Talk:Prisoner functionary

Suggested merge

I suggest merging this article to Kapo (concentration camp) since, as the article lead here (and there[1]) states, the Nazis commonly referred to the Funktionshäftling as a "kapo", and this is the term most widely used. "Kapo" receives 2,810,000 Google hits[2], while "Prisoner functionary" receives 224,000 Google hits[3]. Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Having given this some thought and in light of your remarks about this article at the DYK nomination page, I have come to the conclusion that I am opposed to the merge. As I wrote there, I significantly expanded the prisoner functionary article and added to the kapo article, which had some inaccuracies. I expanded the prisoner functionary article because I kept coming across the term in other articles I was working on. What was then in the "prisoner functionary" article was so insignifcant as to be confusing and even misleading, in that it gave no indication of the huge role they actually played in the concentration camp system. Suspecting there was much more to be known, I found, as expected, a very much longer article on the German Wikipedia. I then brought that information over here, adding to it.

Kapo (concentration camp) was started on December 4, 2005 by Vikingstad and Prisoner functionary was begun on July 21, 2009 by Altenmann. Almost nothing was done on "prisoner functionary" till I began expanding it on May 5. I can tell you I did not do this as an expansion of the kapo article, but rather to understand the term "prisoner functionary".

I think the two articles are fine just as they are, separate, with wikilinks to the other. Some points:

• The German Wikipedia also has separate pages for "kapo" and "prisoner functionary". They are both of similar length to the English pages.
• There is a Kapo disambiguation page, which makes me think the article deserves its own page.
• I've been working on articles related to Nazi concentration camps for several months and in my opinion, the term "prisoner functionary" clearly warrants its own page. I certainly don't think the articles should be merged under the title of "Kapo", even if Google shows more hits for the word.

Marrante (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Marrante, I acknowledge your dedication to this article and your vast knowledge of the subject. I am looking at this purely from the point of view of an outsider and of a Wikipedian. The existence of pages such as Prisoner functionary, Kapo (concentration camp) and the Kapo disambiguation page proves only that someone put them up, not that they "should be there". Moreover, the disambiguation page does not even point to prisoner functionary. Both leads state that the terms Kapo and P.F. are synonymous, and most people are much more familiar with Kapo than P.F. I don't understand your objection to expand the Kapo (concentration camp) article with this broader explanation; it would certainly educate people about all the nuances of the "Kapo" label and make for an excellent article. Yoninah (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "vast knowledge" is a bit hyperbolic, but I can see why you would want to combine the pages. Why not just re-direct the kapo page to "prisoner functionary" and let kapo become a section under the broader term? I think part of my resistance to using the title "kapo" as a header is that it's almost a pejorative because so many of them were really brutal. Yet, many people owed their lives to prisoner functionaries. Marrante (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment - the exact phrase "Prisoner functionary" in quotes receives 914 Google hits, while the exact word "kapo" in quotes receives 1,190,000. --CliffC (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment 2 - both of these articles stand well on their own, but could be tied together better. Maybe we should consider simply changing the second sentence of the Kapo (concentration camp) lead to say instead, "The kapo acted as part of the Nazi prisoner functionary system." --CliffC (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Or, this crazy idea that just might work - since prisoner functionary has the most 'meat', merge the material in the shorter Kapo (concentration camp) into prisoner functionary, then rename the resulting article to Kapo (concentration camp) and set up prisoner functionary as a redirect to it. --CliffC (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge, this article is redundant to the Kapo article, Kapo is vastly more common, and is also redundantly written. For example, the idea that criminals were preferred by the Nazis is mentioned 3 or 4 times. Abductive (reasoning) 23:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Redundant writing is easily removed. As to merge direction, as a practical matter it would be easier to merge Kapo, only 1/4 the size of this article, into this more complete one and just rename the result Kapo. --CliffC (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge "kapo" is the far more prevalent term used to refer to this and there appears to be no reason to keep them as separate articles. The Prisoner functionary article would remain as a redirect if anyone needs to use it. Alansohn (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Prisoner functionary is a general concept; having a select group prisoners supervising other prisoners was not invented by the Nazis, although they may have perfected it, and made the term infamous. Article can probably be expanded with examples from Gulag and camps in other countries. Kapo relates specifically to Nazi camps. Both have potential to grow beyond their present state and warrent stand alone articles. MrCleanOut (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• The proposed merge is a terrible idea. There's clearly a difference between the generic concept of a prisoner functionary, and the specific historical case of Kapos. I suspect that this is an attempt at "soft" Holocaust denial, by blurring and obfuscating the historical record specific to the Holocaust. 188.192.109.47 (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Huh? Are you suggesting that those who support the merge are Holocaust deniers? As a supporter of the merge, I'd like your apology, and I request any admin passing by to expunge this post as an outrageous insult to the community. --CliffC (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose the irony of holocaust deniers and yourself both seeking to expunge something from the record is lost on you. 188.192.109.47 (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge. The articles discuss the same subject under different names, it is best to deal with this by redirects rather than duplication of content. Apparently "Kapos" were one type of "Prisoner functionary", the other being a "Blockschreiber".[4] The suggestion by MrCleanOut that "prisoner functionaries" exisited in Gulags isn't borne out by my searches. Fences&Windows 21:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the merge as kapo is a historical term that deserves its own page due to its information, etc Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge / No Merge ... Forgotten?

