Talk:Death camp

Lir, do you want some help fixing the redirects? I think you want the extermination camp to bring up the death camp article, right? --Uncle Ed 16:23, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

right Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * You've made a good start. We can work together, if you need help revising other articles which reference the newly placed death camp article.


 * BTW, I've personally heard "Concentration Camps" used as euphemism for death camp, especially in regards to the Nazi death camps like Auschwithz -- you know, the place where they used Zyklon B to murder Jews. --Uncle Ed 16:27, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A concentration camp refers to any general camp used to concentrate individuals; whereas, in a death camp they are not only concentrated, but killed. Lirath Q. Pynnor

from Wikipedia:protected page
Extermination camp unprotected by ? ; Death camp unprotected by Infrogmation 20:57, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC) Note: these are duplicate articles due to the Wik/Lir edit war, and need to be merged.


 * death camp edit war between wik and lir. Please see talk:extermination camp theresa knott 17:40, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * extermination camp - protected at Lir's request, "move war" with Wik.
 * This was not protected at my request, this was protected against my request. I requested that a different version be protected, one that is aligned with the wiki naming conventions on most common usage. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Lir the purpose of protecting a page is to stop the edit war, not to let you 'win' it. Put you arguments for why the page should be moved onto the talk page.That way you get your say, we have a chance to talk about it, and wikipedia benefits. theresa knott 17:09, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * While Ed's purpose may have been to end the edit war; my purpose for protection was (naturally) to have it protected in favour of my edit. [LOL! --Uncle Ed] Ed's comment that it was "protected at my request" is misleading; since, if anything, it is protected at Wik's request. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * That is not the purpose of protecting pages; it is to stop vandalism (which neither version was) or to stop edit wars (which both you and Wik were actively participating in). The edit war is a bigger problem than the question of which title is more appropriate for the article, please try to understand that. -- Infrogmation 17:37, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Death camp is used, on google, with a frequency of 6:1 over extermination camp. My edit is in compliance with the naming convention on most common usage. Wik's edit comment that "death camp" is a colloqualism shows that he is not familiar with the general structure of the Wiki; since, User:Jimbo Wales has been clear that colloquialisms, if most common, are to serve as article names. Lirath Q. Pynnor

from talk:Extermination camp
(originally)

protected at Lir's request, "move war" with Wik. Hey, I thought we were going to discuss this first? --Uncle Ed 16:50, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This was not protected at my request, it was protected against my request. I was trying to move this page, it has been protected here. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, Wik, KNOCK IT OFF, YOU TWO! This type of behavior is a credit to neither of you. Please find something usefull to do away from each other. -- Infrogmation 16:58, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Death camp is used, on google, with a frequency of 6:1 over extermination camp. My edit is in compliance with the naming convention on most common usage. Wik's edit comment that "death camp" is a colloqualism shows that he is not familiar with the general structure of the Wiki; since, User:Jimbo Wales has been clear that colloquialisms, if most common, are to serve as article names. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * Where has he been clear? theresa knott 17:18, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * He has been clear to me in private correspondence. You are free to contact him and verify this. The naming convention is here: Naming_conventions_(common_names) Lirath Q. Pynnor

Ok I'm pretty convinced. I've done a quick check on google - nazi "death camp"- gets 20,000 - nazi "extermination camp" - gets 4,500. I've bookmarked this page.I'll unprotect the page and move it on Monday unless there are objections.theresa knott 17:37, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * By the same logic we might move "United Kingdom" to "Britain". Quick check on Google - blair "britain" gets 1,150,000 - blair "united kingdom" gets 209,000. --Wik 18:27, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
 * Nope, the naming convention clearly states that in such cases where UK and Britain refer to substantially different concepts; that other policies apply. That is not the case, on this page. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Specifically, our policy on precision - see naming conventions (precision). Martin 22:42, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * It is exactly the case. Death camp is as imprecise as it gets, it does not refer specifically to those Nazi camps, which are called extermination camps (Vernichtungslager). --Wik 23:09, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, our policy on precision does suggest precision where necessary to disambiguate from some other meaning. Perhaps, Wik, you could list some death camps that were not extermination camps? Martin 23:20, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * It can be used for anything, see for example . It is a term that belongs in a dictionary at best, for any camp where people are killed. --Wik 23:28, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

