Talk:Battle of Berlin

Section "Commemoration" - Victory Banner on Reichstag in 2007 ?

In the section "Commemoration" it is stated that "... on 7 May 2007, as a copy of the flag was raised on the Reichstag ..."

This might just be bad wording, actually meaning that the Russian flag-law refers to the banner of 1945,
but it made me spend hours trying to find anything on a Russian flag being raised on the Reichstag in 2007 (There was nothing).

Naturally, me hitting google for a few hours isn't the end all be all, so a check would be greatly appreciated.

Need to obtain actual consensus for controversial edits

“[C]hanges me and CurtisNaito worked on” (sic) do not a consensus make. It’s becoming more than evident that you are not willing to read, understand, and apply Wikipedia policies, e.g., WP:Bold, WP:RS, WP:Undue weight, etc., even when they are cited and quoted for you and it is explained to you how your edits violate them. Several editors have pointed out policy to you which you just ignore in favor of your POV push.

Given the involvement of multiple editors in this discussion the last few months, until discussion-based consensus is reached, you have no authority to make these edits. As another editor (who is also an admin.) pointed out to you several weeks ago, you need to comprehend and follow WP:Bold rather than trying to ram your POV version through once reverted—in this case a WHOLE BUNCH of times reverted.

SUGGESTION: One way would be to poll the involved editors; asking other already involved editors for input does not AFAICT violate WP:Canvassing.

CurtisNaito has expressed a willingness to compromise; and if you want the controversial material to stay, you also need to be willing to compromise, and to obtain consensus of the relevant participants, including User:PBS.

Here are just three examples of problems other editors have identified rel your edits and/or editing style IN THIS MATTER:

• YMB29, please stop bickering about process. You have been edit-warring to insert your preferred text but it is disputed by every other editor who has commented or acted to revert it. You have no consensus to make the changes you want to make. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• [Y]ou have implied Beevor is the only one by your edit. I have stated valid reasons as to the problems as has PBS; it appears it is you YMB29 who "don't like it." Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am categorically opposed to statements implying that mass rape did not happen in Berlin. A ten-minute search on Google Scholar will show multiple independent historians reporting that Red Army forces committed mass rapes. The scale of the rapes is up for contention, using scholarly or academically sound sources, but YMB29, you are warned (a) not to imply that these rapes did not take place, and (b) not to edit war. I encourage anyone to report instances of WP:3RR to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (User:Buckshot06)

So MONTHS LATER when other editors are tired of your contentious, tendentious editing approach and take a break, that doesn’t mean you’ve suddenly “won.” Even after another editor who is also an admin. told you to disengage, you’re still at it using the same tired m.o.

It’s really time to add a few additional strings to the instrument you’re playing. And a good way would be to familiarize yourself with the WP policies that have been cited to you seemingly ad infinitum to no effect. "Outlasting" other editors who tire of your behavior does not mean you’ve suddenly arrived at consensus. On the contrary. Another suggestion would be to read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, an IMO excellent essay that, although it is not black-letter WP policy, has a lot of valuable info.

Prior proposal from Binksternet

• You have two Russian historians saying Soviet soldiers did not rape as much as they have been accused of. Do they have estimates of how many rapes? Or do they just say the Western sources are exaggerated? I think we need their estimates so that hard numbers can be compared. At any rate, these two historians do not erase previous scholarship, they add to it. We will present the reader with both views. We will not pick which view is correct. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I’m not opposed to Binksternet’s approach—put ALL the numbers in there—From a million down to 72, apparently—BUT only with the proper weight—which includes the proper relative SPACE--the minority view deserves. And what you write in the endnote also has to not violate WP:Undue weight; in any case, you can’t write a whole separate article in the endnote. These are things that need consensus of the participating community, and not only “consensus” between you and CurtisNaito.

The biggest problem I have with your edits is your downgrading the clear, longstanding majority view to parity with your newfound minority/fringe view. If you give the mainstream view the weight it deserves, I personally have no problem including the information. But agreement/consensus among the already involved editors has to be reached on how much RELATIVE space overall just as on what to say.

Paavo273 (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that you are on your way to repeating your behavior from the Continuation War article's talk page...

A lot has changed since this debate started in January. You are just repeating outdated arguments that were made months ago.

