This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany C‑class Mid‑importance 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / German Start‑class 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force Soviet Union: Russia / History / Military C‑class Mid‑importance 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force. United States C‑class Mid‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism C‑class Mid‑importance 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

There seems to be a contradiction in the article:

• At the top it says: for which estimates range from tens of thousands to two million.
• Later: Female deaths in connection with the rapes in Germany, overall, are estimated at 240,000. (with citation)

I'd like to propose the first quote to be changed to: for which estimates range from hundreds of thousands to two million. --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there was no opposition to my suggestion I have conducted the change. --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being coat-racked with reviews of Beevor's book Berlin: The Downfall 1945. This article is not about Beevor's book and it isn't the only source here, so anything related to reviews of his book should be moved to that article. --Nug (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beevor is being heavily used as a source here and is the main modern source of the accusations, so what is the problem? -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply untrue. There are 67 cites in the References section, only three are Beevor. Just search the page for "Beevor". The only place where "Beevor is being heavily used as a source" is the text criticising Beevor that has been coat racked to this article. --Nug (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beevor is a relatively recent source and the most publicized, so of course there will be more responses to his works.

That does not even matter. Russian historians are commenting on the accusations of mass rape, which is the subject of this article. -YMB29 (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, Russian historians are commenting on Beevor's accusations of mass rape, they are not addressing any of the other authors cited. This is text is attributed to Beevor:

• "Antony Beevor describes it as the "greatest phenomenon of mass rape in history", and has concluded that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone.[15]"
• "According to Antony Beevor revenge played very little role in the frequent rapes; according to him the main reason for the rapes was the Soviet troops' feeling of entitlement to all types of booty, including women. Beevor exemplifies this with his discovery that Soviet troops also raped Russian and Polish girls and women that were liberated from Nazi concentration camps.[32]"

and this is the text criticising Beevor:

• "In an interview with BBC News Online, Oleg Rzheshevsky, a professor and President of the Russian Association of World War II Historians, argued that in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Beevor's use of phrases such as "Berliners remember" and "the experiences of the raped German women" is better suited "for pulp fiction, than scientific research." He admitted that he had only read excerpts and had not seen the book's source notes yet. Rzheshevsky further stated that the Germans could have expected an "avalanche of revenge," but that did not happen.[24] In his later review of the book, he charges that Beevor is merely resurrecting the discredited and racist views of Neo-Nazi historians, who depicted Soviet troops as subhuman "Asiatic hordes." According to Rzheshevsky, 4,148 Red Army officers and many soldiers were convicted of atrocities. He explains that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them. However, in general, Soviet servicemen treated peaceful Germans with humanity.[26]"
• "Hero of the Soviet Union Army General Ivan Tretiak had said that there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Although Tretiak wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on the humane treatment of the population were implemented, and discipline in the army was strengthened. With such a huge army group in Germany, there was bound to be cases of sexual misconduct, as men had not seen women in years. However, he explains that sexual relations were not always violent, but often involved mutual consent. The work of Beevor and others alleging mass rape is characterized by Tretiak as "filthy cynicism, because the vast majority of those who have been slandered cannot reply to these liars."[26]"
• "Makhmut Gareev, President of the Academy of Military Sciences, who participated in the East Prussian campaign, states that he had not even heard about sexual violence. He explains that after what the Nazis did in the USSR, excesses were likely to take place, but such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. He also notes that the Soviet military leadership signed an executive order on 19 January 1945 that demanded to prevent cruel treatment of the local population. According to Gareev, Beevor simply copied Goebbels' propaganda about the "aggressive sexuality of our soldiers."[26]"
• "Yelena Senyavskaya criticizes Beevor for using and popularizing the statistic that 2 million German women were raped by the Soviet Army. The calculation used to derive the statistic is based on the number of newborns in 1945 and 1946 whose fathers are listed as Russian in one Berlin clinic, the assumption that all of these births were the result of rape, and then the multiplication of this effect across the entire female population (ages 8 to 80) of the eastern part of Germany. According to Senyavskaya, this method of calculation cannot be considered valid.[28]"
• "Senyavskaya further argues that the fact that Beevor uses Soviet archival documents does not prove his analysis. There are large concentrations of reports and tribunal materials about crimes committed by army personnel, but that is because such documents were stored together thematically. She contends that occurrences of crimes by Soviet servicemen were considered extraordinary rather than the norm. Senyavskaya concludes that "those guilty of these crimes account for no more than two percent of the total number of servicemen," however, "authors like Beevor spread their accusations against the entire Soviet Army."[28]"
• "Nicky Bird also criticizes Beevor's statistics, stating that: "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor — how can we possibly know that 90 percent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 percent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 percent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?"[35]"

Clearly there is WP:UNDUE coverage given to criticism of Beevor's book. It belongs in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, not here. --Nug (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would have a point if the other authors were not making the same accusations as Beevor. They all accuse the Soviet Army of mass rape and Russian sources make arguments against such accusations. It does not matter who they were made by. -YMB29 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is WP:OR, because these historians are specifically addressing Beevor's book Berlin: The Downfall 1945 where he claims "that at least 1.4 million women were raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone" and you are synthesising that to other authors. --Nug (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That specific statistic is only one of the things they are addressing. Beevor is not the only one who uses that statistic. Actually, he uses many of the sources published before his book that are cited here, so his book is also kind of a summary of earlier Western source on the subject. -YMB29 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the article, I have to agree with Nug that this has been turned into WP:COATRACK. Take it to the article on Beevor's book. The content has now well overstepped both WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And can I ask what brought you to this article?

It looks like you are simply repeating Nug's arguments without actually understanding what the issue is. -YMB29 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no WP:PA or WP:BADFAITH assumptions and stick to the issue at hand. Clearly there is now no consensus that this material remain in the article. Your contention that Beevor's book is a "kind of a summary of earlier Western source on the subject" and these Russian historians in criticising Beevor's book is in turn criticising earlier Western sources is just classic WP:SYNTH. --Nug (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just spotted your bad faith comment, YMB29. What brought me here? Would you care to take a look at the article's history page: it's been on my watchlist for quite some time and, yes, I do know what is at issue. No WP:ASPERSIONS, and certainly WP:NPA. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is unwarranted and unacceptable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you really were acting in good faith, you would not have made that revert without consensus or at least actively discussing the issue. A quick comment that you support Nug is not a serious attempt at discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are criticizing the portrayal of the Soviet Army and accusations of mass rape, which are not only made by Beevor.

As for consensus, it is not established by reverting alone, especially when users randomly show up to make reverts, quickly repeating the same arguments as you. There is no way you can get away with ignoring WP:BRD. -YMB29 (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are criticizing Beevor's portrayal of the Soviet Army and accusations of mass rape. You should abide by WP:BRD, you added new text related to Beevor and now you have been reverted by two editors, stop complaining. There is no consensus for your addition. --Nug (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the changes long ago and everyone was fine with them until "new" user MiGR25 started reverting. The burden is on you to show that consensus has changed.

Also, repeating dubious arguments over and over won't make them true... -YMB29 (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CCC, consensus can change at any time. That three people have already reverted your edit is ample proof consensus no longer exists for your text. --Nug (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully. WP:CCC says editors may propose a change to current consensus, not force it by edit warring.

You are going to ignore user CurtisNaito, who undid the revert by the "new" user MiGR25[1]? -YMB29 (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CurtisNaito's edit just proves no consensus exists. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Last I heard Beevor is still alive, and devoting such a large amount of text to criticising him outside the relevant articles such as Berlin: The Downfall 1945 and equating his conclusions to Nazi propaganda oversteps both WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS. --Nug (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit, so to justify your revert you are now claiming that there is a WP:BLP violation against Beevor. You just keep making up new excuses...

They are commenting on his book, not him personally. However, some sentences have nothing to do with Beevor, like this one:

According to Rzheshevsky, 4,148 Red Army officers and many soldiers were convicted of atrocities. He explains that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them. However, in general, Soviet servicemen treated peaceful Germans with humanity.