I don't like either name: they both give me the creeps. But what I dislike even more is a "fight to the death" over camps where innocent people were slaughtered like sheep. So let's leave it alone for a couple days... --Uncle Ed 18:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Are you guys really arguing over whether Death camp should redirect to Extermination camp or vica versa? DJ Clayworth 21:04, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Why?? DJ Clayworth 21:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * We have a wikipedia naming convention which states that, when naming an article, in any situation where one name is significantly more common than another, we should use the most common name. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Doesn't seem to make much difference to me. DJ Clayworth 22:15, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm no longer one of "you guys" - I can't even think about this without getting a lump in my stomach, etc. I hereby withdraw from the discussion. --Uncle Ed

Lir's introduction

 * Death camps (also known as extermination camps or death factories; de: Vernichtungslager) were a kind of concentration camp used up by Nazi Germany, during World War II, for the killing of Jews (and other groups) which were considered undesirable by the ruling government. This was part of the Holocaust; the systematic murder of all Jews was termed the "final solution" (Endl&ouml;sung) in Germany.

The above was written by Lir when he moved the article. It is a slight rewriting of the introduction. Preserving here as Lir is unable to access deleted pages. Martin 22:55, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Further discussion
I protected the page, because it got moved again somehow - not naming any names, and I'm signing off for the weekend. Let me know if I'm still a sysop on Monday :-( --Uncle Ed 22:46, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I deleted and moved primarily to fix the page history, which Lir's prior move lost. I see Wik has already moved the page back to extermination camp. I don't intend to engage in a move war, so I will merely note that Wik is so far alone in preferring that title. Martin 22:47, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Except for the person who created the article almost two years ago and all who edited it since without thinking it's in the wrong place. --Wik 23:09, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * No, there's no indication they even considered the issue, particularly - in all likelihood the creator picked the one that came into his head first, and everyone else followed that lead. Even typos can survive two years. Martin 23:15, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Re death-extermination-concentration, my two cents is that "extermination" describes the reason for a camp but death describes a consequence. Concentration camps in the US during World War 11 were exactly that, concentration camps (Manzanar etc). Their purpose was to incarcerate Japanese Americans (and others), not to exterminate them. Some people died in them, so they were death camps, unintentionally. They were not extermination camps. That's ok, I've got a thick hide. Moriori 23:56, Nov 21, 2003

I've created a stub at death camp to provide disambigiation. It needs work but I hope it is a reasonable solution. theresa knott 09:46, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

execution facilities
From stubby article:


 * Other places described as death camps include prison facilities that have execution chambers, for example Guantanamo Bay.

This text needs repair, because it implies that the US is planning to (or is likely to) execute the prisoners it's holding at Guantanomo Bay.

Also, I thought nearly every prison has execution chambers. This "description" blurs the distinction between regular prisons and the special kind of concentration camp specifically meant for killing large numbers of people. --Uncle Ed 14:56, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The US is planning to execute some of the G-Bay prisoners, if they are found guilty by a military tribunal and sentenced to death. I'm pretty sure that most prisons don't have execution chambers, except in countries that haven't outlawed the death penalty. Martin

Lir is Clear
Lir, please stop with the cut-and-paste edit war - it's not helping matters. Wik's provided some arguments against your choice of article title - please respond to them before reverting. Martin 20:12, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I have not seen Wik make any argument, perhaps you could explain his argument for me.
 * I have referred you to the wiki convention on naming regarding objects which have a comman name (death camp) which is more common than the technical name (vernichtungslager); why don't you respond to my argument, instead of telling me to respond to Wiks?
 * All I have seen Wik do is state that some people refer to various American concentration camps, as death camps. That is not an argument, its a statement. Yes, death camp is the common word which people use to deride camps that they wish to compare with the death camps. Death camp is used on google with a frequency of 6:1.
 * Lirath Q. Pynnor

I've reverted to martin's last edit. Wik and lir,please Discuss this page here and stop the edit war on the article itself! theresa knott 22:04, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wik won't discuss. The naming convention is clear. Lirath Q. Pynnor

That's not true because he has discussed it here on this very page. theresa knott 22:09, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What did he say, I didn't see him discuss anything. I saw him make a few brief comments which had no bearing on the fact that the naming convention clearly states that we are to use the most common name, that name being "death camp". In any case, any comments he made were intended for another user, not for me. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Here is what Wik said above,