Has this "Merge" been forgotten about since May 2010? What is the end result of this? While it has been about 18 months since it was tagged. Feedback is appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have merged the two articles. Most people seemed to support the idea, and, although I accept the point raised by MrCleanOut that this article might have had the potential to have been expanded to include sections relating to prisoner functionaries outside Nazi Germany, anyone who wants to do that is free to split write a new one here on other functionaries with a See Also section linking to Kapo, but until they do a merge is better. I reckon there's no point at all on having two separate articles that describe precisely the same thing at different lengths, and I have no objections to anyone reversing my merge just as long as they also include new material so that the two articles actually describe different topics. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Not synonymous

Undoing merge because "kapo" is not synonymous with "prisoner functionary" (even in context of the Nazi concentration camps); the former refers only to prisoners who supervised other prisoners and work details, while prisoner functionary includes clerks, and various others who had administrative roles. Catrìona (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler about Kapos

"The moment he becomes a Kapo, he no longer sleeps with them. He is held accountable for the performance of the work, that they are clean, that the beds are well-built. [...] So, he must drive his men. The moment we become dissatisfied with him, he is no longer Kapo, he's back to sleeping with his men. And he knows that he will be beaten to death by them the first night."
—Heinrich Himmler, June 21, 1944

(emphasis mine)

As English is not my native language I have had to learn it by being explicitly taught. I understand that by "sleeps with them" what is meant is that the prisoner literally sleeps in the same location as the other prisoners. But a native speaker might get the impression that the prisoner has sexual intercourse with the other prisoners. Of course Himmler did not write this in English but in German, and someone else translated this to English, either contemporarily or specifically for Wikipedia. Could this be phrased in a better way? JIP | Talk 14:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger

Despite Buidhe's split of the articles, the content in these seems not to be divergent at all; the lead section is virtually equivalent in both articles, and the article "Prisoner functionary", despite insistence that it is the more general term than kapo, only covers the Nazi concentration camps. A distinction, in my opinion, can be made inside the article. Your opinions here are welcome. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the current article content, the terms are clearly not synonymous since prisoner functionaries exist outside Nazi concentration camp system as well. I would say the ideal solution is to rewrite both articles, but this article covers the more general term so if they are to be merged it would be here, not there. An additional issue is that the word "kapo" is used inconsistently. Strictly it only refers to labor supervisors but other sources (particularly those that don't make such fine distinction) use it more broadly. (t · c) buidhe 06:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This article uses terminology and history relevant to its name, no it shouldn’t be merged Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)