". Fox News Insider. Retrieved 2018-06-19.
  2. ^ News, A. B. C. (2018-06-19). "Sessions avoids blaming Democrats for detention policy, downplays Nazi parallels". ABC News. Retrieved 2018-06-19. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Relevancy of health violations?

How are the health violations of the Texas detention centers relevant to this article? Wouldn't that be better placed in the article of the detention centers themselves? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is just a list of the camps, it's not supposed to include details that are that specific, those go in the main article. Jdcomix (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree also, I don't think to mention that here, it'll open a can of worms. Missvain (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't sound very NPOV, why don't you want health violations mentioned in an article about concentration camps? No-genius (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Surely the conditions in any camps mentioned in the article are relevant. Several other sections also make specific mention of general conditions and treatment in the camps.

Where is the history

Where is the history of the U.S. detention centers where immigrant minors are held? These are not new. Undocumented minors were being held in them as long as 4 years ago. This part of the entry is so biased it is useless. How long are children being held in them? Days? A couple of weeks? I see a lot of political maneuvering and "so-and-so compared them to..." but I don't see a lot of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C60:6039:F47B:3A84:B6AC:CA24 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, please give us a reference URL from a journal or newspaper detailing the claims (in any language), thanks! Syced (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Try some other wikipedia articles for size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Don_Hutto_Residential_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Isabel_Detention_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_Detention_Facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_%28detention_center%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Texas_Family_Residential_Center 96.40.33.46 (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

None of them really fit the definition of Concentration or Internment. This is a hot topic right now it should wait until heavy bias' have subsided and more information is provided Nativeview (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

China

Under the 'China' section there should be some concentration camps added. Not sure what sources you would need, but Google searches bring up NPR, and various other American sources. The various sources claim the estimates are between 10,000-1,000,000 people being held. The camps are in Xinjiang, the people are Muslims and locals of that land, and they are punished for praying, forced to go to "School" to learn why they should praise the Communist Party, and more. 98.253.63.95 (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, please give us a reference URL from a journal or newspaper detailing the claims (in any language), thanks! Syced (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's a few sources regarding the matter: CNN, Affinity Magazine, Independent, Business Insider, The Guardian, and The Diplomat. Now, as for how solid these sources are, I'm not completely sure, but they seem quite reliable given a cursory review. Cappuccino4242 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
If I may, this also came out just a few hours ago from Foreign Affairs. Quite recent, but certainly can bolster a claim of continuing significance. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Gaza strip

The paragraph on the Gaza Strip is far from meeting Wikipedia's neutral point of view standards, and is actually an embarrassment. 212.25.107.145 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Israel had to shut the border between Gaza and Israel because of the Hamas regime which declared that will destroy Israel. Rkomlosh (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip paragraph is hardly accurate or right. While Gaza is arguably blockaded by Egypt and Israel it doesnt' make it a concentration camp. Under this definition every castle/city that were ever under siege were a concetration camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noam G (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree. The Gaza strip does not fall under the Wikipedia deffintion of a concentration or internment camp. Mberen91 (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This article currently states: "30,000 Palestinians from the Gaza strip receive medical treatment in Israeli hospitals every year." When I translate the provided source, I get, "The following are data on the number of permits granted to Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip in 2013-2015...Total permits to receive medical treatment for residents of the Gaza Strip 6,964 [2013] 7,051 [2014] 7,948 [2015]." I may have missed a detail in the translation of the document. Can someone verify or clarify this? Meteoritekid (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This is garbage editing to include it. Blockades are not supposed to be on this article unless the article is renamed to include blockades and all historic blockades are listed as well. Bohbye (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed the entire section per the above Bohbye (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(Formatting): "Excluded" bold in lede

Reading MOS:NOBOLD, I don't think the word "excluded" should be bold in the lede. Seems to be for emphasis only. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Afghan War and the occupation of Iraq

At the top of the article it says Prisoner-of-war camps are listed in a separate article, yet that is exactly what Gitmo and others included in this section are. Even though prisoners were abused at these camps, they are not concentration camps, by definition.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Several Nazi concentration camps were technically PoW camps as well: the fact is that the two often overlap. Merriam-Webster offers the definition of "a camp where persons (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined" [1]. Wiktionary offers much the same as well[2]. I think the two terms simply overlap rather often.Belsima (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concentration%20camp
  2. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concentration_camp
Well, if that's the definition, you want to go by then the lead has got to be changed and all prisoner of war camps should be added. I don't see why American prisoner of war camps get included here, but other countries have theirs only listed in a separate article.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
No, not all POW camps should be added, but that doesn't exclude some from being added. I don't know whether I personally do not agree with Guantánamo Bay being on here – its status as a concentration camp has been criticised by Pavel Litvinov and others on the article itself – but obviously there are some which should be included on both. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, there has to be some type of criteria for inclusion, I don't see why gitmo is different from others. But if you can come up with some type of objective criteria that would include gitmo and exclude others fine. Of course, that criteria would have to be articulated at the top of the article. The problem is someone arbitrarily added some pow camps, but not others and it contradicts the criteria at the top of the page which excludes all pow camps.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions

So, I can’t add actual facts that got deleted by someone. Please, this went on the news and I’m not letting the news seem fake. If someone is deleting facts and adding fake facts, I’m smart enough the save the actual facts tho, I want wiki to have the best info out there and I don’t want to start a editing war. It all started with these sanctions. I added a copyrighted page, Well my bad, but for someone to delete ACTUAL facts before is absurd. I demand to locked that page and please remove the sanctions, because I’m trying to help. Prime2k (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok ok...I read why you delete it but...remove the sanctions please. Prime2k (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So... Prime2k (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Your additions were biased and you were blatantly edit warring and violating the 1RR. The fact that media picked up on the article is irrelevant, especially when anyone can edit it and add it. You probably won't have a wikipedia account for very much longer if you continue to use wikipedia as your political playplace, I can tell you that. Brenae wafato (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey Prime2k. The issue is that the content has been contested in good faith by multiple editors. Because of that it needs to have consensus in order to be included. When an unstructured discussion like that above fails to get a clear consensus, then the next step is to start a structured discussion by way of a request for comment. If you are unsure how to properly open an RfC, and would like, I can open one on your behalf. GMGtalk 21:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


I’m not using it as a “political playplace”. You’re getting it wrong, I simply added a article to the article that was already there and it didn’t save. Then I was deleted. I didn’t realize WHY you guys deleted it, so I added it again. I’m not biased to any political party. Yes I support a side but I’m not biased. I try to keep my internal thoughts to myself. So I’m assuming that you don’t get my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime2k (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Separation of illegal immigrant children section

Can someone add that Chuck Schumer has rejected Ted Cruz's proposition for a solution? here is the source. --2001:8003:4023:D900:103:8C34:C0B0:1BAC (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This is probably better fit for the main article, this is merely a list of camps and this is a detail about the specific instance here, thus, it should go on the main article. Jdcomix (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The whole section should be removed. It's abhorrent to compare what is happening to a concentration or internment camp. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the section should also be removed. We already have an article regarding Immigration detention and this article does not list any other nation's detention centers as concentration and/or internment camps. Unless this list is expanded to incorporate other nations, their is no reason then to identify only one country's detention policies here. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I could be incorrect, but I believe that which makes these American immigrant detention camps significantly distinct from other similar camps is their systematic separation of children from their parents, resulting in a quite different environment within the camp. There's tossing immigrants in cages, and there's tossing children in cages, and the latter holds a very different appearance to the public, coming across as significantly more abhorrent and vile. Whether or not this is deserved is being debated, but either way, the separation of families it what sets these apart, it seems. Cappuccino4242 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is already a huge discussion about this above in another talk section, why do we need a new talk page section? And there is still no consensus about removing it, so saying "we should remove it" in a new section won't get it removed regardless, having two separate discussions in unproductive Untrustedlife (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Lock/Archive this section, do not simply delete it; I would be fine with that. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 June 2018

Reisntate the FACT that the current Trump adminstration has set up Concentration Camps for undocumented immigrants. I do not know why is has been removed before the page was 'protected' from vandals (probably from Trump Cult). I will grant I am not objective about Trump but the internment camps set up meet the definition of "Concentration Camp". From Merriam Webster; ': a camp where persons (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined'. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concentration%20camp Hyp3rcrav3 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You are an idiot to think that Trump is behind it all. Read the Flores Law. it was put on there by no other than Janet Reno under Bill Clinton. In Short, Democraps are the real racists. --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The lack of maturity and good manners in saying "You are an idiot" almost always says a lot more about the writer than the target. Stop the party political games. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

− As part of the 2018 Trump administration's family separation policy, nearly 2,000 children of families crossing the border from Mexico into the United States have been separated from their parents and placed in detention centers.[1][2] Rolling Stone likened these centers to "prisons" while The Houston Chronicle reported that a movement swelled online to call them "concentration camps."[3][4] Similarly, former First Lady of the United States Laura Bush compared the images of the centers to U.S. Japanese internment camps during the Second World War.[5] 16 out of 34[6] of the centers located in Texas had previously been cited by Texas officials for more than 150 health violations.[7][relevant?]

Please scroll-up to the existing discussion; you will read why it was removed. If you disagree, take part in that discussion. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Again, wikipedia tries to remain apolitical and purely factual. This article is clearly being used as a political pawn and should remain locked until this blows over. 90% of the information in this article is historical and current affairs do not belong here especially if they don't qualify as concentration camps - which the shelters certainly do not. A month or two from now we can talk about adding it in, but right now it's being used to drive more media frenzy (as noted in the top of the talk page, article was cited on several different media outlets as "fact") and the hysteria needs to die down before the facts surface, and then maybe we can find the true apolitical facts and see if there's anything we can add without political bias being so prominent. Brenae wafato (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Touchberry, Ramsey (June 15, 2018). "Almost 45 children a day are being taken from their families and placed in immigrant detention centers: Report". Newsweek.
  2. ^ Kendzior, Sarah (17 June 2018). "The unspeakable cruelty of Trump's child-migrant camps". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 19 June 2018.
  3. ^ Bort, Ryan (14 June 2018). "This Is the Prison-Like Border Facility Holding Migrant Children". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 19 June 2018.
  4. ^ Ramirez, Fernando (June 15, 2018). "Movement to call migrant detention centers 'concentration camps' swells online". The Houston Chronicle.
  5. ^ Bush, Laura (2018-06-17). "Opinion Laura Bush: Separating children from their parents at the border 'breaks my heart'". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-06-19.
  6. ^ "Shelters for immigrant children near capacity in Texas". KHOU. Retrieved 2018-06-19.
  7. ^ Touchberry, Ramsey (June 12, 2018). "Texas immigrant children shelters had 150 health violations in the past year". Newsweek.

Grammar

"...In general, a camp or group of camps is designed to the country ..." Needs fixin' John Mark Wagnon (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done GMGtalk 20:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps/Archive_2&oldid=1049869890"