 * [death camp] is exactly the case [as naming conventions (precision).] Death camp is as imprecise as it gets, it does not refer specifically to those Nazi camps, which are called extermination camps (Vernichtungslager). [... The term death camp] can be used for anything, see for example . It is a term that belongs in a dictionary at best, for any camp where people are killed. --Wik

I think those comments deserve some sort of constructive response. Martin 18:31, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I have responded to that statement. The article is clearly comparing something which is not a death camp (ie, it speculates that they will turn it into a death camp) with the Nazi death camps. This article makes it clear that death camp is the common usage. As you know, the literal translation does not qualify according to the naming conventions on common usage and foreign languages. Furthermore, while I agree that "extermination" is commonly used in this case, Vernichtung does translate to a number of other words. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The speculation appears to be that Guantanemo Bay will become a "death camp", not that it will become an "extermination camp". See Google results previously quoted:


 * google:"Guantanamo Bay" "death camp" - 982 hits
 * google:"Guantanamo Bay" "extermination camp" - 13 hits
 * google:"Guantanamo Bay" "concentration camp" - 1230 hits

This is because while the prisoners at Guantanemo Bay may be killed in the future, they are not going to be killed as part of a campaign of extermination. This provided evidence that the term death camp has a wider meaning than extermination camp. Martin 18:52, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * There is no difference between an extermination camp and a death camp. There is no "wider meaning". A death camp, or an extermination camp, is a facility in which genocide is intended. Those who refer to Guantanamo Bay as a "death camp", are not implying that it isn't an extermination camp...they are just using the far more common term. Lirath Q. Pynnor

"death camp" is only six times more common than "extermination camp", but when referring to Guantanemo Bay this ration becomes 60 times. Those who are referring to Guantanemo Bay as a potential "death camp" are not making accusations of genocide, just killing - use google, read the articles, and see for yourself. Also, note the dictionary definition - "likely to die" can happen (and does happen) where genocide is not the purpose of the faciity. Martin 23:55, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of people who think that the US is waging a genocide against Islamic people, those are the same people who think Guantanamao is a death camp. Lirath Q. Pynnor

There are indeed some people who think that the US is committing genocide. Some people calling Guantanemo Bay a future "death camp" are among them. Others call Guantanemo Bay a future "death camp", and do not think thae US is committing, or planning to commit, genocide. Hence, ambiguous. Martin 18:38, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Some people think Guantanamo is a death camp, others don't. We both know Guantanamo is not a "death camp"; but for the sake of argument we can pretend that its "ambiguous" whether or not Guantanamo is a death camp. However, what does that have to do with this article? Whether or not we should list Guantanamo as a death camp, does not change the fact that we should use the term "death camp" according to the naming convention on common usage. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, that's not my argument at all. I am not saying that it is "ambiguous" whether Guantanemo is a death camp. Guantanemo is not currently a death camp. However, there are reports of plans to build a capital punishment facility there, and to bring prisoners to trial and then execute them. If these plans occur in practice, then a significant group of people will consider Guantanemo to be an example of a place that is a "death camp", but not an "extermination camp".

In order to show that "death camp" does not have the same meaning as "extermination camp", it suffices to show examples of camps which are described as the one, but not the other. There are various examples here:


 * Guantanemo Bay, if plans to extend it with a capital punishment facility are carried out.
 * Certain refugee camps, such as the one at Jalozai in Palestine.
 * All of the Nazi camps that are listed under concentration camp, but not under extermination camp.
 * The concentration camps of the Boer war are called death camps, but were not extermination camps
 * The gulags were slave labour camps, and often called death camps, but they were not extermination camps.