How do you explain removing that? -YMB29 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that I was pinged recently. I personally favor inclusion of the material. I believe that Rzheshevsky at least has written about this subject in his 2002 book on the Battle of Berlin, and that he and Makhmut Gareev can be considered as reliable sources on the subject of rape by the Red Army during this period. To me the rapes are the central topic of the sources in question. Because Beevor's popular book on the Battle of Berlin gave considerable attention to this issue, the issue of the rapes, the book became a lightning rod for controversy, but ultimately the criticisms being made are not specifically against Beevor and his book but really they are criticisms of the common theory that mass rapes during the occupation of Germany occurred at historically unprecedented levels, one topic among many which Beevor discusses in his book on the Battle of Berlin. If users are worried about violating coat rack, I think there are other legitimate ways the material can still be included. I wonder if we could put a subcategory under "Controversy in Russia" for "Reaction to Beevor's Berlin". There were certainly many Russian historians who reacted negatively to it at the time of release, but again it was not the book as a whole or the man himself who was the main target of the criticism, it was the ideas he put forward concerning rape during the occupation of Germany. I view it as being part of the broad historiographical debate on the issue which continues today.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the argument "ultimately the criticisms being made are not specifically against Beevor and his book but really they are criticisms of the common theory that mass rapes during the occupation of Germany occurred at historically unprecedented levels" is simply unsourced personal synthesis. Since the sources in question explicitly discuss Beevor's book and their arguments address Beevor's conclusions, that criticism cannot be extended to other authors. For all we know these critics may well accept what other authors write, we don't know and we shouldn't synthesise otherwise. Despite the popularity of Beevor's book on the Battle of Berlin, not much of it is used in this article, just three sentences are attributed to him, yet we had over six paragraphs devoted to criticising his book and his conclusions. That's just simply overboard in terms of WP:BALASPS and misleads the readers that this criticism is applicable to the topic of mass rapes in general rather than Beevor's book specifically. The article Berlin: The Downfall 1945 is the place for that criticism, not here. --Nug (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are claiming that the other authors do not write about mass rape in Germany just like Beevor? What do they write about, mass rape in Antarctica or something? Can you stop with the dubious arguments...

As for mentioning Beevor in the text too much, that could have been easily resolved by adding an explanation about Beevor's popular book on the subject and that it attracted lots of criticism. However, you decided to just revert large pieces of the text, including parts that don't mention Beevor at all (see the example above). You still did not answer my question about this. -YMB29 (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it seems you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This isn't an article about Beevor's book. Beevor contributes three sentences to the article and you want to insert over six paragraphs of rebuttal of Beevor's book. That oversteps WP:BALASPS. It is WP:SYNTH to suggest that criticism of Beevor's book is equally applicable to other authors. Now that the article is protected, Ed suggested that you try to build some consensus by offering some alternate text here for discussion, otherwise you are just going around in circles. --Nug (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should have thought about consensus before you started reverting...

You have ignored what I said again, including the question I asked you. -YMB29 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing your shameless lie that I had reverted anything on this page does not help your task in building the consensus that clearly does not exist at present. --Nug (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So per WP:NOCONSENSUS the article has to be returned to the previous state.

You are the one lying that you did not revert.

When are you going to answer my question about removing text that does not mention Beevor? -YMB29 (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All involved here should remember to discuss the content, not the editors, here. If you want to raise concerns about user conduct, there are other venues available. If the tone of the debate degenerates any further, I foresee blocks in the near future. Huon (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no doubt (per vast majority of sources) that such crimes indeed had happened on significant scale. Therefore, opinions by Gareev, Dyukov and Tretiak, who in essence denied everything, belong to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority view. Rzhevsky basically tells that it is was OK ("robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war") and does not provide any factual information, just as others. Therefore, I think this removal was correct. Dyukov should also be removed. For example, we do not use people involved in Holocaust denial as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should not use these "scholars" on this page, but only in pages about themselves. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a report at WP:AN3 on 22 December about this article. That led to a 24-hour block of one editor. Since the report was closed, there have been a series of new reverts by several parties. The purpose of AN3 is to stop revert wars, so it seems that we have failed. I'm glad to see a discussion on talk though it is unsystematic and might be better served by an WP:RFC. At least there should be proposals for specific wording. This protection can be lifted if consensus is reached. Note that the article is also under WP:ARBEE which allows for page bans if there is evidence that some participants can't edit neutrally. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that the article be restored to the previous state, before the controversial removal of text[2], because there was no consensus to make that change.
WP:NOCONSENSUS says that in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
It is also important to note that the last revert[3] was made by a user who barely took part in discussion and hardly edited the article before.
I am not seeking to push my version of the article, but only asking that the consensus policy be followed.
I think this will send a message that changes cannot be forced through without reaching a consensus by discussion and/or dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, "commonly results" is not the same as "must be implemented while discussion lasts". Discuss the issues, establish a consensus on how to cover the criticism of Beevor and on what parts of the references that were removed may be re-used in a more general context, then let's implement that. It's far too early to declare that we can't reach a consensus here. Huon (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Well lack of consensus was admitted by Nug above, and while consensus may still be achieved, there was no consensus to remove a large piece of text in the first place.

My point is if someone wants to change something in the article text, it is up to them to prove their case and seek consensus. That is what WP:BRD and the consensus policy are all about.

Furthermore, as I pointed out above[4], under the cover of "removing text only relevant to Beevor's book", text that is directly relevant to this article and does not mention Beevor at all was also removed. -YMB29 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following EdJohnston, "At least there should be proposals for specific wording." This, of course, goes for all involved, not just for YMB29. I do not think it's a good idea to use WP:NOCONSENSUS as a defense for avoiding a discussion of the issues. Huon (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about avoiding discussion, but about a clear violation of policy that is for some reason being allowed here. -YMB29 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised if I am going to be the only one proposing new text, no one will reply, and when I will attempt to eventually add it to the article, it will be reverted. -YMB29 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is not appreciated. If you wish to have any form of WP:CIVIL discussion, your comment on the contributor smacks of WP:OWN, or are you simply trying to make a WP:POINT as to my WP:COMPETENCE? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think posting links to different wiki policies in each of your edits makes you look more competent than other users?

If you want to show that WP:BATTLEGROUND does not apply to you and you are not here just to revert on behalf of Nug, why don't you give proposals that the admins have called for above or at least answer the question that Nug still has not answered above (about removing content where Beevor is not even mentioned)? -YMB29 (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have enough experience to be aware of the fact that the discussion process does not have to take place at the pace you choose to set (particularly as it's a busy time of year for many of us). Instead, you've adopted the attitude that it's a race. I'm actually logging off for the day and will get back to it when I have time. Strange as it may seem, this is not the only article I'm involved with, and certainly not the most contentious, therefore requiring immediate input because it's spiralling off the charts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see me demanding that it should be done immediately? I simply suggested that you post something of value to the discussion. It does not have to be done now. -YMB29 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for changes

Why don't you propose some text here on talk? If you can propose more general text replacing text that was focused on Beevor, and agree to move material about his book such as Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Criticism_of_statistics (which is entirely about Beevor's use of statistics) to the article Berlin: The Downfall 1945 where it belongs, then I think some progress can be made. --Nug (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are again claiming that text relevant to the article is only relevant to Beevor.

I am not the only one who should be proposing changes, see Huon's comment above. Are you going to propose something constructive, and not just removal of text?

Also, how many times do I have to ask you to answer my question above? -YMB29 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm also proposing constructive changes, the removal of text that should be in the article Berlin: The Downfall 1945. For example, how is the following three paragraphs explicitly rebutting Beevor necessary when Beevor's claim on the number of rape victims takes up a total of one single sentence:

Criticism of statistics

Yelena Senyavskaya criticizes Beevor for using and popularizing the statistic that 2 million German women were raped by the Soviet Army. The calculation used to derive the statistic is based on the number of newborns in 1945 and 1946 whose fathers are listed as Russian in one Berlin clinic, the assumption that all of these births were the result of rape, and then the multiplication of this effect across the entire female population (ages 8 to 80) of the eastern part of Germany. According to Senyavskaya, this method of calculation cannot be considered valid.[27]

Senyavskaya further argues that the fact that Beevor uses Soviet archival documents does not prove his analysis. There are large concentrations of reports and tribunal materials about crimes committed by army personnel, but that is because such documents were stored together thematically. She contends that occurrences of crimes by Soviet servicemen were considered extraordinary rather than the norm. Senyavskaya concludes that "those guilty of these crimes account for no more than two percent of the total number of servicemen," however, "authors like Beevor spread their accusations against the entire Soviet Army."[27]

Nicky Bird also criticizes Beevor's statistics, stating that: "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor — how can we possibly know that 90 percent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 percent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 percent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?"[34]

How is that text applicable to what any of the other authors have written? If you could propose some alternate text that discusses the topic, and not about Beevor and his methodology, then we can make progress. --Nug (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about this particular text, but about the text you removed. Stay on topic. This can be discussed later, although the solution would probably be the same. -YMB29 (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has always been about having six paragraphs rebutting Beevor when the article only attributes three sentences to his viewpoint. This can all be discussed together. I propose that these six paragraphs be summarised into three sentences to provide fair and proper balance. --Nug (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean deleting a lot of relevant information.

