Talk:Internment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

UnHoly 01:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Anti-West bias?

Is there a reason this article doesn't mention the Nazis, or Stalin, or PRC? —Wahoofive (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it isn't part of Concentration camp is actually a pro-west bias. This is a clear POV fork. I'm proposing a merger.

[edit] Concentration/Internment

You really need to clarify your definition. you say 'concentration camp is any blah blah blah of people for political purpose, forced labor, extermination, ' and then you go on to say "interment is used to refer to american camps for japanese" .... so which is it, american japanese camps are concentration camps or not?

You also need to consider the American slavery/plantation system, which was essentially a massive forced labor system, predominately based on ethnicity, that ended after a Civil War.

[edit] Concentration camp definition in Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed.

This is the definition from the OED, printed in 1989:

7. attrib.: concentration camp, a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45

Note that Konzentrationslager (abbreviated KZ) is a literal translation from the English term. Mackerm 15:26, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

http://www.deathcamps.org/websites/jupeng.htm seems up-to-date (List of German KZ camps for future reference). Mackerm 15:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This definition was removed form text by kwertii, but the info about Lord Kitchener is nowhere else. Must be restored. Mikkalai 15:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Aliens?

Who wrote that alien thing in this definition?:

A concentration camp is a large detention center created for political opponents, aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, often during a war.

I believe it's meant to reflect those that are not citizens of a given area, not extraterrestrials. Pacifiedcitizen 21:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

thats what mr.rice is really is under all that fuking old skin

I hope nobody gets confused and thinks you mean extraterristrial life!

[edit] Proposed Merger of Internment; Proposed Split of Concentration Camp

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)

This page has been seriously bugging me for a long time. I think the ultimate solution is to split it. This page should be about the history of the term "concentration camp", and the split page should be a "list of places described as concentration camps". (And do likewise for "internment"). Mackerm 16:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The term "concentration camp" brings to mind mass murder, which doesn't apply to many of these things. The average reader probably won't take the time to look up the official definition. -Unknownwarrior33 22:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That's really why I suggested it. When I hear "Concentration Camp", I think Nazi KZ camps. I realize that the term has historically meant something closer to "detention center", but I believe that when people claim that usage today, they're probably doing it for shock value. Mackerm 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the general population might think concentration camp = death camp, but that doesn't make that definition correct or NPOV. I totally splitting into two sections, 1) an NPOV definition of Concentration and Internment and 2) a List of Concentration and Internment Camps. A link at the top to Nazi extermination camp would be a good idea, but there were plenty of Nazi concentration camps that weren't death camps. -- TheMightyQuill 10:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger of Internment into this article on Concentration camps. The two terms are not synonomous in the English language. If we haven't made that clear to date then we need to work on it.--A Y Arktos\talk 09:08, 10 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)