Martin 19:07, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And my point is that those same people would consider Guantanamo to be an extermination camp, if they had ever heard of the word. Death camp is the common word, they are using "death camp" as a deragatory term to compare the United States to Nazi Germany. I have provided you with, from the same source you used to argue against me, which shows that they are using "death camp" in reference to the Third Reich. In addition, refugee camps are sometimes called "death camps" with the notion that the oppressive government's are using them to concentrate people, and then starve them to death; a reference to Nazi Germany. The Boer Camps, if I remember correctly, were partially the inspiration for Hitler's Holocaust; along with the US Death Camps which contained Native Americans. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * I don't argue that the terms "death camp" and "extermination camp" and "concentration camp" aren't linked, or that they don't all carry resonances of Nazi Germany. I merely argue that the term "death camp" is ambiguous. Martin


 * Furthermore, this link: which you use to allege that the Boers were in "death camps" -- this article refers to them as concentration camps...never ever does it say "death camp". The description "death camp" was added by a commenter, commenting on the article. "Gee, those Boer camps sure sound like Nazi Death camps!"  Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * It's all one article, published in a newspaper. Paul Harris would have written it, and a sub-editor will have sub-edited it. Martin 19:30, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Edit War
I'm protecting this page. Wik, please stop reverting.

From now on, everyone propose your changes in "talk", and when a consensus is reached -- or even a fairly good idea emerges -- a sysop will make the change. --Uncle Ed 22:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No one said anything since yesterday, except to repeat the fact that they disagree with the status quo. What I'm looking for is the reason they disagree (or agree).

Please summarize your arguments below, or both pages stay protected (which is extra work for sysops). Note that I don't care in the slightest whether the article ends up at death or extermination. --Uncle Ed 16:48, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Article Naming Suggestions
Don't "vote", of course. Just explain your reasoning, and do so in the proper space.

Death camp


 * arguments for:
 * More commonly used in total: 6x google hits, incoming links, etc. This is important because of naming conventions (common usage)
 * A Yahoo! search for "death camp" Nazi gets 5 times more websites than a search for "extermination camp" Nazi; without the Nazi qualifier, there are 6 times more death camp websites.
 * Arguably precise, as this is the most commonly used term to describe such facilities. Any other term would be unduly confusing (as such terms are not as common, and thus not easily recognizable) and, thus, imprecise. The naming convention is clear that common names should be used where they are not ambiguous.
 * Proposals to execute people at Guantanamo Bay have been considered plans to turn it into a "death camp"; this reference to the Nazi death camps, shows the common usage of the term.
 * (search google, judge for yourself if these articles are making reference to the Nazi death camps)
 * Note dictionary.com definition: A concentration camp in which those held captive are likely to die or be killed - likely to die describes exactly the sort of fate which awaits those in a death camp.
 * Response: It is also the fate of those in concentration camps which are not extermination camps.
 * arguments against:
 * Not a literal translation of the german name.
 * Ambiguous: See this version. In particular:
 * Some refugee camps have been called "death camps"
 * Slave labour camps have been called "death camps"
 * Proposals to execute people at Guantanemo Bay have been considered plans to turn it into a "death camp"
 * Buchenwald is often considered a death camp, however it was not an extermination camp, but rather a concentration camp.
 * Note dictionary.com definition: A concentration camp in which those held captive are likely to die or be killed - "be killed" is extermination camps and capital punishment, "likely to die" is concentration camps, slave labour camps, and refugee camps.

Extermination camp


 * arguments for:
 * Unambiguous. This is important because of disambiguation
 * Arguably precise. This is important because of naming conventions (precision)
 * A literal translation of the the german name.
 * arguments against:
 * Less commonly used than death camp
 * A Yahoo! search for "death camp" Nazi gets 5 times more websites than a search for "extermination camp" Nazi; without the Nazi qualifier, there are 6 times more death camp websites.
 * Arguably imprecise. This indicates a degree of precision which does not exist. There is no difference between a "death camp" and an "extermination camp" -- they are two words for the same thing.
 * Note dictionary.com definition: "extermination camp" not found; as it is less common

