Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:24, 20 January 2014

	Battle of Berlin is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 27, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed September 22, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Approved October 11, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / German / Russian & Soviet / World War II 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 Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union Top‑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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Military Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Former countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 2, 2005, May 2, 2006, May 2, 2007, May 2, 2008, May 2, 2009, and May 2, 2010.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Outcome

I disagree with last two PBS' edits. My rationale is as follows. Battle of Berlin was not just one more battle, as the current version of the infobox says. Thus, Donald E. Shepardson (The Fall of Berlin and the Rise of a Myth. Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 135-154) writes:

"On 30 April 1945 a Russian soldier raised his flag over the Reichstag building in Berlin to signal Stalin's defeat of Hitler after four years of war."

He continues:

"Hitler's death was more instrumental in ending the war than the fall of Berlin. All oaths to continue were invalid and all faith in victory gone."

In other words, in addition to the purely military importance, the BoB had both immense symbolic and political role: it signaled about complete defeat of Nazi Germany, and it liberated the Germans from their oath to Hitler, thereby making senseless further resistance. In addition, I do not understand why the reference to Flensburg was removed: the decision about transfer of authorities were made by Hitler during the battle, and this decision, along with Hitler's suicide, pawed a way for subsequent German surrender. In my opinion, the previous version is much more informative, correct, and it is supported by reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Suicide of Hitler and other high-ranking Nazi officials" is still there unaltered. The advance on Berlin was of far more symbolic importance to the Russians than it was to the Western Allies (or Churchill's pressure for the Western Allies to advance on Berlin would have been reciprocated by the American political establishment and carried out by Eisenhower).

I removed the "Allied victory in the European theatre of World War II" because it is misleading. The Battle of Berlin was a constituent of the end of the war in Europe, Its result was not the end of the war in Europe. The end of the war in Europe came with the formal general surrender and the resulting general end of hostilities (see End of World War II in Europe).

I removed "Governmental authority passed to the Flensburg Government" because the Flensburg government was not recognised by the Allies, as far a the Allies were concerned the German civilian government no longer existed, to present the Flensburg government as a government is a POV (see the articles debellation and End of World War II in Europe). -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the Allies didn't take Berlin simply because they decided not to do so, is a myth, and Shepardson proves that quite convincingly. They didn't advance to Berlin because they (i) were afraid of massive friendly fire accidents with the Soviets, (ii) needed the Soviet help in Far East, so they tried to avoid any problems with the Soviets, (iii) were physically unable to do so (the maximal possible result would be that some American units would reach Berlin simultaneously with the Soviets). Therefore, the statement should be added about the symbolic meaning of this victory. I agree that the victory of the battle did not (formally) end the war, however, it marked a military defeat of Germany. Moreover, regarding Hitler's suicide, it should be clarified that that was not just a suicide, for each German, it was a termination of any obligations to continue a war. This action had a legal effect, not only symbolical.

Re Flensburg, that was a German internal affair. It does not matter if it was recognised or not by the Allies. Do you imply that any appointments, or elections in Germany, US etc come to a force only after they have been vetted by international community? The concept of debellatio was needed simply because the actions of the Allies were incompatible with international laws that regulate occupation, for example, Nuremberg trials would not be possible had Germany been considered under military occupation. However, that was important for the post-war events only. What was important for the war itself was the fact that Flensburg government appointed Jodl, and Jodl signed first surrender.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about bullet points in the battle box. They should be clear and concise. You are suggesting putting back complex issues that can not be summed up in one sentence and present with a balanced POV. These are issues for the Aftermath section if they belong anywhere in the article so that a balanced POV can be presented.

For example you says "The idea that the Allies didn't take Berlin simply because they decided not to do so, is a myth" opinion is divide on how feasible the taking of Berlin would have been (and will always be so) Beevor writing in The Second World War (2012) presents a different point of view from Shepardson. Besides you concede the point about the symbolism by listing practical reasons why the Western Allies did not advance on Berlin, if the symbolism had been as strong as it was for the Russians then those practical reasons would not have mattered (as they did not for the Stalin).

"I agree that the victory of the battle did not (formally) end the war, however, it marked a military defeat of Germany." Yes and the battle box makes that point by stating that the battle was a decisive military victory to the Soviet Union.

You write "What was important for the war itself was the fact that 'Flensburg government' appointed Jodl, and Jodl signed first surrender." not necessarily so, it can be convincingly argued that Jodl represented the German military not the German government. International recognition of a regime is fundemental to whether that regime is the recognised government of a state. Your argument would mean that for example the Taliban are still the legitimate government of Afghanistan--as they did not recognise their removal as legitimate (see the article Diplomatic recognition for Afghanistan mess and others). In this case you are suggesting putting in a line back into the battle box that has a POV that many did not, and do not agree with: that the Flensburg government was the successor to the Hitler's government.

-- PBS (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Lusatian operation?