Now the consensus is that the Russian view should be in the article, and two of the users you quoted have made it clear that it should be added (see above[1]).

How does the current text violate WP:UNDUE and how can a view held by the leading Russian historians be fringe?

You are just throwing baseless accusations. -YMB29 (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of Senyavskaya has been discussed already; she is a reliable source (see this section[2]). -YMB29 (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
This link[3] is used only because it has the translation. The original interview is from the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper [4]. So the tags should be removed. -YMB29 (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Senyavskayais a biased source, and would probably have real problems finding an academic post anywhere outside Russia, when she takes positions on rape in Berlin for which her use of primary sources is far from that of an objective historian. However if we are going to present a biased Russian view, then she is as reliable sources as we are likely to find. -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

How does the current text violate WP:UNDUE and how can a view held by the leading Russian historians be fringe? Removing the word "mass" from in front of rape is a violation of WP:UNDUE, "how can a view held by the leading Russian historians be fringe" The view of the Russian historians you have presented is a biased one and very few Russian historians have been shown to hold the view that mass rape did not occur in Berlin. The wording you have introduced into the footnote "while not denying that rapes by Soviet forces took place, have called into question whether they were widespread" is not what the sources say and I think needs to be rewritten. -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you ever actually read this section[5]?

Also, there is a source directly saying "leading Russian historians": ...leading Russian historians denounced this volume as neo-Nazi propaganda, questioning Beevor's sources...[6].

Russian historians cannot be objective, while Western "historians" like Beevor are? Again, there is no place for your personal bias against Russian sources here. -YMB29 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

YMB29 you have yet to produce one non-Russian source that denies that the Red Army carried out mass rapes, yet you write "while Western "historians" like Beevor are?" why do you use the term Western and why do you put historians in quotes? Why not instead write "non-Russian historians like Beevor"? I suspect you do not because you are making an old cold war dichotomy as a rhetorical tick for further your argument. If Russian historians are writing about for example the history of the South-West Africa Campaign of World War I, then I am sure that they would be seen as neutral historians. But as has been pointed out by a source you brought to this page "Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale.", they are tainted when it come to defending the honour of the Red Army during World War II when they use terms such as "neo-Nazi propaganda" while failing to produce academic papers with detailed refutation based on criticisms of the sources used by non-Russian historians, does not bolster their credibility. -- PBS (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you not see that anyone who uses the term "neo-Nazi propaganda" who do not present a detailed analysis of the sources used in the book is not an objective historian they are instead using neogationists' tactics of not refuting a point, but trying to besmirch it by associating it with tainted sources ("tainted by association"). Do you support such views and tactics? As has been pointed out to you repeatedly there are dozens of sources that make similar claims to Beevor for example where is there any detailed refutation of Grossman's Jews, Germans, and Allies: Close Encounters in Occupied Germany (chapter 2). -- PBS (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Russian historians compare some Western portrayals of the Red Army to Nazi propaganda not without basis. Many of the words used are the same, such as "barbarians" or "Asiatic hordes".

Sources used by Beevor and others are analyzed. I have provided some details to you earlier and can provide more, but I would have to translate them.

Of course Russian historians are offended by the Western portrayal of the Red Army. If someone accuses your ancestors or living relatives of crimes based on questionable evidence, would not you be upset?

I put historian in quotes, because Beevor is not a historian. He is a popular writer. Being able to sell his books well and getting an honorary doctorate, does not make him a true historian.

As I have said in the section above, the term Western is accurate when describing sources that accuse the Soviets of mass rape. This is not my biased interpretation as it is directly supported by sources I have quoted before:

Western historians have written at length about the large-scale rape and violence committed by Russian soldiers in Germany...[7]

Beevor pointed out that his book relied heavily upon evidence from Russian archives...and other prominent Western historians defended the accuracy of his sources.[8]

Western historians have generally accepted that rape and other forms of troop violence were committed primarily by the Red Army...[9]

In Western post-World War II historiography...there was a whole "school" formed whose main subject was to show "Russian atrocities" on German soil.[10]

