Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Soviet Union / Russia / History / Military (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Feminism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources discussion[edit]

this sentence 'They have encountered vast criticism from historians in Russia and the Russian government.' - is sourced to a telegraph article that mentions one russian ambassador railing at antony beevor- it doesn't seem to mention 'vast criticism from Russian historians' - just this Russian apparatchik and saying the subject is 'taboo' - a very different thing to suggesting Russian historians have taken on these claims critically - its just a Russian ambassador saying ' oh shut the fuck up beevor,' basically - Sayerslle (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The BBC article has more on that, and that sentence is just a summary of the section. -YMB29 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
and in that section what is there really - btw I clicked on the Dyugin bloke and the wp article says hes a 'revisionist' and hasn't even got a degree - so the 'vast criticism' is dodgy revisionism and a bit of bluster from a couple of Russian historians - and even when when you read some of that , you get stuff like 'well, that was to be expected' kind of thing - the section is weak, lets face it. Sayerslle (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
No, you need to do more research into this to get a better understanding. Rushing in and making conclusions is unwise.
The wiki article says that Dyukov was called revisionist by the Estonian press, so it is not fair to call him revisionist. I don't know if he has an academic degree or not, but this does not prevent Antony Beevor from being called a historian.
Most prominent Russian historians criticize these allegations and their view is significant. -YMB29 (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
oh I see , - well if RT (TV network) say he's a good historian I'm sure he's great. Sayerslle (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
What does RT have to do with this? -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
oh yeah, a bit of a non-sequitur - I looked up this historian and I just saw a few RT stories kind of 'sticking up for him' so to speak [1], and thought , oh well if RT defend him, he must be great - (my sarcasm because actually I regard RT as a pile of pus). Sayerslle (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
This is irrelevant here... -YMB29 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, the source provided does not call Dyukov a revisionist-negationist, so the revisionist label should be removed. It might be a violation of the WP:BLP policy. -YMB29 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
you asked about RT so I replied and then get told its irrelevant - well, I was just explaining to answer your bleedin' question - and the source associates him expressly and directly with revisionist history, read it again - so the revisionist label should not be removed - (whether it should be historical revisionism or historical revisionism (negationist) is a judgment call I guess - the bbc ref clearly associates him with a strain of negationist-style historical discourse - the revisionist label , of whatever stripe, should stay and is sourced whatver Sayerslle (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You brought up RT here yourself.
Revisionism is mentioned with a question mark in the article and it does not directly call him revisionist. This is not enough to label him as revisionist. -YMB29 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I fixed this a little per my previous comments (see above), but left Gareev as a compromise. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I see that you are continuing your disruptive behavior. You just removed a large piece of text that others have spent time editing. -YMB29 (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
did you get this section from this piece? just asking [2] -or has monindependencefinanciere translated this wp? what is your source for her mentioning Ralph Keelings book as influential? Sayerslle (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No one made a claim about whether it was influential or not. Senyavskaya mentions it as one of the examples of the early Cold War publications. I mean you wanted an example, right?
I don't know that website. -YMB29 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, I don't know how Dyukov's comment about repressions is relevant here. This is coat racking. It is like saying that "Antony Beevor, who is not a real historian, writes..." or "Atina Grossmann, who claims that Goebbels' anti-Bolshevik propaganda turned out to be mostly correct, says..." -YMB29 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No, - the ref clearly associates him with revisionist history - - you wanted a ref for him being a revisionist and now you say whats that got to do with anything -he has an agenda , the bbc article associates him with a certain strain of historical writing current in Russia - and when you say 'who said it was influential'?! - your edit was that senyevskaya said works like his powered a myth of Russian rape - so that means she is arguing it was influential - ffs - its like you aren't even following the point of your own edits. Sayerslle (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the last point you were trying to make.
You have not provided a source that directly says that Dyukov is revisionist. You say that "the bbc article associates him..." That is your interpretation of it.
See WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. -YMB29 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
dyukov has been discussed before on wp apparently []] with regard Latvian film about Soviet history - 'Alexander Dyukov, a politically active Russian historian who has severely criticized “The Soviet Story”. Dyukov has admitted: “After watching two thirds of the film, I had only one wish: to kill its director and to burn down the Latvian Embassy.” - a bit of a hot-head at the very least - the bbc article is not my interpretation in my opinion - we aren't going to agree - I guess its who lives longer between us and still give s a flying f***how he is described on this article . hes obviously got his agenda - or do you not accept that - hes 100% without any partial opinions. 'Yet it is true that the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation, which is being carried out by Kiev’s authorities in Southeastern Ukraine, is associated with the mass deaths of civilians' [3] - he may be impartial, its very hard to say for sure - but however impartial he always seems to slag off the side that doesn't love stalin/putin/Russian imperialism - Sayerslle (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
That is too off-topic here.
You obviously got your opinion about him, but wiki users should not try to spread their truth (see WP:TRUTH); we go by what the sources say.
Also, why are there so many users that edit articles about the Ukrainian conflict coming here? Was there a link to here posted in one of those articles or something else is going... -YMB29 (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
'see WP:TRUTH); we go by what the sources say.' - yes, and I provided a bbc source for his having a revisionist outlook - and its you saying 'fuck that bbc source, it says what I say it says - he has nothing to do with revisionist history - he is just historian - no bias whatever I know the truth ' - so its my source versus your truth really. - Sayerslle (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The point is that you need a source that calls him revisionist, and not derive this based on what the BBC said. -YMB29 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
it does - maybe you don't get the English 'idiom' if you aren't a native English speaker - its very clear what the article is saying about dyukov - its not me deriving anything - I think hes an out and out propagandist and Russian chauvinist idiot but that's not what the bbc source says - the source says hes part of Russian revisionist approach to history - why not start a RFC? - 'does this bbc source justify dyukov being called a revisionist historian? is it fair , or part of a Nazi junta plot against Russia and its greatest historians/philosophers' ? Sayerslle (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
To put it simple, these people (e.g. Dyukov and Senyavskaya) do not represent the opinion by Russian historians in general. Those are revisionist nationalist historians cherry-picked by YMB29 to support his views, just as Yuri Zhukov. I believe their views should not appear anywhere as WP:FRINGE except articles about themselves. This is basically the same discussion, over and over again. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Well again your opinions about what historians are good or bad do not matter here. If you have real evidence from reliable sources that they are no good, provide them here to discuss. Otherwise, such accusations violate the BLP policy and are just examples of POV pushing.
Also, based on what Sayerslle said, it looks like you two are pushing the anti-Russian POV in the Ukrainian conflict articles and bringing in that POV here. If this is true, it will not lead to any good... -YMB29 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
"If you have real evidence from reliable sources that they are no good, provide them here to discuss". Yes, I did it here, but without any result. However, some of your historian/sources are completely unknown to mainstream scholarship and therefore no one ever bothered to disprove them, unlike many other publications currently quoted on this page, which were widely published and discussed. This is just another argument that your sources are "undue". In essence, you are trying to criticize mainstream international sources using national (nationalist) sources no one knows about - they were not translated to other languages (discussion below).My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Foreign language sources are allowed here you know. You did not provide any evidence, only your opinions. Only prominent Russian historians are used here. If you don't like them, that is your problem. -YMB29 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't want to revive this dispute, but I question the necessity of this sentence, which is currently in the article:

"He explains crimes such as acts of sexual assault as inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them."

Full disclosure: I have followed this protracted and messy dispute for quite a bit. While I have absolutely no intention of rekindling the debate over the sources, I have trouble seeing how this statement by Rzheshevsky contributes to the sentence, given that it is essentially a "And you are lynching Negroes" statement that adds no value to the discussion of the Red Army.

To avert another argument, I am not going to edit this part out without a firm and unambiguous consensus, on account of the extensive debate on sources. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have no problem with including reliable Russian sources that don't spark another edit war. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Senyavskaya in Western sources[edit]

Senyavskaya is cited a lot in Western publications:[4][5][6][7][8][9]
Plus she is praised here:

From Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945, by Merridale:
Among the most energetic exponents of this is Elena Senyavskaya, of the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, whose generous help and warm encouragement of colleagues, including me, has fostered an entire school of new research.[10]
From Soviet Women on the Frontline in the Second World War, by Markwick and Cardona:
In Moscow, the extraordinarily generous support and advice of Professor Yelena Senyavskaya, Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences, was vital to the success of this enterprise.
In seeking to depict their mindset we have taken a cue from the 'military-historical anthropology' pioneered by the Russian scholar Yelena Senyavskaya, whose analysis of the 'social psychology' of the 'frontline generation' seeks to portray the 'human factor' in the war.[11]

So can all the talk about her not being reliable or fringe, references to what someone wrote about her in a blog, and ridiculous comparisons to sources like Kavkaz Center stop now? This is what is said about her in Western reliable sources. Ignoring this would mean that you are obviously POV pushing. -YMB29 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