How about adding more text on Beevor's book and explaining its impact? At the same time, the number of times Beevor is mentioned can be reduced. -YMB29 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support adding more text to the article on Beevor's book Berlin: The Downfall 1945, do you have a source that explains its impact? --Nug (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources already in the article that explain it.[5][6] -YMB29 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, we can add it to Berlin: The Downfall 1945#Criticism and add a link to it from here (with a brief summary), no need to duplicate it in full here. --Nug (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that article already explains the impact of the book and the reaction to it. I am talking about adding a brief summary here and then adding the text you removed (maybe trimmed down a little), because that criticism is relevant not just to Beevor, but to the topic of this article. -YMB29 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well the quickest way to the end point is if you indicate the trimmed text you want. Is the text in the section Criticism of statistics really necessary here? It is already repeated in Berlin: The Downfall 1945#Criticism so why not just mention it a single sentence and pipe a link to it, something like "...several authors criticised Beevor's methodology..." --Nug (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is in another article does not mean that it does not belong here too. Only a part of the text you removed talks about Beevor, so at least the majority of it has to be restored.

As for the statistics section, I will see what can be removed from there, but most of it has to remain since statistics are mentioned a lot here and Beevor is not the one who came up with them. -YMB29 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the text is explicitly discussing Beevor's use of statistics, it would be WP:SYNTH to say that it would be applicable to statistics mentioned by others. --Nug (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the numbers are the same? -YMB29 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other authors provide different numbers, all below Beevor's estimate of 2 million. The text is criticising Beevor's use of statistics to arrive at that 2 million number. --Nug (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see different numbers? -YMB29 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant sentence is "the numbers of German women raped by Soviet soldiers ranged up to 2 million.[1][8][9][10][11]" and cite a number of authors. Obviously Beevor supplied the upper end of that range and that is what your Russian historians are objecting to, they are not saying no women were raped at all. --Nug (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics (2 million total, including 100,000 in Berlin, and 1.4 million in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia) are the same for all sources. They come from a German book by Sander and Johr. Beevor used their numbers in his book (Senyavskaya mentions this) and the other sources use them too, either directly or through Beevor. -YMB29 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, we should be talking about the text that was deleted first:

In an interview with BBC News Online, Oleg Rzheshevsky, a professor and President of the Russian Association of World War II Historians, argued that in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Beevor's use of phrases such as "Berliners remember" and "the experiences of the raped German women" is better suited "for pulp fiction, than scientific research." He admitted that he had only read excerpts and had not seen the book's source notes yet. Rzheshevsky further stated that the Germans could have expected an "avalanche of revenge," but that did not happen. In his later review of the book, he charges that Beevor is merely resurrecting the discredited and racist views of Neo-Nazi historians, who depicted Soviet troops as subhuman "Asiatic hordes." According to Rzheshevsky, 4,148 Red Army officers and many soldiers were convicted of atrocities. He explains that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them. However, in general, Soviet servicemen treated peaceful Germans with humanity.

Hero of the Soviet Union Army General Ivan Tretiak had said that there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Although Tretiak wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on the humane treatment of the population were implemented, and discipline in the army was strengthened. With such a huge army group in Germany, there was bound to be cases of sexual misconduct, as men had not seen women in years. However, he explains that sexual relations were not always violent, but often involved mutual consent. The work of Beevor and others alleging mass rape is characterized by Tretiak as "filthy cynicism, because the vast majority of those who have been slandered cannot reply to these liars.

Makhmut Gareev, President of the Academy of Military Sciences, who participated in the East Prussian campaign, states that he had not even heard about sexual violence. He explains that after what the Nazis did in the USSR, excesses were likely to take place, but such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. He also notes that the Soviet military leadership signed an executive order on 19 January 1945 that demanded to prevent cruel treatment of the local population. According to Gareev, Beevor simply copied Goebbels' propaganda about the "aggressive sexuality of our soldiers.

The sentences in bold do not mention Beevor and are directly on topic for this article. So why were they deleted? Was it by mistake? -YMB29 (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep:

"According to Rzheshevsky, 4,148 Red Army officers and many soldiers were convicted of atrocities. He explains that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war, and men of Soviet and other Allied armies committed them. However, in general, Soviet servicemen treated peaceful Germans with humanity."

that's okay with me. The other two are just personal anecdotes of two veterans given undue weight, there could be thousands of other personal anecdotes (from the 4,148 Red Army officers Rzheshevsky says were convicted for example) that don't deny mass rapes occurred. --Nug (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is true for Tretiak, but Gareev is a military historian, so his opinion should count here. -YMB29 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Gareev [7], "he had not even heard about sexual violence" [during this war]. That statement qualifies him as a war crimes denier. We do not use people involved in Holocaust denial as sources about Holocaust. By the same reason, we should not cite Soviet crimes deniers, like Gareev and others (including Dyukov) on this page, but only in pages about themselves. This all was correctly removed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what proof do you have that he is a war crimes denier? Your opinion is not proof...

He is just talking about his personal experience.

Also, constantly making ridiculous comparisons to the Holocaust does not help you prove your point of view. -YMB29 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is his own statement ("he had not even heard about sexual violence" [during this war]). This kind of WP:FRINGE must and will be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does that statement make him fringe? -YMB29 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider a modern-day "historian" who tells that "he had not even heard about extermination of Jews" during the Holocaust as a reason to downplay the crimes by Nazi. Would we included his opinion in the page Holocaust? No. Same is here. This is not to compare very different historical events, but simply as an illustration of WP:FRINGE policy. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if the historical events are very different then maybe you should not make that comparison...

You are reading only one sentence and ignoring the rest of what he says. He does not deny that these crimes occurred. -YMB29 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the diff under discussion he tells that the crime indeed took place. Just the opposite. That means one of the following (multiple choice): (a) he is a crime denier, (b) someone who inserted this text quoted him out of context to "prove" that the crimes did not take place, or (c) the both. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You again did not read carefully: such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. -YMB29 (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One must read the entire diff (above) to conclude what he is telling. Now, speaking about similar article by Senyavskaya, we discussed it here. Neither her article, nor Gareev are appropriate sources for this and other related pages (so, yes, that was an appropriate removal of highly biased text), in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well your arguments so far have been based on the misrepresentation of what they have said.

The text was removed not because it was considered "highly biased," but because of "coat racking." -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I agree with the latter. This text was correctly removed for four reasons: (a) the coat racking, (b) "undue", (c) POV-pushing/ highly biased text, and (d) use of inappropriate partisan sources that are hardly reliable. There is no misrepresentation of the sources, however. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was misrepresentation by you; you only see what you want in them.

Read the discussion above. It was only about "coat racking." Anything else you brought up is another topic and it is up to you to back up your claims. -YMB29 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no agreement to make any of these changes [8]. To the contrary, the opinion by Dyukov should be removed per arguments above and elsewhere. Please stop reverting to old version without consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to remove it in the first place. Just because the article was protected with the text removed, does not mean there was a new consensus.

Again, the text was removed because of coat racking concerns, which were addressed and a compromise was reached, see above.

So if you want to prove your case, go ahead, but please no more comparisons to Holocaust denial... -YMB29 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the protection recently expired, so I suggest you keep discussing your new concerns here on the talk page (which you have been doing so far). Removing text without consensus and after there was a compromise to restore some of what was removed, won't do any good, unless you want the admins to get involved again. -YMB29 (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you simply renewed edit war, immediately after expiration of protection. I already stated my opposition to these edits and explained why. If admins or other users do not want to be involved, there is nothing I should do about it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again your opposition has nothing to do with the edit warring that got this page protected.

How can I be edit warring if it was agreed that the text should be added back, as it had nothing to do with coat racking? -YMB29 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What does RT have to do with this? -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 [9], 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)[reply]

This is irrelevant here... -YMB29 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

did you get this section from this monindependencefinanciere.com piece? just asking [10] -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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

dyukov has been discussed before on wp apparently []http://www.academia.edu/5164635/Hegemonic_representations_of_history_and_digital_agency_giving_meaning_to_The_Soviet_Story_on_SNS] 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' [11] - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to be rational, objective and fair.

Personal opinions such as

"In postwar Germany, especially in West Germany, the war time rape stories were used in an attempt to situate the German population on the whole as victims." etc.

therefore really don't belong here.

It is irrational as it promotes the view that Nazi atrocities were a merely German matter: That view is somewhat outdated. It's common sense now, that the history if WWII has not yet been fully told. For example, Hitler founded his idea on the "science" of the American Eugenic Movement. The Holocaust was organized by IBM, Hitler's Willing Executioners. The Blitz was to a not small degree enabled by General Motors, Hitler's Car Builder. Etc. Read "Nazi Nexus" by Edwin Black for a start. (Grad A-investigative journalism by a descendent of Holocaust survivors who was nominated for the Pulitzer Price:[12]

It is biased: Creating hierarchies of victims and promoting the notion that only certain group's suffering is important while that of others (like Germans) is not, is highly biased. It is also against Human Rights, which are applicable for all individuals, not matter of their nationality. It's therefore highly problematic if a Wikipage is misused for promoting the view that some victims of WWII are so unimportant that they even are not to be named victims. It really shouldn't matter if a 12 year old German girl is raped to death, a 12 year old Jewish-Girl is gassed to death in the Holocaust or a 12 year old British girl is bombed to death by a V1 or V2.