-YMB29 (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"If someone accuses your ancestors or living relatives of crimes based on questionable evidence, would not you be upset?". No, I would not. "Of course Russian historians are offended by the Western portrayal of the Red Army" Why? To give two examples from recent British history, I can not think of one British historian who would be upset if someone accused members of the the British Army of murder during Bloody Sunday or of committing torture in the Mau Mau Uprising, they may want to debate the conclusions drawn from primary sources, or they may even want to do further research and publish their own papers either supporting of denying the previous papers, but they would not be upset. If the paper is presented by historical revisionist/neogationist) then a professional objective historian ought to be able to construct an academic case for refuting questionable evidence: see for example the devastating attack by Richard J. Evans on David Irving in Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt. What conciousness historians do not do is base their criticisms on polemics such as have been presented on this page.

"[Beevor] is a popular writer. Being able to sell his books well and getting an honorary doctorate, does not make him a true historian." Clearly you do not know what the English word historian means. Here is the OED definition "A writer of history, esp. one who analyses events critically, as opposed to a chronicler or compiler; an expert in or student of history", or see the definition at the start of the Wikipedia historian article. Beevor's book on the Battle of Berlin is widely cited in academic papers so by he is clearly someone "regarded as an authority on" the battle.

You still have not answered my question: Do you have any non-Russian source that supports the contention that there was no mass rape in Berlin in 1945?

-- PBS (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you need a "non-Russian" source? Russian sources are just as valid as Western ones. Again, keep your biases to yourself.

Anyone writing about history is often called a historian. However, if a person lacks an academic degree in history, he/she is an amateur historian.

Beevor is regarded as an authority on the subject? Well that is the problem with Western historiography. Academic reputation is judged by commercial success.

Somehow I don't think that if British WWI or WWII veterans would be accused of being rapists and looters, there would not be any heated comments from British historians...

Russian historians don't rely on polemics to counter claims made by Beevor and others. You don't need to repeat the same accusation over and over. -YMB29 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

See the link to this book: What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France by Mary Louise Roberts (2013) -- it is divided into three parts: Romance, Prostitution, and Rape. Far from heated comments see the American academic reviews on the web page provided (under "Review Quotes"). See the review in the NYT: The Dark Side of Liberation by Jenniger Schuessler (May 2013) or this British tabloid article in the Daily Mail: The GIs who raped France: We know about the mass rape of German women by Stalin's soldiers. Now a new book reveals American troops committed thousands of rapes on French women they were 'liberating' by Guy Walters (May 2013). So would the British reaction differ greatly from that of the Americans? Possibly, we will have to see if such a book is published, but there is no reason to believe that the reaction in Britain would be different from that in the US. -- PBS (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"Why do you need a "non-Russian" source?" because without it, it is Russian and "non-Russian" sources (rather than Russian and First World?) or to put another way a Russian view and a "World view". Without at least some support from a third party it looks like a parochial Russian view. -- PBS (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I just quoted sources that say it is a Western view, and you still claim it is a "World view"...

As for US rapes, WWII is not as important to Americans as it is for the British, not to mention the Russians. The book you linked to does not seem to be making the same types of accusations against American soldiers that Beevor makes against Soviet soldiers.

Also from the NY Times article:

Work that looked at sexual assaults by American soldiers, even on a small scale, remained controversial. J. Robert Lilly’s "Taken by Force," a groundbreaking study of rapes of French, German and British civilian women by G.I.’s, based on courts-martial records Mr. Lilly uncovered, drew a strong response when it was published in France in 2003. But the book, which emphasized the grossly disproportionate prosecution of black soldiers, struggled to find an American publisher amid tensions between the United States and Europe over Iraq.

"American presses wouldn’t touch the subject with a 10-foot barge pole," said Mr. Lilly, a sociology professor at Northern Kentucky University. (Palgrave Macmillan published his book in the United States in 2007.)

-YMB29 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are you still claiming that there is no consensus to make any changes? I suggest you reread this page starting with this section[11]. You should stop hiding behind the "no consensus" excuse.
Also, it is not a good sign when a user refuses dispute resolution while continuing to make reverts. I still don't understand why you are against dispute resolution. Are you concerned that you will not be able to make your accusations against Russian sources or ignore information you don't like when an experienced user, most likely another admin, carefully reads what you write? -YMB29 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

One or two people does not make a consensus, particularly when the sentence was recently the subject to an RfC and it has been in the article for years. It is time that you dropped the stick and walked away. Come back again in six months or a year or so, and then hold another RfC and see if the consensus has changed. -- PBS (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You are the only user who has consistently been against making any changes. You don't represent consensus.