The words are not synonymous in that one has bad connotations, and the other does not. But that's a POV definition, not a legitimate one. Someone cite an example of internment that does not concentrate "political opponents, enemy aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people" into "one place, where they can be watched by those who incarcerated them." This article clearly states that internment is just PC newspeak. If concentration camp really only refers to Nazi camps & Soviet gulags, then the historical origin of the word is being rewritten. -- TheMightyQuill 12:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
But what's with dissidents in, say, China? Or with that Russian Chodorowsky millionaire? I think there are enough examples of internment without concentration camps. And what's with Camp X-Ray? Clearly there are people interned there, but I don't think it would be consensual to call it a concentration camp. -- 790 14:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Why would camps for dissidents in Communist Russia be placed in "concentration" camps, but dissidents in China placed in "internment" camps? What's the difference? I don't know which Russian millionaire you're talking about. You could argue that camp x-ray is more like a POW camp, even if they aren't treated as POW's. That's a little tricky, but I would say language surrounding the inmates is uhh... cloudy at best. A better example might be child soldiers, who are not treated as POWs, but I don't think concentration camp (or internment camp for that matter) would accurately describe their detainment centres, since concentration is not the intention, but (hopefully) rehabilitation. -- TheMightyQuill 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In Australia in WW1 we interned German people - that is the verb used and was used at the time - into internment camps. They were enemy aliens at the time, it was a practice not unique to Australia, for example enemy aliens were interned in Canada and the US as well. To use the word concentration camp for the link, even a pipe link and thus equate those camps with Nazi camps would be very very wrong. Dealing with enemy aliens during war time is one thing, imprisoning people because of race or ethnicity (gypsies), sexuality, religion (Jews) is quite another. The words concentration camp and internment camp have different connotations and it is not NPOV to use them synonomously. I don't disagree that we don't need to watch our NPOV, particularly as per the Chinese and Russian example as above. If we merge, I would prefer to merge under the term Internment camp and say all camps are internment camps. Some of those camps are descibed as concentration camps; infamous examples of internment camps to which the term concentration camp has been used to describe are ... .
Meriam-Webster defines internment as a noun associated with the verb intern: to confine or impound especially during a war <intern enemy aliens>. The dictionary's definition for concentration camp is a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined. Enemy aliens are not the same as "prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees".--A Y Arktos\talk 21:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Wait, by your definition, there's a difference between dealing with enemy aliens and imprisoning people because of ethniticy? The wording you are using is so clearly POV: by "dealing" you are avoiding the word imprisoning, and germans are an ethnic group. Canadian Japanese weren't interned based on their support for Japan, but based on their ethnicity. Full stop. Neither were they necessarily "aliens" since full citizens with Japanese heritage could also be interned. Whether it was justified is POV. Please note that not ethnic Iraqis in Australia/Canada/USA were all interned during the gulf wars. Draw your own conclusions.
If you want to merge everyhting under "internment camp" that's fine for me, but seems a little strange since "concentration camp" is obviously a more well known word. I realise you feel there is a difference, but the fact that you are unable to clearly define the difference suggests to me a POV. -- TheMightyQuill 10:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The difference is that enemy aliens are defined by nationality and being at war with that nationality. Ethnicity includes the gypsies, with whom the Third Reich were not at war with but did place in concentration camps - ref Porajmos. If a nation decides to ignore allegiance (eg acquired citizenship) and go back further in time to determine who is and is not an enemy alien, that is presumably either lawful or otherwise. The government is chosing to ignore any naturalization process or even birth in a country to parents not also born in that country, and determining that such people are "a citizen of a country which is in a state of war with the land in which he or she is located." 'Dealing with" may or may not include imprisonment. It may require reporting to a central authority for example. In WW1 and WW2 "dealing with" enemy aliens often involved internment. As User:Themightyquill points out, in more recent times Iraqis have not been interned by countries at war with Iraq, nor I believe were Argentinians interned when Britain was at war in the Falklands. Many things have moved on - some countries no longer have the death penalty either (Australia for example). I am able to distinguish between the two, but if you don't wish to distinguish then the common term is internment camp, concentration camp as a term has a very heavy overlay of meaning and is generally associated with the Nazi regime and other regimes that have been viewed with disfavour (and yes that is POV but the term is POV and read by The man on the Clapham omnibus that way). The term is also a translation from Konzentrationslager, perhaps this article on concentration camps should focus on Konzentrationslager.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:20, 11 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)

[edit] Proposed New Page =

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 essentially agree. At this heading I suggested making the article "concentration camp" a discussion of the term. If kids want to put their after-school detention in a seperate list of concentration camps, it'll do less damage. Mackerm 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objection to merge

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

[edit] Abbr. KZ

BTW: This article is misleadingly. You should find a better way to refer to the Konzentrationslager

The abbrevation KZ is not the 3rd Reichs official abbrevation. Its not entirely known what this abbr. is based on. Konzentrationslager is a combined noun of Konzentration(Concentration) and Lager(Camp). The german officials used KL for abbrevation this manner. Like VL ( Vernichtungslager ) Death Camp and AL ( Arbeitslager ) Labor Camp. But to your excuse, most germans use this false abbrevation too. A rumor based on a book called "Der SS-Staat"(The SS-Regime) from Kogon(:DE), a german anti fashist, explains the herritage as that this abbrivation was chosen by the SS-KZ-Troops because KZ(try your best: Kaw-Sat / Like raw and satellite) sounds much harder and stronger in german then KL(Kaw-El) does.

[edit] Jeff Rense and Prison Planet's website

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

Added a referense to Civilian Inmate Labor Program under the 'See Also' heading.

[edit] Gaza

Documentation for Gaza as a concentration camp. A simple google for gaza concentration turns up-

Assuming that this satisfies the documentation requested, I am reverting the article.

Carbonate 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the addition of gaza has received edits by other authors.