It is unfair: In the end, if the suffering of one group is more important than the other, then what kind of human rights do you stand for?

Would the writer therefore please correct the article in line with Wikipedia standards and discuss his personal views elsewhere. Thank you very much.

Slate2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slate2015 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "A wave of rapes and sexual violence occurred in Central Europe in 1944–45, as the Western Allies and the Red Army fought their way into the Third Reich" is misleading. Sexual violence and rapes in Central Europe started in 1939 with invasion of Poland where German forces in Selbstschutz engaged in mass rapes of Polish girls and women, and was later continued by forced prostitution, catching women for brothels and concentration camps brothel system for Wehrmacht soldiers. This increased after 1941 when Nazi Germany invaded Soviet Union and its forces engaged in mass rapes against Soviet women, which was documented but not persecuted during Nuremberg trials as one of many war crimes that were ignored(if somebody requests I can try to dig up the source that actually mentions this). The current sentence is completely taken out of context of World War 2 and misleads the reader into thinking that this was something that happened in 1944-1945 only and from the hands of Allies, while the fact his that these incidents were far smaller than what Wehrmacht engaged in Central and Eastern Europe. I remember that long time ago, this article had brief background section explaining sexual violence in WW2 which allowed to present the information in neutral way.I did want to start an article on German rapes during WW2 long time ago(noted this already in March 2013[13]) and perhaps I should. In the meanwhile let's think of way to correct this misleading sentence into soemthing that will actually reflect the situation in WW2--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

per an edit summary I have been asked to ask for a translation of senyavskayas article here - is there a RS translation of the points she makes - or is it just trusting that a wp editor is translating her article competently? Sayerslle (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide it, but not having it is not a reason to revert the text. A quotation tag would have been enough. -YMB29 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what Sayerslle is asking. It's a legitimate request for cite checking per WP:NONENG. If a reliable translation is not provided for the benefit of non-Russian editors (and readers, for that matter), the source and related content in the article may most certainly be struck. It may be verified that the source exists but, as you'd know, that does not automatically mean that it should be included (let the page decide). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand if new text is reverted for this reason, but not something that was in the article for a long time. Such reverts are disruptive and, given the recent admin intervention here, may be reported next time. -YMB29 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the translation of the relevant parts:

...he [Beevor] refers to the book "The Liberators and the Liberated" by Helke Sander and Barbara Johr, where the calculations are done based on data not from two of the main hospitals in Berlin, but from a children's clinic; in other words, a quite conscious distortion is made to add solidity. Not to mention the fact that the data is very questionable, because the system of Barbara Johr's calculations is based on arbitrary extrapolation of the number of children born in 1945 and 1946, who were examined in one Berlin clinic and whose fathers were listed as Russian, on the total female population of eastern Germany, 8 to 80 years of age. This does not hold up to any criticism. The result of this generalization of individual cases implies that every 6th East German woman, regardless of age, had at least once been raped by Red Army soldiers.

Even when A. Beevor refers to actual archival documents, it proves nothing. The Central Archives of the Russian Ministry of Defense really does store materials from political departments with reports that contain the gathered protocols from Red Army, Komsomol and Party meetings with descriptions of cases of deviant behavior by the military personnel. These are hefty folders, the contents of which are disheartening. However, they were compiled thematically, as evidenced by their names: "Incidents and Immoral Phenomena" for a certain period and in a certain military unit. By the way, these names already show that such occurrences were considered by the army leadership not as a behavioral norm, but as extraordinary events requiring decisive action.

-YMB29 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original text:

...он ссылается на книгу Хельке Зандер и Барбары Йор «Освободители и освобожденные»[23], где подсчеты делаются на данных не «двух главных берлинских госпиталей», а одной детской клиники[42], т.е. «для добавления солидности» совершает вполне сознательное передергивание. Не говоря уже о том, что эти данные весьма сомнительны, так как система расчетов Барбары Йор, основанная на произвольной экстраполяции числа детей, чьими отцами названы русские, рожденных в 1945 и 1946 гг. и обследованных в одной берлинской клинике, на общее количество женского населения Восточной Германии в возрасте «от 8 до 80 лет», не выдерживает никакой критики[25]. Результат такого «обобщения» единичных случаев подразумевает, что «каждая 6-я восточная немка вне зависимости от возраста была минимум один раз изнасилована красноармейцами».

Но даже там, где Э.Бивор ссылается на реальные архивные документы, это ничего не доказывает. В Центральном архиве Министерства обороны РФ действительно хранятся материалы политотделов с донесениями, в которых собраны протоколы красноармейских, комсомольских и партийных собраний с описанием случаев девиантного поведения военнослужащих. Это пухлые папки, содержимое которых представляет собой сплошную чернуху. Но они и комплектовались именно «тематически», о чем свидетельствуют сами их названия: «Чрезвычайные происшествия и аморальные явления» за такой-то период в такой-то воинской части. Кстати, уже эти названия показывают, что такого рода явления рассматривались армейским руководством не как поведенческая норма, а как чрезвычайное событие, требующее принятия решительных мер.

-YMB29 (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

like I wrote at the start of this - I meant a RS translation - that could be just you and google translate. its rather specific criticism too and belongs more readily imo at the article about beevors specific book. Sayerslle (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't trust my translation, go get one yourself. See WP:NOENG: Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations.

This is not an excuse to revert the text, as well as all of my other edits. -YMB29 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so its fringe material, on a fringe site, that you have translated. ffs. this place is getting like LIfeNews and RT - that NOENG says 'in articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians,' - did you do that? (the whole page will just be Russian denialism - see also 'no Russian involvement in eastern ukraine' - 'no russian involvement , no buk or anything in Mh-17 crash' ) Sayerslle (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian denialism...

The original text has been added. -YMB29 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I did quickly check this publication by Senyavskaya, since I read Russian (see last part of this discussion). In my opinion, that was terrible. She repeats various statements from the Soviet (censored!) primary sources, such as "all German women are whores" («Все немки развратны. Они ничего не имеют против того, чтобы с ними спали» ... Немцы перед отступлением, а также сейчас, на занятой нами территории, стали на путь искусственного заражения сифилисом и триппером немецких женщин, с тем, чтобы создать крупные очаги для распространения венерических заболеваний среди военнослужащих Красной Армии») to justify her views that mass rapes were not at all committed (as stated in the beginning of her article) or that everything was consensual. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the same false arguments and accusations won't help you prove your point. -YMB29 (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why does she write 'all german women are whores' whats the context for her repeating something outrageous like that? Sayerslle (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She does not say that. That is a false accusation. -YMB29 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Все немки развратны - how do you translate that? Sayerslle (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She tells that Soviet soldiers usually considered all of them "whores". She quotes memoirs, which were censored in the Soviet times, and "forgets" about memoirs by Soviet soldiers that were published in post-Soviet era and faithfully described these atrocities (see here for example). This is all junk science, not research. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Sayerslle (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not telling the truth again... Anyone who can read Russian will see this.

"Все немки развратны" does not mean that all German women are "whores." It is from an archival document that is listed in a special section for quotes from documents. This is not the author's opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MyVeryBestWishes wrote 'She tells that Soviet soldiers usually considered all of them "whores". ' - he didn't say it was the author's opinion did he? - and the NOENG by the way says 'in articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians' - I don't think that means you put the original on the talkpage - it surely means in article space? Sayerslle (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, why would it suggest to clutter the article?

He wrote "She tells that Soviet soldiers usually considered all of them 'whores'", which is not true. -YMB29 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, man, that is exactly what she wrote: "«Все немки развратны. Они ничего не имеют против того, чтобы с ними спали»[74], – такое мнение бытовало в советских войсках и подкреплялось не только многими наглядными примерами, но и их неприятными последствиями, которые вскоре обнаружили военные медики.". This is her opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what she does (I do not mean her opinions, but her manipulations with sources) could be considered a scientific misconduct. That's why Soviet/Russian PhD in humanities are usually not recognized at the West. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only manipulation here is by you. She talks about a common opinion of German women in the army, but not that they were "whores" as you claim. -YMB29 (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How come? You just said above [14] "She tells that Soviet soldiers usually considered all of them 'whores'", which is not true". I provided a direct quotation in Russian where she said exactly that. Now you accuse me that "the only manipulation here is by you". Please strike through your statement. My very best wishes (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase from a document translates as "all German women are morally corrupt," and you know this, or are you going to tell me that you don't know Russian well? -YMB29 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am sorry, but direct quotation in Russian (above) means exactly that (a woman who willfully engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse - "Они ничего не имеют против того, чтобы с ними спали"), except that one should not use incorrect translation from Google. And here is English definition of this term [15]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not going to convince a Russian speaker that "развратны" is exactly the same as "whores"/"whorish". -YMB29 (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what does 'morally corrupt' imply anyhow when applied to 'all german women'? - you are choking on flies and swallowing elephants in all this pov pushing of yours. Sayerslle (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian text in question does not claim that all German women were simply "morally corrupt". This is incorrect translation by YMB29. It claims that [all] German women "liked to sleep with everyone", which in this context means they liked to sleep with Russian liberators ("Они ничего не имеют против того, чтобы с ними спали"). In addition word "развратны" was used in a combination with claim that they intentionally transmitted venereal diseases to Russian soldiers ("Немцы перед отступлением, а также сейчас, на занятой нами территории, стали на путь искусственного заражения сифилисом и триппером немецких женщин, с тем, чтобы создать крупные очаги для распространения венерических заболеваний среди военнослужащих Красной Армии"). This is not just "moral corruption". (link to Russian publication). My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No where does it say whore, no matter how hard you try to make it sound so. -YMB29 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know what is your point? That the source is no good because it quotes a document that says bad things about German women? -YMB29 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- are you saying senyevskaya has no particular bias at all then ? - has she any sort of reputation? -like say antony beevor? - is she really not just an apparatchik/historian? where are her views discussed seriously by other historians? - is she not utterly fringe? - pushed forward out of all reason and proportion by you for pov reasons. its UNDUE - maybe there is no RS translation of her work -so wp has to trust 'YMB29' that its translation is accurate, - because she is a non-entity in the academic community at large. Sayerslle (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well your opinion is not enough to label a source or view fringe.