Even the result of the rigged RfC called for changes, so, again, stop making baseless claims of no consensus.

If you don't have any other arguments and if you refuse dispute resolution, you should walk way. -YMB29 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I can refute your statment "You are the only user who has consistently been against making any changes." by simply showing you this diff to the article. Was that or was that not change? Who apart from you is consistently removing the word mass in front of rape and replacing "pillage" with "looting" (why?) and reordering the phrases in the sentence (why?)) contrary to WP:BRD? You have made a bold edit it has been reverted it is up to you to show that there is a consents for the change you wish to make. No such consensus exist. As to your demand to add attribution if the "phrase mass" is there, see further up the page this has been rejected by many editors for the reasons as explained to you repeatedly. It is time that you dropped the stick and walked away. Come back again in six months or a year or so, and then hold another RfC and see if the consensus has changed. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with replacing pillage with looting, or moving "in many areas of the city" to make the sentence more readable? Any edit I make is no good for you and requires consensus?

What does your diff from months ago prove?

Why are you still claiming that there is no consensus to attribute the statement about mass rape? Not only is it a clear violation of WP:ASF, but the RfC result says to attribute it unless there is a source that proves WP:RS/AC. Not only is there no such source, but there are sources that directly attribute the statement to Western historiography[12].

So it is simple, either the statement about mass rape is attributed or the word mass is removed as discussed above. -YMB29 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Western sources that are critical of Beevor's portrayal of the Soviets

James Mark accuses Antony Beevor of emphasizing the "role of the victim" in order to appeal to a British audience and to acquire higher book sales. He also criticizes Beevor for ignoring the German crimes which had been committed on the Eastern Front. Mark attempts to expel the illusion that all Russian soldiers were "sexually repressed" and "out of control". Furthermore, Mark argues that the reason for such a heavy placement of blame on only the Soviets is partly due to nationalist agendas of post-war political groups. He contends that after the war many countries, such as West Germany and Hungary, in their search for identity, used the stories of Russian atrocities to further their national interest and strengthen anti-communist movements. This reevaluation of the "distribution of blame" is important to acknowledge and understand, for although the crimes committed against German civilians were atrocious and inexcusable, they may not have been accurately depicted in popular scholarly works and not placed properly within historical context.

Crimes Committed By Soviet Soldiers Against German Civilians, 1944-1945: A Historiographical Analysis by Mikkel Dack

In 2002 a best-selling book by British author Antony Beevor crammed with allegations of wickedness by Russian soldiers in Germany in 1945 was published in London (Berlin, the Downfall, 1945). The book was immediately attacked by the Russian Ambassador in London, Grigory Karasin; and later by Professor Dr Joachim Fest, one of Germany's senior historians. Mr Karasin called publication of the book 'an act of blasphemy, not only against Russia and my people, but also against all countries and the millions of people who suffered from Nazism'. Dr Fest, an expert on Hitler and on Berlin at the end of the war, described the book as 'patchwork history', and also a book that is peppered with factual inaccuracies. Serial rape and looting, vengeance and atrocities - these are central to Beevor's book and he indicates that all this took place on Marshal Zhukov's watch; that is, during the first year after the collapse of Hitler's regime when Georgi Zhukov was Commander-in-Chief of all Soviet forces in Germany. There is a sentence (on page 413) which says that 'many people' think the Russian troops were given two weeks to do as they pleased with the German population before any discipline was enforced. But Beevor does not know Zhukov, especially his swift reaction to lack of troop discipline. A careful reading reveals lacunae, or missing statements in the book, from five or six top Russian generals and others (including Zhukov) who were in Berlin in May 1945 during the allegations of wanton misconduct, even insinuations of atrocities on a level with the Nazi regime, who spoke directly to the German people about security and discipline, and recorded these conversations in their memoirs.