Carbonate 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Factal references needs to be placed in the article, as is done with other WP articles. Please separate WP-acceptable references from assertions by self-interested parties to a dispute. Thanks Hmains 21:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You are referencing metaphors, not documentation. Gaza strip is no more a concentration camp than Jericho is an open prison, as described in one of the editorials you linked to. Do a google search for "Gaza" and "hell" and see how many results you come up with. This does not mean that Gaza actually IS a hell, only that it is often compared to one. Just imagine what would happen if you ever tried to "release" all the "prisoners" from Gaza... for most of the population, Gaza is simply their home, which they would not leave for all the indignities and atrocoties they may suffer there. --woggly 09:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if they were permited to drill water wells and freely trade with the rest of the world it wouldn't be such a bad place. Many prisoners become institutionalized, but that doesn't mean prison is the best place for them. But I'm glad you commented as you were the one who put an administrative lock on the 'list of' article after I attempted to make corrections to the factual errors and satisfy the demands for citation. Carbonate 19:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Carbonate, by all means, this is a complex situation, and one that deserved to be discuss on Gaza Strip or whatever the appropriate page is for discussing the Palestinian situation. The references you cite are good ones, but even with them, I think it's still the case that calling the Gaza Strip a giant internment camp is at the least a very controversial claim. Whatever article mentions that claim, NPOV would require use to have a substantial discussion of the whole controversy-- explaining why some people might liken the situation there to a concentration camp, and explaining why others would disagree with that conclusion. It seems to me that such detailed coverage is probably beyond the scope of Internment and List of concentration and internment camps, but might be appropriate on a page discussing the Gaza Strip / Palestinian situation itself. --Alecmconroy 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
To include the claim we would require citations to reliable and authoritative secondary sources which identify the Gaza Strip specifically as an internment camp. If there are a few named and respected authorities who make this claim, then it could probably be included with attribution. If there is widespread consensus (which I don't think there is) then individual attribution might be unnecessary. As it stands, this represents a novel interpretation, which is forbidden per WP:OR, including by specific reference to novel interpretations of historical facts. Just zis Guy you know? 15:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have already given numerous authoratative sources including but not limited to reporter's accounts on the ground, UN officials, first hand accounts by people with degrees, encarta and lets not forget the quote from a letter written by a pope. These diverse and educated people justify more than just attribution and also satisfy citation requirements under primary, secondary and tertiary sources. This material and much more is available with simple google searches. The fact is, there are many, many people who belive this, like about a million Palistinians; or do their opinions count for less because they are the ones living the nightmare? Carbonate 18:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No you have not. You have given some sources which discuss things like the population density in the Gaza Strip, but your inference that this high poipulation density makes it an internment camp is a novel synthesis, specifically forbidden per WP:NOR with examples given by Jimbo. When your arguments are rejected the solution is not to keep repeating the same rejected arguments, but to bring better arguments. In this case a better argument would be a link to a respected authority who states that the Gaza Strip is an internment camp. A link to a news snippet from Reuters which describes the UN explicitly rejecting Ziegler's claim does not help your case. Ziegler's assertion is mentioned in his article, and unless and until it becomes substantially more mainstream it cannot be added here per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and it certainly cannot be asserted as fact per WP:NOR. You have raised this (prematurely) at WP:RFAR, and I note that two arbitrators have already said exactly the same. Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Alecmconroy, thank you for your acknowledgment of my refernces but... please explain to me what you think NPOV means? The way I read your statement, it means that only the populist point of view is neutral. Why is it that this issue requires an article unto its self but the Japanese Canadian ones do not? Or the Chinese ones? Or the Germans? Why would controversy cloud the facts in any way? Surely if the point of view is to be neutral then only the facts should be considered and not what the consenses of wikipedians think (how many wikipedians are there in gaza to give neutrality to the consensus?). If consensus was required, how does abortion present a NPOV?
If your argument is that much more needs to be said to do the topic justice, by all means please start writing. But have you noticed that just one wee little addition to a sentance is having so much trouble staying in? And the section in list of article keeps disappearing? And how everyone is screaming for "cite your references" and how for some reason only secondary sources are acceptable despite what the very rules that are being quoted say (like a preacher that quotes from a bible he has not read).
I guess the shame of the situation is too much to bear and it is better to hear no evil. The Germans had to face their attrocities when allies won, the Japanese took decades to admit theirs, I wonder how long it will be until this isn't taboo?
Carbonate 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

