Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape camps


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep - encourage expansion and possibly renaming. ·Maunus· ƛ · 14:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rape camps

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A misnomer for a very real phenomenon. There is no doubt that this sort of thing has gone on, recently and otherwise. However, I can find no evidence of camps that are specifically for rape, the entry itself says that this goes on in "a detention facility such as a P.O.W. camp." The sources cited also lend credence to the view that "rape camp" is a name for a phenomenon, not actual camps: one of the articles uses the term in scare quotes, another calls them "rape/death camps", a third refers to a village as a rape camp, and the "Nazi Exploitation Cinema" source is evidence only of an idea.

The Bosnian war era concentration camps cited have the same issues. Keraterm camp, for example, was a camp only for men. It existed for 3 years; only in a brief period in July of 1992 were women brought there and abused.

Again, it is not my intention to deny any history. The problem with this entry is not that these things didn't happen, but that the term "rape camp" is a misnomer. There have been rapes, but there is no record of a camp specifically for rape. Perhaps this is too pedandtic a point for such a tragic topic.

The entry is also largely redundant to the title (in that it says little more than "rape camps are camps where rapes happen").

Suggest deletion or redirect to War rape or perhaps Rape in the Bosnian War. Barring that, a complete rewrite is necessary. Hairhorn (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to War rape. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Keep per book sources found with the exact phrase. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to War rape. Crafty (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact alone that you admitted that it was an idea is enough for this stub to stay. Maybe as some sort of linguistics stub, but one that exists to be read. Simply because something doesn't exist in real life doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. The Starship Enterprise doesn't actually exist, but it has its own page.

And rape camps do exist. It's difficult to find evidence of a place used exclusively for rape if you don't even look, but Partizan Hall, in Foca, was used exclusively for rape of Bosnian women by Serbian authorities. Afterward, it was the first war crimes case based solely on charges of sexual violence. But by your strict definition, it doesn't count since it was originally a sports center. It wasn't built for rape, so it must not count.

Rape camps usually start off as a benign place and then get taken over by war criminals who get drunk on power and stoop to mass, systematic rape. Rape camps can also be other kinds of camps simultaneously, just as a shoe store can sell socks.

Just because your definition of a rape camp is too narrow doesn't mean that mine is a misnomer. Just saying that it is a misnomer doesn't mean much, since I provided evidence, books and links, not just my word.

You brought up Keraterm Camp as a place where women weren't abused long enough, and also housed men. How long do people have to be raped before it qualifies? If the rape camp in question is also a barn that houses farm animals, does it still qualify?

You're not going to erase the term "rape camps" from society by narrowing the definition until it can't be found in real life. Next, you'll say something to the effect of, "Well, such-and-such place wasn't a rape camp if the women didn't actually sleep there since 'camp' means that they spent the night (also, if you do use this, remember that a "day camp" is like a summer camp, but kids go there only during the day, and don't sleep there).

If a house is infested with cockroaches, but also has some spiders in there, that doesn't mean that any roach-based nickname given to the house doesn't apply.

Personally, I think that I was wrong with how strict I was with my definition. I think that it should be changed to any place where mass rape happens. It should include places like the Ng / Lake cabin where women were raped after the women's families were killed. It should be broader than war crimes, it should include places where a serial rapist operates. "(Fill-in-the-name) used the hotel as his own, personal rape camp."

Saying that the definition is a misnomer is the strongest of the flimsy reasons to delete this article, which says a lot since it's still very weak. If the stub is flawed, improve it. Don't delete it. Wikipedia is a community project.

The idea to merge this with "war rape" is unacceptable if the definition goes beyond war. Also, why merge it if it's not only a separate thing, but also a thing that you think doesn't exist? Why not move it over to the "exploitation films" entry? Also, why merge it only with the "Bosnian rape" entry when it obviously happens elsewhere, if it exists and you don't believe that it does?

Obviously, there is some sort of other logic going on here, where you think that rape happens, but rape camps do not. I'm guessing this deletion request is fueled by some anti-feminist ideology, but that's just a wild guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledragons (talk • contribs) 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact I went to great lengths to point out that my motivation was not ideological; I challenge you to dig up misogyny in my language and in my editing history. My biggest problem with this article is that it's vacuous, it's a tautology, it simply rephrases the title of the article. Even one of the articles you linked to uses the term only in scare quotes. The second problem is, as you yourself point out, the usage is too broad: it's applied to villages, buildings, etc. It's a neolgism based on "death camp", but there really have been camps designed exclusively for murder.


 * The other thing that's important to remember is that this isn't a debate about whether an idea is valid, it's a debate about whether it merits its own entry. And war rape covers this topic well.


 * Your analogy about roaches and spiders also makes no sense: "If a house is infested with cockroaches, but also has some spiders in there, that doesn't mean that any roach-based nickname given to the house doesn't apply."... this is a bizarre analogy for someone holding your viewpoint. Your position seems to be that any house that's ever had spiders in it can be called a "spider house"... Hairhorn (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please avoid using "slippery slope" arguments in discussions. There is no proposal to eliminate the idea of Rape camps from Wikipedia, only that the article is so sketchy that it needs to be deleted or merged with another article, so that it makes more sense in context. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC) As amended. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep 300 hits on Advanced Google Book search for the exact phrase 'rape camp'. Anarchangel (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Looking at Anarchangel search, you feel almost require to keep this article, this is not original research, but an horible written article. Maybe someone would take the task of fixing it, after all Wikipedia doesn't have time limits. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, and decisively so on reading Anarchangel's search.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  09:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand: Topic is very important and notable, but needs more sources and better coverage, especially on the history. A merger with war rape would not be appropriate since "war rape" describes any sexual assault during war times whether organized/systematized or not. This article could, once expanded, elaborate on exactly that difference, and therefore has great potential. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.