If you don't trust my translation, that is your problem. Go get someone else to translate the text for you.[16]

Also, the sentence you keep adding to the intro (NKVD files have revealed...) goes against the guidelines in WP:LEDE and that claim is already mentioned later in the article. So this is a good example of your blind POV pushing. -YMB29 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the lead is meant to contain stuff also found in the article, to reflect aspects of the article - - if I don't trust your translation , if your translation is crap, that's wikipedias problem , not mine, - it needs a RS translation , as disputes over what is written by senyevskaya demonstrate - the rule says 'in articles it should have the original text if a wikipedian translates ' - you just ignore that and say it doesn't mean what it says , - its difficult to find out about her , perhaps you could help in this and indicate any information about her - preferably in English - it isn't difficult to find info about antony beevor is it - are you taking the dyukov 'revsiionist' to RFC or are you just going to 'sneaky' edit war and take out reliably sourced info by the way? because YOUDONTLIKEITSayerslle (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are all over the place with your replies, which shows that you are not interested in having a real discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the frequent claims by YMB29 that "your opinion does not matter" is wrong. To the contrary, WP:NPOV requires that contributors knew the subject, read a number of different sources and honestly summarized their content, which requires understanding of the subject. On the other hand, a contributor who continuously insists on including opinions published only in his favorite "national" sources and language (so that others can not even read and properly evaluate their sources) goes against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are able to read it... I always provide translations when asked.

Are you trying to equate your opinions with those in reliable sources?

How am I going against NPOV if I have added alternative views? Where do you see me removing other views?

You are the one who is violating NPOV. It requires that all significant views are included, while you are pushing to have views that you don't like removed. -YMB29 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant points of view, not the WP:BOLLOCKS you're POV pushing in order to create WP:GEVAL. My very best wishes's translation is correct. Translations follow the implications indicated in context. You're welcome to ask a native Russian speaker to define "развратны" without a context, and the definition can have a myriad of meanings dependent on the context. We're not parsing the text word by word, but are conveying the blatant meaning within the context. I've read it, and it is absolutely unmissable.

Now according to Mark Solonin, who certainly has a profile in the Anglophone world, Елена Сенявская is a falsifier of history. Between you, Yelena and Mark - taking into account your trying to dodge your own contradictions about the text you're trying to pass off, and which I've read with a raised eyebrow - I suspect I know who my money's on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your money is on what an engineer with no academic degree in history wrote in his blog? And you are the one complaining about BOLLOCKS...

There is a difference between calling someone a whore and saying that they are morally corrupt. If you don't believe me, go and try that in real life and compare the reactions you get... However, what does this have to do with the topic I don't know. -YMB29 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear, you are selling Solonin short as being "just and engineer". He certainly has been received as a specialist in WWII history by a number of countries: the Russian Federation included.

Pray do explain to me how you've differentiated between 'whore', or 'slut' and established the interpretation as being 'morally corrupt' when, in the context, it refers to promiscuity (i.e., sexual promiscuity to be precise)? The relationship to the topic is the use of content from an 'historian' who smacks of having created a revisionist history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to repeat things I have already said and don't want to discuss those bad words, because they have nothing to do with the topic. This was only brought up because user "My very best wishes" attempted to use a misquote to paint Senyavskaya in a bad way.

So not having a degree in history does not prevent Solonin from being a WWII specialist in your view, while Senyavskaya, who has a higher doctorate in history, is no good... The obvious question is what makes Solonin a better source? Just because his views match yours?

Once again you are continuing to throw insults and accusations, as well as sticking up no matter what for like minded users whom you edit other articles with, without actually contributing anything constructive here. -YMB29 (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iryna. Good catch!. Based on that, Senyavskaya is guilty of forgery. Any references to her "work" must be excluded from WP articles. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a blog by Solonin... -YMB29 (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are going to refer to blogs, you may be interested in reading this: Amateur-historian Mark Solonin, Falsifier. -YMB29 (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a reliably sourced text by Mark Solonin at the Echo of Moscow. There is no doubt that he wrote this. We have a page about Mark Solonin, who unlike Senyavskaya, is a relatively well known historian. On the other hand, you provided here a link to opinion by an ordinary guy who, according to his own admission [17], is not at all a professional historian. More important, this is not merely an opinion of Solonin. He provided a factual proof in his text. Therefore, all nonsense by Senyavskaya must be removed per policy, and I am sure it will be removed. Now, speaking about your argument here, that proves nothing. For example, Kavkaz Center is an unreliable extremist source, but it was referred to in hundreds books. Edit warring to place FRINGE or extremist sources back to multiple pages is a highly problematic behavior. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are comparing Senyavskaya to Kavkaz Center... Was not Kavkaz Center considered a good source by you before?

Echo of Moscow is RS, but its blogs are not. That entry is a copy and paste from Solonin's website anyway.

Solonin is an amateur-historian, who is considered fringe in Russia. Senyavskaya is a professional historian, who is cited and praised in Western publications. What Western publications cite Solonin? -YMB29 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

where is she 'praised' in Western publications? You'll be saying she is all powerful and all knowledgeable next Sayerslle (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See below. -YMB29 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mentioned - equals - praised. Sayerslle (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just mentioned. -YMB29 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the discourse section is not very good in my opinion. the third paragraph for example attacks a certain book or article, in a kind of 'what about-' way - and is maybe spurious - maybe the writers were only addressing the rape of german women in 1945 , and their article was not about anything else . - the whole section basically uses Pascale Rachel Bos's views and Elizabeth heinemans views only as pre-eminent and the final words - while the only other work mentioned is set up as a kind of straw man - it seems a section entirely set up to say the rapes were used for a purpose after the war to deflect from german guilt or something, and then 'what about -'something else, - the section is very unsatisfactory somehow -it is about a billion miles from giving an account of the discourse around this subject I should think - I know that is part of the problem with the way Wikipedia is written over time and the sources already there have a role probably in a rounded section - its just as it is it looks kind of weighted with a certain agenda and has very few sources - the majority of it is just Bos's and heineman's opinions and the writing leaves little doubt that one is meant to nod and say , yes Bos and heineman have said the final words, Sayerslle (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senyavskaya is cited a lot in Western publications:[18][19][20][21][22][23]
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.[24]

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.[25]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As noted in the link[26] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Once again, nobody cares about Solonin's blog here. Only reliable sources matter. -YMB29 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[27]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[28] -YMB29 (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is Germany here?

• Weimar Germany
• Germany in 1938 (Austria, Sudetenland)
• Any land taken by Wehrmacht?

Xx234 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Some editors believe that German society was divided into civilians and army. Such opinion is obviously false, there were millions of militarized Germans, esepecially SS. Volkssturm was set up, not by the traditional German Army, but by the Nazi Party.
• There were millions of uniformed and sometimes armed civilians in Germany in 1944/1945, e.g. many forms of police, foresters, NSDAP activists, German settlers in occupied areas (Zamość region).
• Millions of German women were Nazi activists, police informers, Holocaust clerks. League of German Girls members joined sometimes Volkssturm. Xx234 (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be evaluated within the scope of the article. Trying to introduce too many factors because 'it's complicated' will inevitably lead to WP:SYNTH. I don't see how such complexities can be addressed without creating other main articles addressing any variable based on RS without turning this article into a POV fiasco suggesting that the women who were raped somehow deserved it. Developing other articles is a good idea, but stuffing swathes of off-topic content into this article is a very, very bad idea, and will end up as a coatrack for revisionist, apologist nonsense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean many articles describing German society as civilians plus army, which is false, there were millions of uniformed and armed people outside the Wehrmacht. Many German and Austrian civilians participated in Endphaseverbrechen, which were parallel to the evacuations and expulsions.