  • None of the sources/quotations above tells that Senyavskaya is a reliable source, specifically on the subject of this page. On the other hand, Mark Solonin tells here that Senyavskaya has received a payment to intentionally misinform her readers. More specifically, she quoted a non-existing order by Stalin about Soviet rapes in Germany. This document simply never existed, but was invented by another falsifier of History. She knew that the "document" was invented, but still used it, explicitly for the purpose of disinformation. Based on info in the publication, there is no doubts that text of the order is fake. Frankly, your insistence and prolonged edit wars to keep her claims in Wikipedia is a damage to the project and a violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies. My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the link I posted before about how Solonin selectively quoted her?
Anyway, it is the blog entry you found versus reliable sources.
And you are the one complaining about damage to wikipedia...
You should restore the text you reverted and apologize, or at least admit that you were wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Solonin, all public orders by Stalin were widely published and well known. However, this particular "order" can not be found anywhere. If it can, please give the source. If I understand correctly, this "order" was invented by this man and only repeated by Senyavskaya who knew that it was fake. Moreover, if I am not mistaken, the same infamous man (Medinsky) funded the "research" efforts by Senyavskaya. P.S. This is not to say that your other sources, such as this is any better than Senyavskaya and Medinsky. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As noted in the link[12] I posted earlier, Solonin did not include Senyavskaya's full note, where she says that the order cannot be found in the archives, but probably, based on many other sources (including Western), was given and exists somewhere. In other words Solonin mislead others to paint her in a bad way, which is similar to what you are doing.
Again, you should restore the text and apologize. -YMB29 (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This is just a blog post by an anonymous poster who admits he is not historian. But what does he tell, exactly? That Senyavskaya insisted that the order by Stalin actually existed, although there is no any documented evidence of this order whatsoever, and she knew about it. This is not very different from Solonin, even though this blogger is trying to "disprove" him.My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Once again, nobody cares about Solonin's blog here. Only reliable sources matter. -YMB29 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, but even Senyavskaya herself said in her article that (a) the order by Stalin actually exists and (b) there is no any documented evidence of this order whatsoever. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The original document is not found, but other sources, including Kopelev and Solzhenitsyn, refer to it. Also, the orders issued by Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovsky to their Fronts are obviously derived from it.
However, this is irrelevant, as this is "cherry picking" by Solonin, and now by you, to find something bad to say about Senyavskaya. -YMB29 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
You can see for yourself that Solonin simply did not quote the full note:
В Центральном архиве Министерства обороны РФ текст приказа Сталина от 19 янва­ря 1945 г. «О поведении на территории Германии» также пока не обнаружен. Зато ссылка­ми на него пестрят зарубежные издания, упоминали о нем диссиденты Л. Копелев и А. Солженицын. Неоспоримо доказано существование приказов командующих фронтами Жукова, Конева и Рокоссовского со сходным содержанием, датируемых концом января 1945 г., и это косвенно подтверждает, что в каком-то виде (письменном - под грифом «со­вершенно секретно», или устном, что тоже возможно) такой приказ Сталина также суще­ствовал, но пока не найден подлинник, нельзя отвечать за точность его цитирования.[13]
So even if we are supposed to take the blog seriously, which on wiki we can't, the falsification was done by Solonin. -YMB29 (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, she mentioned names of Kopelev and Solzhenitsyn, Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovsky. But she did not provide any references to any publications by these people, which would mention this order by Stalin. I assume that's because they did not mention it. She is fake. But it was not me who said she is fake, but a well known historian quoted above. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Not a professional historian, but a publicist, who mislead readers in his blog. Blogs are not RS, especially for information about a living person. You have been here for a long time, so you should know this. Here I will help you: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.[14] -YMB29 (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can only repeat that none of the authors (your links above) tells that Senyavskaya is a reliable source, specifically on the subject of rapes by Soviet Army. On the other hand, Mark Solonin tells that Senyavskaya has intentionally misinformed her readers on this subject (see here, this is his official blog post on Echo of Moscow and therefore qualify as RS to source his opinion). What is the controversy? Yes, exactly as follows from your quotation above, she insists that an order by Stalin actually existed, while it does not exist. And of course she claims that mass rapes did not happen, which contradicts all other serious sources about this, and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, Google Scholar search finds 70 mentions of her (including her own publications) [15] in the academic sources, mostly citations. Most citations are from Eastern European authors but there are some Western academic publications who treat her as a reliable source, e.g. [16]. I would not consider her reliable enough to refer controversial info as a fact but she is certainly authoritative enough to include her attributed opinions. BTW the same is true for Mark Solonin, he is not an academic author and many of his opinions disagree with majority of academic historians. It certainly do not preclude us to insert his attributed opinions. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Simply being cited in multiple RS does not make anyone or anything a reliable source (here is an example). It is important what exactly a historian claims. If views by someone, for example by Solonin, corresponds to something generally accepted in the field, that's fine. However, if someone calls well established facts, such as mass rapes in Germany "Goebbels propaganda" (this is main idea of the publication by Senyavskaya [17]), then at least this particular claim belongs to WP:FRINGE. None of the "Western sources" above supported her idea about the Goebbels propaganda by the ... West.My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Russian means Soviet[edit]

