Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 139: Line 139:
**in her opinion the d'tary pretends to put forth the idea that the fate of women is common in all wars, but in a kinda hypocritical way
**in her opinion the d'tary pretends to put forth the idea that the fate of women is common in all wars, but in a kinda hypocritical way
*She notes the fact that the rapes were expected: both predicted by Nazi propaganda as a way to reinforce the morale of the defense and by unofficial decriminalization of non-medial and non-eugenic abortions
*She notes the fact that the rapes were expected: both predicted by Nazi propaganda as a way to reinforce the morale of the defense and by unofficial decriminalization of non-medial and non-eugenic abortions
*the guilt of Russians seems to be reinforced by their "cultural inferiority" (russians did rape, while Americans had chocolate; as if somehow coercion of a deprived woman by a chocolate is somehow morally more superior than plain rape)
*the guilt of Russians seems to be reinforced by their "cultural inferiority" (russians did rape, while Americans had chocolate; as if somehow coercion of a deprived woman to sex by a chocolate is somehow morally more superior than plain rape)
*The fact that in rape reports Russians all described as Asian/Mongol is explained by the imprinted ideas of both "Arian purity" and Nazi propaganda stereotypes; in particular, Americans rapists were mostly described as Negroes and French as Moroccans
*The fact that in rape reports Russians all described as Asian/Mongol is explained by the imprinted ideas of both "Arian purity" and Nazi propaganda stereotypes; in particular, Americans rapists were mostly described as Negroes and French as Moroccans
*At the same time raper reports invariably included socio-economic reasons, which Grossmann explains as reminiscences of the times of Weimar Republic
*At the same time raper reports invariably included socio-economic reasons, which Grossmann explains as reminiscences of the times of Weimar Republic

Revision as of 07:13, 23 December 2015

Sources discussion

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 [1], and thought , oh well if RT defend him, he must be great - (my sarcasm because actually I regard RT as a pile of pus). Sayerslle (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[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 [2] -or has monindependencefinanciere translated this wp? what is your source for her mentioning Ralph Keelings book as influential? Sayerslle (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[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' [3] - he may be impartial, its very hard to say for sure - but however impartial he always seems to slag off the side that doesn't love stalin/putin/Russian imperialism - Sayerslle (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[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]

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on content introduced

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

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

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

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


Title needs changing

Let us change the title to Rape during the occupation of Germany after WWII' or similar. I found this article while looking for the rapes in Germany after WW I (one), trying to fact-check claims in Occupation_of_the_Rhineland.

Zezen (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It started during WWII. "After WWII" would be incorrect. --Off-shell (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then Rape during the occupation of Germany related to WWII or similar. Just to limit the period in the title itself. I have just updated a related article about rape in Germany after WWI, FYI. Zezen (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the current title is WP:PRECISE. There are no other historical incidents meeting with this description in scholarship and common usage. The fact that you stumbled on the occupation of the Rhineland is a lateral argument. Unnecessarily lengthy names should not be used as a 'just in case' measure. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Germany was occupied a couple of times. Indeed, during WWI Occupation_of_the_Rhineland#French_forces there were many occupying soldiers convicted for rape, too. I guess there were other post-war periods as well. Why is this title WP:PRECISE then if it is an occupation, one of many? Zezen (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the WP:TITLE is "Rape during the occupation of Germany". Only the massive scale of rape during the end of WWII occupation is a high profile, specialised subject in academia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you convinced me, Iryna Harpy , congrats and good nite. Zezen (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zezen: You'll have to pardon me if I've misconstrued your response as a personal attack, but it certainly comes across as being one. I don't WP:OWN the article, and was going to add that if it isn't deemed to be common knowledge by other editors, you're welcome to discuss the matter. If it is deemed to be necessary, an appropriate name would then have to be identified. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

? No, I am not being ironic. You have convinced me, and so I congrat you on your good arguments. Nothing else. A spade is a spade here. Zezen (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the qualification. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with Grossmann's quote?