Further discussion
I cannot believe you guys are still arguing about this. Nobody else cares. Pick one and get on with it! DJ Clayworth 18:53, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't care, I doubt that ed or martin particulaly care either, but I do care about unprotecting the page. If we don't come to some sort of consensus wik and lir will almost certaily go back to their revert war. If we can come up with some sort of community decision it just migh encourage them to stop.theresa knott 19:46, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you don't care, why don't you just accept the naming convention? Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Which naming convention, naming conventions (precision) or naming conventions (common usage)?I'm happy to accept either version of the page. I want a solid consensus, behind one version so that the page can be unprotected. That way if anyone reverts we can deal with it. theresa knott 23:14, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"death camp" is aligned with both conventions. This is both the most precise and the most common name. There is no meaning of "death camp" which does either apply directly to the Nazi death camps, or applies to some concentration camp which is being compared to the Nazi death camps. "Extermination camp" is in no way "more precise". Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * contains no comparisons to Nazi extermination camps. Ditto . Note that neither of these publications are accusing the US of genocide. Now, some people using the term are making Nazi comparisons. And some are not. This is because the term is ambiguous. Martin 00:00, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. The term "death camp" is implicitly associated with the Nazi death camps; any attempt to call something a "death camp" is to imply that said camp is akin to a Nazi death camp; those articles are not saying, "Guantanamo, unlike the Nazi extermination camps, is a death camp." Lirath Q. Pynnor

As you can see, the same website which refers to Guantanamo as a death camp, also argues that the US is equivalent to Nazi Germany. "you become fed up with the brutalities of the modern-day Gestapo committing legalized genocide" Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * That link is to a different article, written by a different person. Martin 19:16, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * That link is from the same website, they are related and similar in viewpoint. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Which of these are death camps?
OK, let's try a different tack. Quick quiz for you Lir: which of the following do you consider to be death camps? Taken from Auschwitz concentration camp.


 * Auschwitz I
 * Auschwitz II
 * Auschwitz III

Is your position that all these were death camps? Or is your position that only Auschwitz II was a death camp? Or something else? Martin 19:23, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Auschwitz II was a death camp (at which people were killed), Auschwitz I was a concentration camp (at which people were killed), Auschwitz III was a slave labour camp (at which people were killed). Commonly, one might describe all three as death camps -- however, in technical purpose, only II was. All three were concentration camps. Lirath Q. Pynnor

So, Lir, let me see if I have your position correctly:
 * In common usage, some people would refer to Auschwitz I, II, and III as "death camps".
 * In technical usage, only Auschwitz II was a death camp.

Is that your position? Martin 19:32, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, in common usage; some people refer to all concentration camps as death camps (some actually abuse the term to the point of referring to all prisons as death camps); that is why this page should mention concentration camps. Technically, a death camp is a concentration camp specifically used to kill large numbers of people; such concentration camps are commonly known as "death camps"; the term "extermination camps" is sometimes used, but is not common. Lirath Q. Pynnor

OK, now I think we're getting somewhere - I fear we've been largely talking at cross purposes elsewhere on this page. :-( Let's see where we can go from here, shall we? :-) Now, I am happy to acknowledge that "death camp" is a more common term than "extermination camp", by a factor of around 6:1. So that is not in dispute. So I think my next question would be, of Auschwitz I, II, and III, which do you consider to be an "extermation camp"? Just Auschwitz II? Or all three? Martin


 * I do not consider any to be extermination camps; that word is not an active part of my vocabulary. I would agree that Auschwitz II was a Vernichtungslager; which does translate to "extermination camp"; however, I see no reason to have a seperate article solely on the Vernichtungslagern; unless we begin to accumulate detailed information on the Holocaust and the technical details of the genocide. The term "death camp" seems to apply quite well, it is commonly used to refer to the Vernichtungslagern; and every other usage of "death camp" can be easily directed off to a more appropriate page (such as concentration camp); since, the actual Nazi death camps really do seem to have been quite unique. It still seems to me, that the term "death camp" was coined in reference to the Vernichtungslagern; thus, any other usage is a reference back to World War II; certainly, the vast-majority of Google hits refer to the Nazis.


 * I would probably agree that death camp has a limited usage beyond that of the Vernichtungslagern; whereas, "extermination camp" applies only to the Vernichtungslagern; however, the fact that the term "death camp" is occasionally used to refer to "quasi-death camps" is hardly reason to not use the very common term, Lirath Q. Pynnor

So, given these comments, and the current naming conventions and disambiguation guidelines, read as a whole, we could either have:


 * 1) A disambiguation page at death camp, and an article at extermination camp
 * 2) An article at death camp, a redirect there from extermination camp, and a disambiguation header on death camp pointing to death camp (disambiguation)

Would this seem a fair assessment to you? Martin


 * We should have an article at death camp, a redirect from extermination camp; and a brief paragraph explaining that death camp is sometimes used to describe various prisons and concentration camps as a means of deriding them; this has been applied, by so groups, to any prison which practices capital punishment. We do not need a full disambiguation page, there isnt that much to disambiguate. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Let me rephrase what I wrote then: the two options are:


 * 1) A disambiguation page at death camp, and an article at extermination camp
 * 2) An article at death camp, a redirect there from extermination camp, and a disambiguation header on death camp that points to concentration camp

Is that a fair assesment? Martin 18:14, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Death camp doesn't need a disambiguation header; it can merely state that a death camp is a type of concentration camp, and the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * That is a disambiguation header isn't it ? theresa knott


 * Hmm: you agree that "death camp" has a limited usage beyond that of the Vernichtungslagern (as you state above). My reading of disambiguation is that we should have a formal disambiguation header in such a case. What makes you prefer a non-formal disambiguation header - IE, merely a link to concentration camp within the body of the article? Martin 19:24, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The use of a formal header is not particularly necessary, since the first sentence, or two, can easily explain that the terms are related; but not identical. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * My concern is that that could cause people to be vague about what the article is about, whereas we want to be clear that this article is about Vernichtungslagern, rather than normal concentration camps or slave labour camps, etc. That's why I feel that (at minimum) an explicit header would be appropriate. Martin 21:31, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * A death camp (extermination camp or death factory) is a concentration camp which has been deliberately set up in order to kill those imprisoned there; such camps are not intended as punishment for criminal actions, rather, they are intended to facilitate genocide. The most famous death camps are the Nazi Vernichtungslagern, used during World War II. The term is sometimes used to describe concentration camps which opponents wish to deride, such as the Guantanamo Bay military prison. The term has also been applied to refugee camps, which have suffered a relatively high mortality rate.
 * Isnt 't that clear? Lirath Q. Pynnor

That's an option, but I think it would be better as:


 * This article is about concentration camps created to commit genocide, not about concentration camps in general.


 * A death camp (extermination camp or death factory) is a concentration camp which has been deliberately set up in order to commit genocide. The most famous death camps are the Nazi Vernichtungslagern, used during World War II. (para ends here)

To my mind, this has the advantage firstly of brevity, and secondly of focusing on the thing, not the word used for the thing (the latter being more suited to wiktionary). So, while I don't think your approach is wrong, I think an explicit disambiguation header would be a better solution. Martin 23:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about simply:
 * One might be looking for the article about concentration camps.
 * Lirath Q. Pynnor

Sounds prissy. I like martin's version above. theresa knott 15:47, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I think if you are going to have a special disambiguation sentence; which repeats what is already in the first paragraph -- then you should at least condense it down to one line. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Well, that's rather my point - I don't want a disambiguation sentence that repeats stuff in the first paragraph, but one that replaces stuff in the first paragraph. So the first para can be a strong, solid statement about what the article is about - a much better way of starting the article, in my opinion. Martin 18:39, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wik comments
(from protected page) This is blatantly pointless duplication of material that's already on extermination camp. --Wik 02:29, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * How nice of you to join the discussion Wik, even if initially in the wrong place. Clearly there is duplication, but there are two ways to resolve this - by editing death camp to be a disambiguation page, or by editing extermination camp to be a redirect. Given the disambiguation header to solve any problems of precision, and the preference for titles that reflect common usage, I wonder which you think would be better? Martin 18:30, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I made my point clear before. The information about those Nazi camps belongs on extermination camp. Death camp is not a synonym but a wider term, so it should have one paragraph which links to extermination camp but also explains how the term is used for other camps (as in my last edit). --Wik 18:38, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it seems to me that if we place the article on the Nazi death camps at extermination camp, then death camp should be a disambiguation page rather than an article explaining word usage. What do you think? Martin 13:50, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * What should it disambiguate between? If you don't want to explain the word usage, then make it simply a redirect to extermination camp. --Wik 21:49, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of disambiguating between extermination camp and concentration camp. Martin 19:24, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * OK with me, although I don't think the explanation of the usage does any harm. No need to be dogmatic about "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". --Wik 01:42, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Understood and agreed.


