Talk:Concentration camp

removing Gitmo image...
i'm sorry, but the Gitmo image doesn't belong here--an article about human rights abuses, on torture, on political prisoners yes, but a concentration camp is a specific phenomenon with specific characteristics--often (but not always) tied to eliminationist policies like in the case of the Holocaust, and generally meant to incarcerate large portions of specific populations for the sole reason that they belong to those populations (the Boers, interned Japanese..). gitmo is an abomination in many ways, but it is not by any definition a concentration camp. PFoster 16:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It's a deal breaker for me. If it goes, I go.   Teresita   16:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Wow, I hope you're kidding. No debate? No effort to convince me I'm wrong? not the way things tend to happen around here. PFoster 17:01, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * At this time I will resign my bureaucrat creds and sysop creds and become a normal editor. If the image is removed, I will blank my User Page, munge my own password so I couldn't log in again if I tried, and depart.    Teresita   17:04, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Alright. If you're not even willing to debate, then, I guess that resolves it. Sorry to see you take this position. PFoster 17:06, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

There is no need for such dramatic gestures. Surely a reasonable compromise would be a short paragraph outlining why, in some people's opinions, Guantanamo Bay arguably constitues a concentration camp, while not quite fitting the full usual definition. Then the picture could be reinstated with an appropriately modified caption, stating something like "Guantanamo Bay is regarded by some as America's concentration camp".  w easeLOId ~ 17:08, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Look, if someone wants to make that argument, and make it well, as opposed to taking their bat and ball and going home, I'm open to having that argument. PFoster 17:10, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Looking at this from an objective stance, I want to state this: Gitmo, while not exactly a concentration camp, is a violation of human rights, but has yet to be officially defined as a concntration camp. I honestly believe that, while Gitmo is illegal, I do think this disputed image would fit better on a particular article about Gitmo, not just a "concentration camp". Honestly (roll over Godwin) I believe a picture of a Nazi concentration camp would fit the best. With the Nazis out of the way, lets just leave it at that. 3 edit conflicts!! >_<
 * True to my word I will now execute the response I outlined above. I'm out of here.   Teresita   17:11, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I personally do not think that Gitmo can be considered a concentration camp in the strictest sense of the word. There are plently of criticism you can direct at Gitmo but I dont think Concentration Camp is one of them. Ace McWickedcast ye the first stone 17:13, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * (Damned edit conflict meant that everything I was going to say already got said) Adding a debate section about whether Gitmo is a concentration camp would be fine, but the image is a little out of context without some kind of mention in the article text. And that's true whether it IS or ISN'T a concentration camp (which can only be confirmed by what history judges it as at a later date, remember if the Nazi's won WWII we certainly wouldn't be calling Auschwitz a concentration camp)  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 17:18, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You're right. A picture of Auschwitz or similar would be more appropraiate for this article. I tried putting the Gitmo image in the Guantanamo Bay article instead, but Teresita's already deleted it. :-/  w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 17:30, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * One point Armond--we have a working definition of the term, and we have a fair amount of independant appraisals of conditions there by experts such as the ICRCas well as more second-hand appraisals by any number of experts via HRW, Amnesty, and a host of other analysts and advocates. We are in a position to see if, given all that, it is reasonable to use the term in relation to Gitmo. And it seems to me, after looking at a lot of the research in question, that it is not--more importantly in terms of what a wiki is all about, nobody here has made the argument from evidence that it is. I wish somebody would try, so we can move forward on this. PFoster 17:27, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * What about this one? or this one?
 * I would say it should be a picture which indicates the shocking conditions of concentration camps, like this. If showing the victims is a bit too shocking, maybe one like this, showing just the building interior but giving the same impression.  w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 17:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I basically agree with PFoster. Allowing definitions to slide because of political hyperbole is a dangerous thing. To Teresita: Outright demanding that an article reflect a certain point of view without even being willing to argue for it is not how we do things here. If that's not acceptable, too bad. -- 17:46, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Wow, did someone take their ball and go home because they were wrong? Gitmo isn't a concentration camp, end of story.  It's a montrosity, and a complete abuse of human rights and due process, but it's not a concentration camp.  Pissy, much?  ħ uman  23:52, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Jesus Christ, the whole thing was a joke. Really dry sarcasm with a visual cue.  The reaction to it wasn't funny, and this right here isn't appreciated either.    Teresita   00:21, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, then we'll both have to get over ourselves then, won't we?  ħ uman  01:11, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Revision by Human
The use of the US government of Japanese internment camps is the reasoning used by Alex Jones that FEMA camps exist, in one of his typical word salad rants that included Jews being put into the camps, with him concluding by saying, "The Jews of the future will be the Christians! Wake up!" I heard it on a recording from 1997, and I don't know how to find the source now.

Anonymous
While the centers used by the Trump administration for temporary family separation are morally and legally questionable, I find that claiming them to be concentration camps cheapens the gravity of the concept. Those centers are resorts compared to any real concentration camp.
 * Yes, those camps that forcibly sterilise women, lock children in cages, forcibly separate families, where people are held in extremely unhygienic conditions, locked in solitary despite their mental illnesses for up to a year, denied adequate medical care, and frequently are underfed (or fed rotting food)? Those definitely aren’t anything like concentration camps at alllll. Look I don’t wanna sound rude here because I’m sure you’re a decent person in real life. But, either you don’t know what happens in the camps (in which case, stop talking about them Christ almighty), or you believe the US’s propaganda about them (in which case, uh, maybe don’t take a government at their word when they have every reason to lie), or you know what these camps do and don’t think it’s any worse than “morally legally questionable” (it’s not actually questionable — it is pretty close to objectively wrong unless you somehow think these people deserve this kind of shit). I don’t mean to imply that you’re a dumbass or think the camps are good or whatever, but you seem to have some pretty huge misconceptions about the ICE camps and/or the meaning of concentration camps. 49.182.35.71 (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussing modern western concentration camps
Apart from a brief mention, the ICE camps get no mention. Likewise, nothing is said about Australia’s refugee/asylum seeker concentration camps (and arguably, some of the detention centres used for Aboriginal people, especially younger people). I can’t write but I think the article should discuss these.
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. --Annanoon (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The article could definitely be improved a lot: divide into sections for definition; history; modern camps; controversial/dubious cases; myths (FEMA camps, etc). --Annanoon (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Definition
The article says that "A concentration camp is like a jail, only without the hygienic conditions and concern for prisoners' basic human rights." I dunno, but this sounds a lot like many modern jails, and we don't call them concentration camps. Maybe we should change the definition a bit. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless you're a prison abolitionist or prison reformist, in which case the comparison is more than apt. VeeMeow? 21:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)