I understand there is a socking issue, but, in two words, what's wrong with the reverted text besides being sloppily written? I searched talk archives, but I don't see it discussed. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: appalling WP:SYNTH. Here is a PDF of the pages being cited. The previous incarnation of this content can be found here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading it right now in JSTOR. The article makes a point IMO missing in section Rape during the occupation of Germany#Social effects. I will try to summarize it here when I am done reading. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW another gap: Atina Grossmann (de:Atina Grossmann) . - üser:Altenmann >t 04:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that there is content from the article worthy of examination in the social effects (I'd already looked her up, and she's certainly seems to have solid credentials). The use of a comprehensive article examining complex nuances which had become entrenched in psyche/zeitgeist of that epoch in order to come up with that piece of trashy synth reading as if the majority of German women were playing the system in order to have freebie abortions is unconscionable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I may have been the first to delete that text a couple months ago. I thought the text grossly misrepresented the Grossman article, and I'm glad others seem to have agreed. I'm also happy you're trying to include content from the Grossman article since it was an excellent article. Sorry for not having taken the initiative myself earlier. Mdlawmba (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done reading. I agree it is an excellent article. Unfortunately I see it rather as an essay than a research article. It has lots of points and findings and quotes, but, as my brain works, it is difficult for me to incorporate it here. At least now I know what it says and I may be a helper/double-checker if it will be cited. Now, what I found of note (and not forgotten yet:-) (bits and pieces on random order):

  • It seems to be critical of the documentary of Helke Sander. She does not question the facts from the d'tary, but rather its presentation:
    • She does not deny neither the fact thew Germen women were victims, nor questions the numberr
    • She counter-agrues Sander's claim that she was "breaking the silence"
    • she objects to the role the d'tary, by its way of presentation, plays in presenting Germany and its Volk as victims rather than perpetrators (NB: not victims of Soviets, but victims of Reich ; in fact, she notes, raped German women were victims of the collapse of the Nazi Reich rather than of Nazism per se)
    • the language of d'tary reinforces the Nazi propaganda myth about barbaric Slav/Mongol hordes (e.g., an interview with a "well-bred, civilized" Russian veteran shows his back, but the one ranting about sexual exploits looks exactly as if from Nazi reels about barbaric Russian POW)
    • in her opinion the d'tary pretends to put forth the idea that the fate of women is common in all wars, but in a kinda hypocritical way
  • She notes the fact that the rapes were expected: both predicted by Nazi propaganda as a way to reinforce the morale of the defense and by unofficial decriminalization of non-medial and non-eugenic abortions
  • the guilt of Russians seems to be reinforced by their "cultural inferiority" (russians did rape, while Americans had chocolate; as if somehow coercion of a deprived woman to sex by a chocolate is somehow morally more superior than plain rape)
  • The fact that in rape reports Russians all described as Asian/Mongol is explained by the imprinted ideas of both "Arian purity" and Nazi propaganda stereotypes; in particular, Americans rapists were mostly described as Negroes and French as Moroccans
  • At the same time raper reports invariably included socio-economic reasons, which Grossmann explains as reminiscences of the times of Weimar Republic
  • As I mentioned, she writes the d'tary did not "break the silence". Immediately post-WWII there was plenty of memoir, and in these rape was a mundane yet another reality of suffering: destroyed houses, hunger, plunder, etc., a nonnotable part of the "consumer basket", so to say. Of course, in horrendous cases women committed suicide, but at the same time, at city water pumps women exchanged jokes about stupid Russisch and how to dupe them or about sentimental Russisch easily fascinated by children, etc. Only in modern discourse of "higher civilization" rape was singled out.
  • By German women, Russians were generally classified in two polarized groups, drunk barbarians and cultivated officers (whose consensual sex was sought for as a protection from rape), while Americans were commonly described as primitive and vulgar. (I myself remember a "love story" film about a German girl and Yankee soldier; they had a date on a beach; she took off her necklace before sex, lost it, he found it first and quickly dug it into sand... etc.... single mother ... etc. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • The narrative of German women in a crooked way absolved Russians of personal guilt: surely one cannot expect different behavior from these drunk primitive barbarians, and allowed women "to distance from the horror of their own experience" and to "maintain the conviction of their own superiority".
  • After the postwar mess was a bit cleaned up, the talk about Russian rapes was muted. This has an evident explanation in East Germany, but the same happened in the West, despite the fact that it could have been a handy Cold War propaganda tool
  • Still the rape story lived on, both in personal communication, and numerously in novel and film, as well as in gov't documents.

Well, that's all what I memorized. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion

Here

IMO the text is WP:SYNTH. The part of the book in question describes Soviet military violence during the "liberation" of Baltic states. It describes drunkedness, looting, violence, pogroms, etc. The quote of a random soldier is to illustrate this general attitude to hostile Balts (unlike, as he writes, Poles or Czechs) and not about specifically rape of women in Germany. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Anybody is quite welcome to write a more generic article about WWII Soviet Army rapes after crossing the Soviet borders. This book (by Alexander Statiev) speaks about this in Baltic States and in Kresy Wschodnie. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F696453328

Leave a Reply