 * I wanted to check two other things - as I understand it, your primary motivation is that extermination camp is more precise, less ambiguous, than death camp - is that correct? The other question is, in the specific context of camps used to commit genocide, do you feel that the term "death camp" or "extermination camp" is more commonly used, or are they about the same? Martin 19:01, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes. 2) Death camp as the broader term is more commonly used. --Wik 19:26, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * So really, it seems that you and Lir (and me) all agree on the basic facts of the case - the question is whether, in this case, "common usage" or "precision" is more important. This is quite tricky, because it's a matter of judgement, and there are other articles which illustrate both approaches. So I'm not sure what the best thing to do is. Any suggestions? Martin 22:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I think you're missing the point. Most common usage only applies when we have to decide between synonyms for the same thing. That's not what we have here. Otherwise we might as well use simply camp, which is even more commonly used than death camp, but is an even broader term. Every extermination camp is a death camp, and a camp; but not every camp, and not every death camp, is an extermination camp. If we want to have an article specifically about those Nazi camps (without lumping other "death camps" in there), it has to be at the specific term for those camps. Death camp would not just be imprecise, but incorrect. An article with that title would have to cover all death camps. But the Nazi ones are significant enough to have their own article, and this has to be at extermination camp. --Wik 23:03, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am. Let me give an analogy, and perhaps you can explain where it breaks down?


 * Consider Durham. This is less precise than Durham, England. However, it is much more common usage: people don't say "Durham, England" very much. In this case, we put the article at Durham with a disambiguation header (see Durham (disambiguation).


 * Perhaps a better example is fork. Now, this is a very broad term, because a fork could be a table fork, or a pitchfork - just as a death camp could be an extermination camp or a concentration camp. It's not incorrect to have the article at fork talking solely about table forks, because we have a disambiguation header.


 * Can you see where I'm going here? In these two cases, people have decided to choose the common term as the site for the article, even though there are places called Durham other than Durham, Engand, and there are forks other than table forks. Now, this isn't some sort of conclusive proof at all: in other cases, people have taken your approach instead, but my feeling at the moment is that there is a choice.


 * There is one difference I've just thought of, though: when I say "Durham", I'm generally not talking about Durhams in general: I either mean this Durham, or that Durham. By contrast, when I say "death camp", I might mean "concentration camp", I might mean "extermination camp", or I might mean "death camps in general". Is this the sort of thing you were thinking of? Martin 23:38, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * The proper name of the city is Durham, and of the implement is fork. The addition of "England" or "table" is just for disambiguation purposes. But "extermination camp" is not a disambiguation term. It is the proper name for what it describes. If this proper name didn't exist, then we would need a disambiguation title like "death camp (Nazi holocaust)". "Extermination camp" is to "death camp" not what "table fork" is to "fork", but more like what "fork" is to "cutlery". --Wik 12:41, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to state what's obvious from the timestamps, I don't have an easy answer to that. In general, we don't prioritise "proper names" (cf Occam's Razor, not Ockham's Razor), but maybe in this kind of a disambiguation case, that's the appropriate response. Interesting. Martin 12:52, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Of course Yahoo comes up with: "Nazi death camp"} (17,600) vs. [http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Nazi+extermination+camp%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt "Nazi extermination camp" (963). Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * Have you tried doing google searches for "death camp Belzec" and "extermination camp Belzec"? The numbers for each are near-identical. Martin 17:29, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about you all stop searching google and read some books? =]

FWIW, I think death camp should be a general article on death camps, and extermination camp should be the article on the Nazi camps, as that's the name typically used for them in history books. --Delirium 11:45, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * The terms are synonomous. IMO, one should be a redirect to the other, where all the relavant information should be. &rarr;Raul654 11:46, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, some of the parts aren't, like the derogatory use to refer to non-extermination camps, or refugee camps where there are a lot of deaths, or some WW2 POW camps in Asia. "Extermination camps" I think only really applies to the Nazi camps, which were very systematized in a way most death camps aren't. --Delirium 11:49, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

monkey's page
there are monkeys every where!! so beware!! why are jewish pple so nice to others when others are so mean to jewish pple? i don't get it? if i was bein made fun of or had comments thrown at me saying hitler was right to do what he did i would be very very mad!? and i'm 1/4 german? i think judism is nuthin but a religion like christianity, or budhism, or cathlicism? all it is, is differences in beliefes? but out countrys or should i say our "world" has had issues with religions for thousends of years. all religion is is a personal beliefe no one should be punished for that.