Marshal Zhukov: The Man Who Beat Hitler by Albert Axell

-YMB29 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

YMB29 I did not ask you for articles that think Beevor made mistakes (I would be suppriesed if he did not, and his analysis of why things happen will of course be analysied and counter proposals will be put forward that is what scholarship is about), what we need are articles that say mass rape did not take place in Berlin. For example the first article you quote can be found online here It is called

• "Crimes Committed by Soviet Soldiers against German Civilians 1944-1945: A Historiographical Analysis" by Mikkel Dack, (University of Waterloo), Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, Summer 2008, Vol. 10, Issue 4.

It article starts with a Analysis five pages long of the what happened. It starts with:

The study of the widespread violence committed against German civilians by the advancing Russian army at the end of the Second World War has, until recently, been largely ignored by historians.

Cherry pricking sentences

"What resulted was a whirlwind of violence and hatred inflicted by German soldiers on innocent civilians. Atrocities were often indiscriminate, in some cases entire towns were burnt to the ground, their inhabitants murdered and women raped." (page 3) "By the time German forces had reached Moscow and Stalingrad they had left in their path a trail of death and destruction. Villages along the German offensive were devastated and Soviet civilians had become all too familiar with crimes of torture, rape, and murder." (page 3) "What resulted in these final months of the war was a degree of atrocity and bloodshed which can only be compared to that of the German crimes committed earlier. In East Prussia civilians were routinely rounded up and executed, their houses burnt, and crops and livestock destroyed. As many as 1.5 million incidences of rape are estimated to have occurred during the initial five month occupation of East Prussia alone".(page 4) "In the Nazi capital, the Soviet crimes committed against German civilians culminated in one of the most devastating and tragic episodes of human brutality occurring over a limited period. As the Soviets neared the Reichstag the rear echelon troops ravaged the civilian population. With no overall central leadership and few disciplined regiments to safeguard the people, Berlin lay at the mercy of Russian soldiers. Not only were tens of thousands of non-combatant civilians killed, it is also believed that anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 German women were raped by Soviet soldiers, 10,000 of whom died, mostly by suicide."(page 5)

Dack then looks at the historiography starting:

Today, historians recognize the Soviet crimes committed against German civilians as some of the most tragic and extreme examples of atrocities in modern warfare and yet the attention this topic has received from the academic community has been minimal, as outlined below. The reasons for such a lack of research and analysis are many, none of which come as a great surprise.

Again cherry picking

"...the history of the crimes committed against German civilians receded from scholarly interest and public awareness. Western scholars chose to ignore and overlook the topic, giving interest only to the Holocaust, while Soviet writers, upholding their political and social dogmas, chose to silence and cloud the truth through propaganda and superficial claims of German guilt. Archives were closed by Soviet authorities, popular culture entrenched political and social stereotypes, and there was little interest in the academic study of social history; it is no surprise that this significant and tragic topic took so long to emerge on the scholarly scene. As a result of these conditions, the first writings published about the conditions of the Eastern Front were from German and Russian scholars. Written only in their native languages and confined to strategic and military topics, these initial publications gave no mention of crimes, let alone those committed against German civilians. ..." (pages 6-7)

There are then pages of detailing the development of historical analysis of Soviet war crimes and which historians have contributed to the historiography of this history.

Dack mentions James Mark’s "Remembering Rape: Divided Social Memory and the Red Army in Hungary, 1944-1945" (Past & Present, Number 188, August 2005 pp. 133-161) in which there are criticisms of some of Beevor's assertions about the Red Army officer corps, but Mark does not question that mass rape took place. In the first two sentences of his article Mark states:

During the Soviet occupation of Budapest at the end of the Second World War, it is estimated that around fifty thousand women in Budapest were raped by soldiers from the Red Army. After Berlin, the women of Budapest suffered in greater numbers than those of any other Central or Eastern European capital.

He goes on to say:

... accounts of mass rape available in the West were first published by Eastern European leaders who had been forced into exile because of their opposition to Communism. Within the Soviet Union, perpetrators of the atrocities defended their actions. Boris Slutsky, the Russian poet who travelled with the Red Army through Eastern Europe, suggested in his memoir Things That Happened that Hungarian women had enjoyed being raped: Hungarian women loved the Russians in their turn, and along with the dark fear that parted the knees of matrons and mothers of families, there was also the affectionate nature of young women and the desperate tenderness of the women soldiers, who gave themselves to the men who had killed their husbands. Despite the demise of the Soviet Union, ex-Soviet citizens' persisting pride in the Red Army for defeating Fascism has meant that such war crimes have continued to be denied. One documentary film-maker found that many ex-Red Army soldiers still refused to accept that rapes had occurred at all, admitted only to consensual sexual relations or claimed that Eastern European women deliberately used sex to spread diseases in order to weaken the fighting capabilities of the Red Army.