Russian included Ukrainian, Belarus, even Jewish.Xx234 (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, the use of "Russian" in this article is incorrect (misleading). These were Soviet troops consisting of battalions from various republics of the USSR. However, Xx234, where is the term "Russian" used in this article in lieu of Soviet. There's an instance of "Russian babies" (in inverted commas per the quoted source). Other than that, it's only criticism of a harsh evaluation by recent historians, who happen to be Russian, covered by the term "Russian". Where else is "Russian" used as a substitute for "Soviet"? Iryna Harpy (talk) -- 00:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Many times (including rape of Russian women), mostly quoted eg. from Naimark. Xx234 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that comes directly from him. We can change that, but we don't know, maybe he really meant ethnic Russians only. -YMB29 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You must be joking.Xx234 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Zaremba, Mark Solonin[edit]

Thank you for the links, Xx234. At the moment this article is under heavy dispute but, once this has calmed down, these are well worth looking into (particularly as they reference further scholarly research into the subject). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Psychological War[edit]

Alexandr Senyavsky, Yelena Senyavskaya. Historical Memory as a Battlefield. Military History of Russia of the 20s Century in the Context of a Psychological War and Modern Geopolitics.

Alexandr Senyavsky, Yelena Senyavskaya claim they fight a psychological war. Xx234 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
That is not what it says in the description. -YMB29 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Знакомьтесь: профессор Сенявская, фальсификатор Mark Solonin Xx234 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
A serious Russian article .Xx234 (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Solonin's blog entry was already discussed here. Blogs and personal websites are not RS. -YMB29 (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
And Russian state propaganda is RS. Happy reading!Xx234 (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What about the article by Дубина? She has published "Болезненная тема Второй мировой войны: память о сексуальном насилии по обе стороны фронта [Текст] / В. С. Дубина // Вестник РГГУ. - 2011. - № 17. - С. 47-56" which makes her reliable. I'm not able to compare the two texts but I can assume that they are similar, can't I? Even if you reject the text, it contains a list of sources, some of which can be used here. Xx234 (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Political elite in power also has a great influence over historical memory and assessment of military actions of the past, as in its foreign policy it is oriented either at sticking to or at reconsidering the outcomes of the wars of the past. As a rule, in this process current geopolitical political, economical and other interests are involved. - it's not about USA or EU, it's about Russia.Xx234 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on content introduced[edit]

I've reverted this additional content per WP:BRD.

Given the controversial nature of the subject (particularly in light of recent edit warring), I'm wary of WP:UNDUE and, even more importantly, potentially WP:TROJAN content being introduced. The content was both unsourced and, if deemed DUE, would require further qualification of/elaboration on the alluded to "rape discourse".

Do other editors have objections to the removal. If so, please state your case for inclusion, RS worth introducing, and whether you'd consider that the inclusion should be delineated as DUE within specific constraints, or allowed to be developed in broader terms. Thank you, in advance, for any input regarding the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Iryna, The addition was unsourced. Period. We DO NOT discuss wikipedian's opinions about the subject. We do not discuss someone's "case" for inclusion. Any Stalinist or Putinist can give you seven pages of "case" (and a Russophobe will not fail at that, too). We need none of that. We discuss the SOURCES on which article content may be based (whether the source is reliable, whether the wikipedian correctly interpreted them, whether the source is given due weight, etc.) - üser:Altenmann >t 13:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Not really worth discussing unless it's sourced ("Historians"). This has been so controversial on WP that I'm wary about additions. GABHello! 22:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Glad to hear that other editors are in agreement with the removal. I agree that I really shouldn't have indulged this out of courtesy. I'll conclude with stating that WP:POV content doesn't get a look-in per WP:SNOW. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)