perhaps woogly could translate this for us? [4] Carbonate 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's about the recent bombing of Kafar Kanna. Kafar Kanna is in the north of Israel Qana. Qana is in south Lebanon, nowhere near the Gaza strip. --woggly 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, what does it say? Carbonate 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It says a lot of things, none of them about Gaza. I don't see the relevance to this discussion, and I don't have the time to spend translating it to prove that it is irrelevant. If you have a point to make, make it. This is an article from Ha'aretz. Ha'aretz has a searchable online English edition which you are welcome to peruse: http://www.haaretz.com/ I tried finding a translation of the article for you but the site requires registration, and I don't feel like registering right now. --woggly 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Try to think of it like this: I could make the case that the Palestinians are Nazis -- and get closer to meeting WP standards doing it. I could come up with good sources (that is, ones that meet WP standards) indicating Palestinians:

  • Hate Jews
  • Yearn for territorial expansion
  • Want to exterminate Jews
  • Are violent towards Jews
  • Engage in fascistic rituals
  • Supported Hitler during WWII
  • Etc.

If it weren't a violation of WP:POINT, I would post this on the Neo-Nazi article and see how many seconds it would take for me to get (rightly) reverted. Does that make it clearer? IronDuke 01:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from elsewhere... IronDuke 02:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the guy who prematurely and inappropriately referred this matter for arbitration (apologies repeated). I've been thinking (and studying) this matter since I butted in on it over a week ago, and I've refined my position somewhat. First of all the (pre-2005) incursions of Israeli settlers into the area to live and work rather belies the assertion that the whole of Gaza is a <pick a type> camp. It's a rare hellhole that is invaded by people who have the freedom to live elsewhere. Now, have <pick a type> camps come to exist in Gaza? I'm quite satisfied that the answer is yes, but the parties who have given rise to this condition are not limited to Israel. Start with Egypt, on which Gaza (also) borders. Before 1967, Gaza was Egyptian territory, and it remains officially outside Israel (yes, Auschwitz was outside Germany, too). Egyptians also deny entry into Egypt to Gazans. Further, the camp-like auspices of the places in Gaza are also nurtured, as they are in other places, by benevolent parties such as the United Nations. There really should be an entry for the UN and other international authorities that have and do either operate or support camps like the numerous Displaced-Persons camps in Europe and Cyprus after World War II. Now the infamous List of XYZ Camps could have an entry for Israel for camps that: (a) are on Israeli (acknowledged) soil; and/or (b) are operated by Israeli authorities, where "operated" encompasses a whole host of acts including logistical support, containment measures, and so on. Offhand, I don't know of any, but I certainly don't deny the possibility of such. But we should take care in applying standards to this so that we don't end up listing Harlem as a XYZ Camp, too.

There are such camps on Lebanese territory, some of which is being reoccupied by Israel as I type. These camps could be properly listed as Lebanese XYZ Camps, although they might as well be listed as UN XYZ Camps, and Israel does have a hand in their creation and maintenance, but doesn't qualify to be the section head of the list entry.

If an entry for "Gaza" were added to the List of Camps, and locations specified therein, I would think that consistent with realities past, if not also present. If an entry for "United Nations" were added and Gaza, Lebanon, and lots of other places listed thereunder, I would also consider that consistent.

Recap:

The whole of Gaza is not a XYZ Camp.

There are XYZ Camps (I'm trying to stay away for the moment from the question of whether they are concentration, labor, or internment camps) in Gaza.

Such Camps as are in Gaza are not properly listed under "Israel," despite acknowledged involvement of Israel in their creation and maintenance. Rather, such Camps should be listed under "Gaza," "United Nations," or both.

--Joe 15:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German "Corporate" users of labor camps

I've edited the sentence reporting this to reflect that labor at Auschwitz and other such places was devoted to the increasingly urgent German war effort rather than to the garnering of profit by private owners of German corporations. I do not deny that German "corporations" set up and operated portions of the labor operations for the production of "their" products, which were then "sold" to the German government in virtually all cases, but to style such operations as "corporate" is to perpetuate the fiction that German corporations were privately owned and operated for the benefit of their owners in the manner that corporations ostensibly are in the United States in 2006.