Enough said! Far from finding a paper that denies that mass rape took place you have found two more that claim that it did!

I have not done a similar analysis on the second paper you have found, but where does it sate that mass rapes did not happen in Berlin? I did read a critical review on Amazon of Albert Axell's book Marshal Zhukov (to which Axell posted are reply on Amazon) and here is another on his book Russia's Heroes 1941-1945. I don't know either of the critics and they are probably just men on the Clapham omnibus but it is striking that their criticisms are similar about two different books published years apart. The question that comes to mind is has anyone cited Axell's Marshal Zhukov given the alleged deficiencies in the book?

-- PBS (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Alleged deficiencies based on reviews from amazon and a blog...

The book is cited by others.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

The phrases "allegations of wickedness by Russian soldiers" and " allegations of wanton misconduct, even insinuations of atrocities on a level with the Nazi regime" don't mean that the author is critical of the mass rape claim?

I did not say that the article by Dack says that there was no mass rape. I quoted the piece about James Mark's criticism of Beevor.

In his article, he mentions the number of estimated rapes in Budapest, but then notes that the true number cannot be determined. He writes about what the Soviets are accused of, but that does not mean he agrees with all of the accusations.

The point is that Mark writes that portraying the Soviet Army as an army of rapists (as the sentence you are pushing for does) is incorrect. Such portrayals are used for political purposes in countries with troubled pasts. In the case of Beevor, Mark suggests that the image of the brutal Soviets was used to help sell books. -YMB29 (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The point you seem to be missing is that Beevor is not a lone voice crying in the wildness, his work in one of a canon of work published about this issue (as is described in detail by Mikkel Dack). You have yet to show that anyone outside Russia, seriously questions that mass rape took place in Berlin. As far as I know this issue was first brought to a mass awareness (in Britain and other English speaking countries) in the The World At War television documentary series in the 1970s in the episode "Nemesis: Germany February May 1945" (see mins 36-39), so it is not even as if Beevor popularised the idea that Russians committed mass rape. Although perhaps Beevor brought the issue of Soviet war crimes to a mass Russian audience (as the Soviet authorities censored their citizens access to information), that does not mean that events were not common coin in the rest of the world:

• Are there any 21st century non Russian reliable sources that describe in detail the assault on Berlin that deny that mass rape took place in Berlin?
• Are there any 21st century Russian reliable sources that describe in detail the assault on Berlin that agree that mass rape took place in Berlin?
• Are there 21st century any Russian reliable sources that describe in detail the assault on Berlin that agree that mass rape took place in Berlin?

-- PBS (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not come across any reliable Russian historians that say that mass rape occurred.

Again, I have quoted the reliable "21st century" Russian historians that criticize the mass rape claims (Senyavskaya, Isaev, Myagkov). I don't know why you keep asking me this question.

Mark does not only criticize Beevor, but all similar populist accounts of the Soviet Army in Berlin: "Populist historical accounts of the behaviour of the Red Army in Central Europe, such as Antony Beevor's Berlin: The Downfall, 1945..."

You are again attributing the mass rape claims from Western historiography to "the rest of the world", even though they are directly attributed to Western historiography in reliable sources. How can you keep on ignoring this? Like I said, this is probably one of the reasons you don't want dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• I removed all references to Senyavskaya. That was an unnecessary promotion of someone who was caught in historical falsification. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You removed it based on what someone said in a blog? -YMB29 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Following appeals at my talkpage

Following appeals at my talkpage, I have inserted what I believe to be the Western scholarly consensus, which is broadly in agreement with the use of the term 'mass rape', and temporarily protected the page. YMB29, with all due respect, you have been warned before on this issue, and this remains the English wikipedia: there is no serious disgreement that this kind of thing occurred after the fall of the city, except by former Soviet writers. I've gone over your quotes immediately above, and they simply don't invalidate the Western scholarly consensus: protests, possibly, but no evidence that says the acts did not occur. I would remind all users that ArbCom has established discretionary sanctions for cases like these, specifically here WP:ARBEE. I do not want to see further tendentious, disruptive editing occurring on this page. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Buckshot06, the quotes immediately above are those from Western sources. Quotes from Russian historians (not "former Soviet writers") are here[20].