I haven't written that all victims deserved their fate (Magda Goebbels did deserve and she wosn't the only one). However the stereotype of poor German women without any connection to Nazism is wrong, many women participated in the system. Xx234 (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rape during the liberation of Poland took place before the rape during the occupation of Germany or was parallel. I believe that See also is too little.Xx234 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also raped Russian and Polish girls and women - victims were of many nationalities.Xx234 (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, this is wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Many times (including rape of Russian women), mostly quoted eg. from Naimark. Xx234 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

These are the changes that are currently being disputed (I left out some of the minor stuff):

• NKVD files have revealed that the Soviet leadership knew what was happening, including rape of Russian women liberated from labour camps, but did nothing to stop it.

This was added by Sayerslle to the intro.[29] First of all, this is unattributed (and he removed the attribution[30]). Secondly, it does not belong in the intro, as the intro is supposed to summarize the article and not mention details. This article is not about alleged rape of Russian women and NKVD files. Also, there is already a similar sentence in the Analysis section: Beevor exemplifies this with his discovery that Soviet troops also raped Russian and Polish girls and women that were liberated from Nazi concentration camps.

• Aleksandr Dyukov, historian and General Director of the Historical Memory Foundation, who according to a BBC article claims Soviet repression has been systematically exaggerated, writes that...

Sayerslle added the bolded part. What does the historian's view on repressions have to do with the topic? This is coat racking and probably is synthesis too. Sayerslle insists on adding this to try to make the historian look bad. Before this, he kept adding the revisionist label, which violated WP:BLP.[31][32]

• Senyavskaya also criticizes Beevor for using and popularizing the statistic that 2 million German women were raped by the Soviet Army. The calculation used to derive the statistic is based on the number of newborns in 1945 and 1946 whose fathers are listed as Russian in one Berlin clinic, the assumption that all of these births were the result of rape, and then the multiplication of this effect across the entire female population (ages 8 to 80) of the eastern part of Germany. According to Senyavskaya, this method of calculation cannot be considered valid. Senyavskaya further argues that Beevor use of Soviet archival documents does not prove his analysis. There are large concentrations of reports and tribunal materials about crimes committed by army personnel, but, she explains, that is because such documents were stored together thematically. She contends that occurrences of crimes by Soviet servicemen were considered extraordinary rather than the norm. Senyavskaya concludes that "those guilty of these crimes account for no more than two percent of the total number of servicemen, while authors like Beevor spread their accusations against the entire Soviet Army."

Sayerslle removed this text claiming that I need to provide the text by Senyavskaya translated into English.[33][34] I provided the translation, but he then said that he does not trust my translation and that it must be done by a reliable source.[35] This is ridiculous and goes against what is stated in WP:NOENG.

• According to Yelena Senyavskaya, mass rape is one of the most widespread anti-Russian myths. She traces it back to Goebbels' propaganda at the end of the war, and then to some publications (such as Ralph Keelings Gruesome Harvest: The Costly Attempt To Exterminate The People of Germany) in countries that were allied with the USSR, but soon turned into opponents in the Cold War. Yelena Senyavskaya criticizes Beevor's methodology and use of statistics. Nicky Bird also criticizes Beevor's statistics, stating that: "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor — how can we possibly know that 90 percent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 percent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 percent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?"

"My very best wishes" removed this text[36] based on what someone said about Senyavskaya in a blog.[37] He also did this in other articles.[38][39] Not only is his reasoning based on a blog entry, but the claim turned out to be false, while Senyavskaya is cited and praised in Western sources (see here). Also, note that he removed Bird's criticism too while only mentioning Senyavskaya in the revert summary.

-YMB29 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

True enough. dyukov who according to a BBC article claims Soviet repression has been systematically exaggerated, - you ask 'What does the historian's view on repressions have to do with the topic' - well, the subject of the article is linked to Soviet repression.' - and he saying, surprise , its all exaggerated, so it seems pretty germane to me - Sayerslle (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it linked? Even if it was, that is not a valid reason to include that text. -YMB29 (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well - I disagree. if that's o.k. - considering you want to include paragraphs of verbiage with little of substance but much persiflage I don't think you can lecture others about what it is valid to include. Sayerslle (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you again respond with a personal attack... -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im arguing about the content , your edits amount to lots of text I consider persiflage - btw is it right Dyukov has been given some sort of privileged access to FSB archives ? his page on wp says he is considered a revisionist historian anyhow and the FSB give him special access and he writes things about myths, rape is a myth, soviet repression is a myth, etc - everything is upside down imo -its you who are constantly attacking me - everythigns upside down -its like "Pro-Russians began to distrust Putin over his point-blank lying that the Green men are not his soldiers" - its like ' no Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine ' - everything upside down , its complicated world - its like you keep saying stuff like ' edit war sayerslle' - 'personl attack sayerslle' - but just you keep saying stuff doesn't make it the truth - same as putin saying 'what Russians - you can buy unifirms anywhere - ' Sayerslle (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant conspiracy talk. Must you mention the FSB or Putin in every one of your posts? -YMB29 (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'all history is contemporary history' - I was commenting on the fact that dyukov has been aligned with a Putin-ist re-writing of soviet history - I thought you wanted to discuss what you consider unwarranted labels on dyukov and i'm arguing it is not irrelevant to seek to label dyukov and it isnt surprising he views the rapes as exaggerated and a myth or whatever because its his style - its echoed in putin saying how the hitler-stalin pact was fine and stuff. Sayerslle (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. You can't just ramble on about your personal views. -YMB29 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the bit around dyukov I added from bbc should stay - if senyavskaya is retained - is this histrf.ru ?a RS , or just a ghetto for regime friendly appartchik historians? ,- if it is retained, it should be with both the original and your effort at translation alongside ( and it made for very difficult reading , was hard to make out the points being made , a RS translation is preferred , the rules do say that ymb29 -and definitely say if a wikipedian translates the article should have the original also, the article, not the talk page of the article, read the rule.)- talking about snyavskaya you've said - 'The documents are brought up to [-] show that Soviet views on intimate relations were more conservation than the ones in many European countries ' - what does that mean? Sayerslle (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is straightforward. What do you think it means?

The rule says that editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page and When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote.

So where the translation and original text are provided does not matter. You are just looking for excuses...-YMB29 (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

whatdo i think it means? nothing - I couldn't make anything of it - it is rubbish to me , means nothing , that's why I asked. you don't quote further from the NOENG advice , but stop short In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians - the rest is just saying as far as I can make out that when using non eng language sources, wherever, on talk etc it is good and helpful to have the original and the translation sometimes, if requested for example, - 'that Soviet views on intimate relations were more conservation' is nonsensical to me , I repeat - as you just evade and are endlessly rude and unhelpful and don't reply to questions I'm not bothering with this anymore. its very clear yu don't want debate or comment you want to make demands and insist on getting your way and the request for comments are a charade to you. Sayerslle (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I see that you continue making personal attacks, as well as asking off topic questions and making excuses for why you removed valid text. -YMB29 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a completely wrong representation of the disputes by YMB29, as least in all aspects that mention my edits. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what is wrong with it exactly? -YMB29 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is obvious whose edits are not neutral here and who is POV pushing. -YMB29 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, when multiple unrelated editors revert the edits of a single editor, then that is a sign that single editor is attempting to unduly push a POV. --Nug (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not when those users have a common history of edit warring and harassment of others together. You should know what I am talking about... -YMB29 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the intro is supposed to summarize the article and not mention details. Also, there is already a similar sentence in the Analysis section - you realize that you are contradicting yourself here? Anyway, the fact that NKVD/Soviet leadership was aware of what was happening IS NOT a "detail" but quite pertinent. It's exactly the kind of info that belongs in the lede.
• Dyukov - quite simply, he should not be used as he's not RS. If he's used, then yes, information on who he is should be provided.
• Senyavskaya - two minds about this. Probably something by Senyavskaya should be mentioned. But the attention given to her is clearly WP:UNDUE.
• According to Yelena Senyavskaya... - ditto.

Basically, if Dyukov is removed and the part on Senyavskaya is shortened the problems disappear. They are created because way too much space is being given to fringe sources not representative of academic consensus. As far as the first bullet point goes, that's a non-starter. It clearly belongs in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are complaining about undue weight and want an unattributed accusation from one source in the intro... The claim about NKVD/Soviet leadership is not a common fact, but it is what Beevor says or implies.