Corporations during the Nazi period in Germany were taken over by the state in every respect but formal (see Reimann, Guenter, The Vampire Economy, Vanguard Press, New York, 1944). Owners neither controlled their corporation's operations nor received any material profits from such operations, particularly after the beginning of hostilities on September 1, 1939 (a date that predates the operation of any of the labor camps). The production of slave camps may have benefitted the German war effort, and even the consumer economy of Germany, such as it was. It may even have appeared in some fashion on the financial statements of some German corporations. But it did not reflect, nor contribute to, the profit-motivated operations of any group of private owners in any sense. --Joe 16:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need separate section on different camp types

The present article — which appears to have resulted from at least a partial merger — seems to conflate the form of concentration camp that involved execution and the kind that did not. While I don't disagree with their being in the same article — I do understand the euphemism and etymology issues — at present it's hard to disentangle the items referencing the internment camps that focused on segregating "enemy aliens" from the general population but did not seek their death. The mention of Japanese and Japanese-American camps in the United States, for example, occurs in the middle of a section about camps that came to be associated with execution or otherwise deliberately causing death. This has misleading results.

The present article is confusing for those who arrive here from links that referenced "internment" as a concept but were not talking about death camps at all. I think that this could be handled by establishing a separate section for discussion of other particular kinds of camp (the Australian example already given on this talk page would also go in the section). We could even have sub-headings and sections for the largest cases, building from the existing "list of concentration and internment camps," and summarizing, but not repeating, the relevant articles. I don't think that doing this is necessarily supporting euphemistic language, nor saying "it's OK to imprison a whole ethnic group as long as you don't actively kill them," but rather delineating historical groupings. Lawikitejana 07:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is, I believe, already a death camp article. Aside from those, it's pretty hard to clearly differentiate which death camps intentionally sought the death of their inmates and which camps simply let it happen. Proving intent is difficult in a court of law, and particularly difficult in cases of genocide (which is why genocide charges are so rarely made in the Hague). It's very expressly stated that there's a difference between internment camps and extermination camps. If users actually read the article, it's made quite clear. I don't see any problem with the article the way it is, aside from offending some people who think their country is morally superior to the rest of the world. - TheMightyQuill 16:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


I have editted the article by removing the paragraph about "concentration camps" from the Section "camps" to the section "concentration camps" I have added some examples of typical "internment camps" hoping this will clarify the issue. Syrenab 19:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, concentration camps meet the primary definition of internment camps (bascially, they intern people) so they ARE internment camps, and belong as a subsection. In other words, not all internment camps are concentration camps (well, actually they are since they all concentrate people, but they aren't all concentration camps according to the contemporary meaning of the term), but all concentration camps are interment camps. Your information about the Geneva convention is great, however. -- TheMightyQuill 08:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think that "concentration camps" belong asa subsection, why do you object (and removed) examples of camps which are "internment camps" in the strict meaning of the term, without the derogatory character of concentration camps as they are widely understood today. Even in Nazi Germany not all internment camps were straflager, which is what the KZ were.

BTW, if you think I am trying to whitewash Nazi Germany, I am not - because I am an ex-POW myself. I just want to get the facts straight. Isn't that the purpose of an encyclopedia?

Syrenab 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, the examples you gave ARE internment camps by the "strict meaning of the word", but so are concentration camps. Nazi concentration camps could be included in the same list. I don't think your intentions are deceitful, in fact, I sympathise with what you're trying to do, but once we start adding examples, EVERYONE will want to add theirs. That's why the concentration camp and internment camp articles were merged, and a separate list was created... it was taking over the page. Maybe we should have a direct link to the list within the article? -- TheMightyQuill 02:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I go aalong with that. But then, as pointed out by the unsigned contibutor in the next section, the details in paragraphs about the Boer War concentration camps are also out of place and should be reoved to the "List...".

I would also like to clean up the "Germany" section in that list, but it is blocked. Are you an Administrator? If so maybe you can use your influence. Syrenab 00:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Concentration Camp

The article (as of 31/10/2006) says The amenities in the British camps in South Africa were clearly planned to kill as many of the women and children as possible. They were accommodated in tattered reject tents which offered no protection against the elements. According to a British journalist, WT Stead, the concentration camps were nothing more than a cruel torture machine. He writes: "Every one of these children who died as a result of the halving of their rations, thereby exerting pressure onto their family still on the battle-field, was purposefully murdered. The system of half rations stands exposed and stark and unshamefully as a cold-blooded deed of state policy employed with the purpose of ensuring the surrender of people whom we were not able to defeat on the battlefield. I'd be interested in a source it makes for this claim. The Boer War by Thomas Pakenham says that Kitchener didn't actually hope to kill Boer women and children, he just didn't care. I propose this section state both views (if it can cite sources) or should be ammended.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternment_57f8.html"