If you want even more details or analysis, there are texts that need to be translated. However, we should be concerned here with presenting all significant views in reliable sources, not finding out who is right or wrong.

I don't dispute that there is a Western consensus; that is what I am trying to explain to PBS. It is the Western view vs. the Russian view, and the Russian view can't be just ignored.

I was not against including the word mass, but just wanted it to be attributed to Western sources.[21] PBS refused to allow this.

As for non-English sources, I don't think WP:NOENG refers to cases where there is a potential violation of WP:NPOV (if non-Enlgish sources are excluded). -YMB29 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus for use of unreliable sources

I'm failing to see any consensus amongst editors for the inclusion of sources deemed to be unreliable or, at the least, undue. Can anyone please demonstrate where this has taken place? In reading over the talk page (and archives), plus the edit history of the article itself, there seems to be nothing outside of a momentum picked up on again, eventually, by a POV editor. The POV pushing of one editor is not the equivalent of WP:CON. The fact that these same sources have started cropping up on related articles outside of consensus smacks of tendentious editing. Has anyone else noticed the WP:TROJANs being wheeled in? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want go read through the archives. Coming to an article you never edited before, making a revert, and asking others to explain things to you is disruptive.

Those other articles had most of the sources before the dispute here last year. You should understand what is going on before following me here and making reverts. -YMB29 (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You're not terribly good at nuances. I'm being facetious because there is no evidence for consensus in adding the sources you've added. As for your accusations of my being disruptive, please read this: WP:HA#NOT. You've been popping up on all sorts of articles on my watchlist and rehashing the same arguments, trying to introduce the same rejected content, and basically making it abundantly clear that you're willing to wait around until no one is watching in order to continue with your tendentious editing practices. In other words, I understand precisely what is going on both here and in related pages: your WP:ADVOCACY. Now I will ask you again, civilly, to desist from your WP:SPA activities. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your personal attack is noted.

You should not follow users to articles you never edited before to make such attacks.

You are claiming that I sneaked in text when there was so much discussion going on and an admin even protected the page... Surely, he would have reverted the stuff I was trying to push. -YMB29 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

" YMB29, with all due respect, you have been warned before on this issue, and this remains the English wikipedia: there is no serious disgreement that this kind of thing occurred after the fall of the city, except by former Soviet writers. I've gone over your quotes immediately above, and they simply don't invalidate the Western scholarly consensus: protests, possibly, but no evidence that says the acts did not occur." - User:Buckshot06, right above. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I replied to him above. I did not question the "Western scholarly consensus," so what is your point? -YMB29 (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Further to this, when was the article 'protected' and when was the 'protection' removed? Any page protection has long since been removed. Do you actually understand what page protection means? Do you imagine that Big Brother is constantly watching this article, or that sysops are only human and not infallible even during periods where an article is 'protected'? The issue is that you are reintroducing dubious sources which, in itself, calls for reviewing where and how they've been used. If you believe your sources to be kosher, take it to the WP:RSN. An argument as to the reliability of these sources and the context in which they've been used has arisen yet again. No previous version using these sources is sacrosanct while the subject of their being RS or UNDUE is under dispute. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So you are questioning sources that meet all of the RS criteria? There were no questions about the reliability of these sources by the end of the discussion here anyway, and you know from other pages that they are reliable.

Are you claiming that I made invisible changes while this article was protected? -YMB29 (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

See this old edit.[22] The text you removed (Senyavskaya cites an official record of the Soviet military prosecutor of the 1st Belorussian Front, which states that on the Belorussian Front from 22 April to 5 May 1945, only 124 crimes against civilians were recorded, including 72 rapes) was actually added by the user I was disputing with. So can you admit that you were wrong and undue your revert? -YMB29 (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)