You may not like Senyavskaya or Dyukov, but that does not matter. The section above shows that Senyavskaya is an academic source. Do you have any evidence to prove your claims? You can't claim that there is an academic consensus without a source directly saying that, see WP:RS/AC. -YMB29 (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't really care if Dyukov is removed. I can replace him with another Russian historian. However, Senyavskaya is important and I have provided enough evidence that she is a good academic source,[40] so her text should be restored in full. -YMB29 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained to you ad nauseum in Talk:Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Coat_racking above, the issue is WP:UNDUE usage of Senyavskaya. --Nug (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it WP:UNDUE if the article is on the topic and the section is about Russian criticism? -YMB29 (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so Dyukov is removed. I am re-adding Senyavskaya and trimming down the text. -YMB29 (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm at a loss as to how you have the audacity to treat this as a genuine WP:TALK page. At this point, it has become a journal of all of your opinions and what you've done to the content of the article. There has been no consensus for your WP:POV, and most certainly not for the content changes you're now making. This has ceased to be an encyclopaedic article and has become, instead, a testament to your having taken ownership on your behalf. Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works: your opinions are not sacrosanct, nor do you have the right to remove content because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Keeping a record of your POV changes here does not has no relationship to the WP:WEIGHT of your preferred sources and that of mainstream scholarship. Enough of your WP:GEVAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? You should not waste so much energy on making accusations and personal attacks.

The Russian point of view is significant and should be in the article. Everything is properly attributed, so I don't know what you are complaining about.

Some real progress was being made and then you rush in with your battleground thinking. -YMB29 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Iryna. YMB29, please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self revert what? Coming back and continuing with disruptive comments right away is not a good idea. I also noted that you called me a Stalinist Neo-Nazi.[41] You should apologize. -YMB29 (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was only a very general comment. As should be clear from the diff, I expressed my agreement with essay by Moreschi (see the link). Yes, I do not like nationalistic disputes. I have been recently involved in a number of such discussions, primarily on the Ukrainian events. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was the last person you talked to, but I am not going to hold it against you if you stop making attacks/accusations and edit in a constructive manner. -YMB29 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll you stop please making baseless accusations in lieu of honest discussion? These look like bad faithed attempts at derailing the discussion when it goes against you. And no, criticism of your actions is not "personal attacks", especially when well deserved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So calling me a Stalinist Neo-Nazi is well deserved? -YMB29 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the sentence about NKVD files and Russian women was re-added to the intro. I reworded it, but I still don't think it belongs in the intro (per WP:MOSINTRO), at least the part about Russian women.
I am willing to resolve this through WP:3O or WP:DRN. -YMB29 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about we resolve it through WP:CONSENSUS... which seems to be against you? 3O is for disputes involving two users. DRN is different, but I think in a situation where it's you vs. the world it's not applicable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You talking about "consensus" created by former EEML members? There is enough evidence to show that you continue the edit warring and harassment of others together.

That sentence was added by a user who is now banned for edit warring... -YMB29 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I suggest you stop with the attacks and edit in a constructive matter. -YMB29 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No, consensus by pretty much everyone but you. And who added that text is irrelevant. The sentence belongs in the lede. Also, don't try to play games. You've been edit warring on this article for months and the only reason you haven't gotten blocked is because you're much better at gaming the system. Which is a reflection on Wikipedia not on content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know a lot about that... Can you explain why that sentence belongs in the intro? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? -YMB29 (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that that's what you're doing. And whether or not the Soviet leadership was aware of the rapes is obviously a key issue here and of course it belongs in the lede. Stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet leadership being aware of the rapes is questionable; it is an opinion not a fact. Same goes for the alleged rape of Russian women, and this article is not about that. -YMB29 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for the last time, STOP ACCUSING OTHERS OF ATTACKING YOU. Legitimate criticism of your tendentious editing, long time edit warring and WP:OWN issues on this article are NOT "attacks". They are a factual description of your disruptive behavior. It is YOU who's resorting to ad hominem attacks about EEML or whatever to bully your way through - since you are incapable of convincing anyone to agree with you. Oh yeah, and if you've got "enough evidence to show that you continue the edit warring and harassment of others together" then please present it. Otherwise, quit it with the baseless accusations. They're getting tiresome and annoying. Hint: the fact that multiple editors disagree with you is not any kind of "evidence of harassment", it's rather a sign that you're pushing a fringe POV here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The fact that those multiple editors have a common history of disruption to create consensus among other things does not mean anything? I will present the evidence if the disruption continues. -YMB29 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making empty threats. The only person being disruptive here is you. You've reverted three times today. Yesterday you pretty much blanket reverted to your preferred version despite several days worth of discussion and clear consensus against you. An obvious instance of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. About a week ago you also reverted three times per day. And you always come back and revert to your preferred version, discussion be damned. It's pretty obvious from the edit history that you're just gaming the 3RR rule and engaging in tendentious editing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. I made one revert on each of the last two days. Another baseless attack... -YMB29 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Axell is a historian, see here[42][43][44]. -YMB29 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does not establish that he's a historian. What institution did he get his PhD in history from? What scholarly publications in history does he have? He's a journalist who writes popular history books. Best I could find is that he "studied history" while an undergrad a UofWisconsin, which could mean anything from "took a class" to "read a history book in between keg parties" to "majored in it". And even if he did major in it, an undergrad degree in history is not enough to make one a "historian". It might be that I'm wrong but these links don't show it.

I should also mention the fact that you willfully and blatantly misrepresented the Bird source. Don't pull stunts like that again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not misrepresenting if Bird really states that. It does not say "in his negative review of Beevor's book," so I don't know what you are talking about.

As for Axell, he is called historian in sources. If you have evidence that proves otherwise, present it here. -YMB29 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're equivocating on the term "historian". This source [45] calls him a "journalist", as does this source [46]. Here is a review of one of Axell's books [47] which basically, all the standard academic niceties aside, says "you should read a real history book instead".

And yes it is misrepresentation. There's a positive, even glowing review of Beevor's book, and you went and cherry picked out the one sentence which makes it look negative. And it's not even that the sentence does that - it's clear from the context of the review that Bird is just saying "we will never know exact numbers for sure" - but you made it seem like some damning criticism of Beevor. You're playing fast and loose with sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Bird does criticize Beevor for using the statistics and this is relevant. No one is claim that the review is negative or that he attacked Beevor's book in the article. This is less a criticism of Beevor than it is of the statistics. -YMB29 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for Axell, one negative review does not change anything. The second source that calls him a journalist does that because it mentions him taking an interview, so clearly in this context he is a journalist. Also, you should note that Mark Solonin and Antony Beevor are called historians on wiki, even though they lack an academic degree. -YMB29 (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: I also noticed the potential comparison. Basically, as Mark Solonin is a recognised scholarly expert in the field of the Soviet Union in WWII and Beevor is also considered an expert, Axell comes off as being an interviewer with an opinion (i.e., a journalist). Trying to elevate him to a scholar of any description is pure WP:BOLLOCKS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Solonin nor Beevor have academic degrees, but you don't care because they fit your POV. I don't know if Axell has an academic degree, but he has written many books on WWII history, so he is not simply a journalist. -YMB29 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YMB29, stop bombarding this talk page as if it were a forum, forgetting to sign your comments, and not following a recognisable form of threading. You've created so many ec's in the last few minutes that it's ridiculous. Think out what you wish to say, then write your comment. Every aspect of your contributions on the talk page, alone, testify to the fact that you're WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I posted just before you on a talk page does not make me disruptive... -YMB29 (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but your months long edit warring, your battleground attitude and your refusal to listen to other people in the discussion does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was already an RfC essentially on the same subject [48]. The result was essentially "no consensus" to include claims by Senyavskaya and other similar authors, but YMB29 still continued edit warring to include these claims in multiple articles. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. This was *already* a subject of an RfC which was closed with "no consensus for inclusion". Why are we talking about this again? Why is this an issue? YMB29, if you don't feel like observing the outcome of an RfC, or the discussion of this talk page, that's your problem. But you are clearly being disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC result was ambiguous; it did say the sources are credible. However, it was for different article, not about this topic, and the sources were eventually included. -YMB29 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. The RfC was closed as "no consensus for inclusion", not "ambiguous". To the extent the "sources were eventually included" was only because you either just wore, bored, and tired out those you were in discussion with (all of whom disagreed with you), or simply because you just waited for a bit of time to pass, then sneaked back in and put them back in there. Was it a different article? Yes, but the issue was the same, and the topic was the same - exactly the same author, exactly the same problems. This is just more evidence of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no sneaking in, but lots of discussion.

Also the article was Battle of Berlin, not about rape, but this article is about rape. That should be obvious...

Also, I note that you are continuing with you personal attacks. -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same freakin' author, it's the same freakin' issue. It's not like it's hard for anyone to check that, so why are you sitting there claiming otherwise? And one more time, I am not making any personal attacks. I am pointing out that you are engaged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and have a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Which you are, and which you do. Accusing another person of "personal attacks" without basis is a personal attacks itself so I suggest you stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of edit warring to sneak text in without having any idea of what went on in that article is a personal attack.

No one was against the text you reverted in that article. In fact it was not me who first added that specific text. The consensus was to leave the text in the footnote. -YMB29 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Where did you manage to elicit the bizarre understanding that the "RfC result was ambiguous"? All of the points made by the closing admin were clear that consensus and WP:WEIGHT (as well as attribution) were the overriding considerations. Further to that, please demonstrate that the sources were "eventually included" via consensus. I don't see anything of that nature in the article where this was discussed (other than your very, very recent addition of Senyavskaya as a source). Stop gaming. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read this: "There seems to be no dispute regarding the historians' credentials..."? Also, meat puppetting for other users is never a good idea. -YMB29 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See above what? The RfC was clearly closed as "no consensus for inclusion". And there's no meat puppeting here. You're just engaged in a stubborn refusal to recognize that no one agrees with you, that consensus is against you.<<-- Note, this was written in response to YMB29's original comment. They then changed it.

Did you read this: "No consensus for inclusion"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it was still included in the notes after further discussion, and again that RfC only applied to that article, see its specific wording. -YMB29 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only there was an RfC, but YMB29 was warned, specifically about this subject, by yet another uninvolved administrator [49]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a general notification, not specifically to me. You need to stop with false accusations. -YMB29 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, as obvious from the diff, that was a warning specifically to you (your name was indicated, and so.). Actually, this is major problem with most of your statements. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being honest again: "I would remind all users that ArbCom has established discretionary sanctions for cases like these, specifically here WP:ARBEE" -YMB29 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who's being dishonest (again). Quote: "YMB29, with all due respect, you have been warned before on this issue". Yeah, that sure sounds like a "general notification". Gimme a break. What's the point of lying, when it's this easy to verify that you're not telling the truth? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you accusing me of lying. Keep the personal attack coming...

Warned that there is a "Western scholarly consensus" (not like I was denying it), not an EE warning or something like. -YMB29 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop playing games. YOU just accused someone else of lying, quote: "You are not being honest again". And then you accuse others of making personal attacks. Seriously? I just showed that that was not the case. They were not lying. You were - you were warned specifically, not as part of a general warning. It's easy to check and verify that was the case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone was "being dishonest" and that they were "lying" (as you did) is not the same thing. So why don't you check and verify? I was not warned for edit warring or anything like that. -YMB29 (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would have to count as one of the worst attempts at playing at semantics I've encountered for a long, long time. Please provide an honest definition of "being dishonest". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone lied is uncivil, while dishonest is more polite. Do I have to explain basic things to you? -YMB29 (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. A lie is a lie, and what's really "uncivil" is the lying itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but falsely accusing others of lying is also uncivil. -YMB29 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This lesson in 'delicacy' on how to discuss issues on talk pages coming from someone who spends his/her time engaging in aspersions, accusations about cabal mentality, plus every kind of insult under the sun? You're preaching wholesale hypocrisy. Read WP:SPADE and let's start parsing your 'civil' arguments - er, discussions - one by one. You've cornered the civility market in spades! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal attack. Please continue... -YMB29 (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This warning was issued to YMB29 (and possibly to other users) by an uninvolved admin, in response to questions by YMB29 on his talk page. Now, I agree with Iryna and Marek that YMB29 indeed inappropriately modifies/moves comments made by other contributors, as obvious from these diffs: [50], [51]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new section to make the talk page more readable is not disruptive you know. If you want you can show these diffs to an admin and then I can show mine... -YMB29 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New disputes

American journalist Albert Axell has criticized...

Axell is a historian as stated in reliable sources.[52][53][54] If anyone has evidence otherwise, let's see it. Other sources that call him a journalist don't invalidate the fact that he is a historian according to the previous set of sources.

In his review of Beevor's book, Nicky Bird also criticizes the statistics, stating that: "Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor — how can we possibly know that 90 percent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 percent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 percent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?"

This was removed under a pretext that Bird's review is positive, but I cherry picked something bad he says about Beevor's book. This not a valid argument for removing the text. No where does the text claim that Bird's review is negative; it only specifically says that Bird criticizes the use of unverifiable statistics.

If the users here would stop with the battleground mentality and trying to revert or question anything I add, they would see that I have made valid points. -YMB29 (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the fact that there was an RfC in another article on a related topic[55], does not mean that its result applies to this article. The Berlin article only touches on the subject of rape while this article is about rape. So "no consensus" (because of WP:UNDUE concerns) to include it in that article, does not translate to "no consensus" to include it here. The only relevant part of the RfC for this article was that it established that the Russian sources are credible. Again, I am willing to go to DRN for this, and if it is required, we can have a RfC for this article too. -YMB29 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what was established. What was established was that there was no consensus for inclusion because it violated UNDUE weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that article only, as the RfC's wording was specific to that article. The sources were later included in the footnote, so it was not final.

Also see: "There seems to be no dispute regarding the historians' credentials." -YMB29 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking is cherry picking. If the review is glowing and you pick out the one possibly negative sentence out of it then that is still misrepresenting the source even if you don't explicitly say "the review is negative".

Axell is a journalist. He's a "historian" in the sense that he's a journalist who writes about history. You're equivocating.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well again find sources for your claims. Here we go by what the sources say.

I am not making any claims about Bird's assessment of Beevor's book. Simply stating that he criticizes the statistics is not cherry picking; it is a statement of fact that is directly relevant to the topic. -YMB29 (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bird's criticism of statistics is in the Berlin article, and I was not the one who first added it there.[56] There was also a long discussion about this back then. So if it belongs in that article why not here? -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YMB29, why did you overwrite My very best wishes' comment here? That is a no-no. You're in such a rush to fight everyone that you're not even concerned with how you approach using a talk page with respect to other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Another personal attack... -YMB29 (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What 'personal attack' are you going on about? The page history is irrefutably clear: you overwrote another editor's comment! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overwrote? You mean removed? I guess you felt like creating a new section just to accuse me. -YMB29 (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• YMB29, you indeed inappropriately modified/moved my comments here, and repeated this again over my objections [57]. Do not you see? My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not modify it, but created a new section. I see that my alleged misconduct is the only thing you want to discuss here. Like I said before, keep it coming if you wish. This works against you more than me. -YMB29 (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was made in response to your comment, but you moved it twice to a different subsection, over my objections. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually you removed my comment.[58] Why did you do that? -YMB29 (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was explained in my edit summary. I restored my comment. My very best wishes (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did not restore anything, since I did not remove anything. However, you removed my entire comment and now you are accusing me of doing what you yourself did. This is further proof of your disruption. -YMB29 (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So, you believe that distorting my words (creating a new section and moving my comment twice to this section over my objections) was OK. You also disagree with the most obvious diffs, such as these [59],[60] (discussion here: [61][62]). Too bad. My very best wishes (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did not remove your comment like you did mine. On that page it was proven that the accusations are false. You need to admit your mistakes. -YMB29 (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [63], [64] - it's probably a summary of the author's research presented in his book [65].Xx234 (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The spring of victory. Forgotten Stalin’s crime Xx234 (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• A victim's accountXx234 (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll had have make some minor supplement to Yelena Senyavskaya statement, which should be defined as hypothesis. The next sentence starting with: "She explains that the calculation used to derive the statistic... "

If she is just explaining the case, who is than defining that this method of calculation has no validity? If its an academic publication, the citation to the russian scientific faculty should be given and not by herself. Thanks 79.141.160.64 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that you Sayerslle? -YMB29 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle added the same which tag.[66][67] -YMB29 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please? I just add the obvious for improvement, which seems generally coincident in others opinion. 79.141.160.64 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle is banned and you are an IP user who randomly shows up and makes a similar edit. It is not hard to understand what is going on... -YMB29 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing else to contribute to the improvement, please leave any false accusations beside. Thanks 79.141.160.64 (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. http://www.historyfoundation.ru/en/fund_item.php?id=13

Alexandr Senyavsky, Yelena Senyavskaya claim they fight a psychological war. Xx234 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what it says in the description. -YMB29 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the exact quote which supports the following text:

"Roberts concludes that, given the scale of the conlfict (sic) and the size of the territory involved, probably tens of thousands of rapes were normal for such a conquering force as the Red Army. He also notes that this was probably the scale of the rapes the German Army was guilty of on the Eastern Front"

Also, what is the context of the discussion here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You think I made it up?

The extent of the Red Army's mass rape of German girls, women and old ladies is difficult to judge. Even before Soviet forces crossed into Germany, Nazi propagandists were predicting that the Asiatic hordes of judeobolshevism would mass rape German womanhood... Tens of thousands of rapes would have been 'normal' for such a conquering army, given the scale of the conflict and the size of countries involved. That is probably the kind of tally the Germans notched up on the Eastern Front, although murder, not rape, was their more typical 'crime of violence'.

-YMB29 (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you answer that again, and change the article text accordingly, before I file a report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You threatening me? I gave the quote above. What do you want? -YMB29 (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am warning you and I am giving you a chance. What I want is for you to stop grossly misrepresenting sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]