Pl wiki has an article at pl:Operacja łużycka about which is described as part of the Battle of Berlin, carried out in the second half of April by the elements of the 1st Ukrainian Front south of Berlin, in Lusatia. The operations was carried by Soviet 5th Guard Army, 13 and 52 Army, and the Polish 2nd Army. Battle of Bautzen (1945) was a part of that. Here's a map: File:Operacja luzycka.png. I think I may work on that article, but first I want to double check it's not already covered on en wiki under another name? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The BoB involved the greater Berlin metropolitan area and its encirclement by the forces of the USSR - other areas may be considered part of a general Soviet operation/drive to the West, but not specifically part of the BoB.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is not just about the Battle in Berlin. The section Battle outside Berlin needs to be expanded, but any expansion needs to be based on reliable sources, preferable in English and it should not give undue weight to Polish army operations which only made up a small percentage of the Soviet's combined operation. At the moment the whole capture of what became the south of East Germany is covered by the sentence: "The successes of the 1st Ukrainian Front during the first nine days of the battle meant that by 25 April, they were occupying large swathes of the area south and south west of Berlin." So a description of what Soviet forces went where, when they arrived and how much resistance they met needs to be added to this article. -- PBS (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC

Section about the Battle of Seelow Heights

I suggest that we remove the casualty figures for the Battle of the Seelow Heights from this article. The Soviet casualty figure is not entirely undisputed, but I think there is not room in this article for several perspectives and figures. There is a separate article for the Battle of the Seelow hights, I suggest that we use this article for the casualty figures.

(I find it interesting that we use Beevor as a source for the figure German casualties, but his figure for the Soviet casualties is not even mentioned.)

EriFr (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Goebbels's fevered prophecies

See WP:BRD.

From the history of the article

• 07:17, 16 January 2014‎ IIIraute(Undid revision 585381854 by YMB29
• 07:20, 16 January 2014‎ YMB29 (Undid revision 590935037 by IIIraute (talk) No reason given for revert.)
• 11:12, 16 January 2014‎ PBS . . (reverted the revert. It is a change in emphasis and needs discussion to see if there is a consensus for such a change. What is the evidence that it was a horde or that if it were a horde was that it was Asian and not European?)

As I see it there are several problems in the change made by YMB29.

• "During, and in the days immediately following the assault"

to

• "According to Antony Beevor, during, and in"

implies that this is only the opinion of an odd-ball not not a generally accepted fact. This is not so.

Change of

• "and despite Soviet efforts to supply food and rebuild the city, starvation remained a problem (White 2003, 126)."
• "Historian Atina Grossmann claims that for women 'Goebbels's fevered prophecies about the threat from the Asiatic hordes seemed to be fulfilled'" (Grossmann 2009, p. 51)

Removes a fact and inserts a Nazi propaganda term.

1. What is the evidence that this is was a generally held view among the women who were raped?
2. What is the evidence that it was a horde?
3. If it were a horde, what evidence is there that it was specifically an Asian horde and not European horde or a combined horde?

-- PBS (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with PBS, it should be excluded; as should the addition of: "According to historian Oleg Rzheshevsky, such portrayal of the Red Army is a return to views that were instilled by Nazi propaganda and Neo-Nazi historians." (This was part of the revert, above but not specifically mentioned) Both per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierzek (talk • contribs) 13:53,16 January 2014‎

I second you last point. -- PBS (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

For those who's first language is not English there is an important difference between:

• wikt::Host: A multitude of people arrayed as an army; used also in religious senses, as: Heavenly host (of angels)
• wikt:Horde: A wandering troop or gang; especially, a clan or tribe of a nomadic people (originally Tatars) migrating from place to place for the sake of pasturage, plunder, etc.; a predatory multitude.

The Red Army was a host (A multitude of people arrayed as an army) not a horde (A wandering troop or gang). -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the topic?

That quote about Asiatic hordes comes directly from Atina Grossmann.

Something may be a "generally accepted fact" to you, but here we have to attribute facts to sources (see WP:ASF).

Historian Rzheshevsky is just as valid of a source as Beevor. You have no right to remove what he said. -YMB29 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a right to challenge and do per, WP:undue and clearly there is a WP:NPOV problems with the statements you want to add. At this point the burden is on you; if you obtain consensus, then so be it. But you don't have it at this time. Kierzek (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The changes were there for over a month, so if there was an obvious violation of something, someone would have reverted them much sooner.

You have the right to challenge, but no right to remove sources because you don't like them (see WP:IJDLI). You have not even provided any real arguments.

Go to the NPOV or RS noticeboards and prove your case. Otherwise, stop reverting valid text that is properly sourced. -YMB29 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And when you challenge information from a source, you put tags like or , not revert everything. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been on here a long time, I know how things work. The talk page is the first and foremost place to go. Your original addition was only mere opinions which were clearly bias and with no factual basis stated in support of them. Your edits were reverted, YOU are to discuss them before reverting them back because YOU don't like the result. Kierzek (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did it take you so long to revert them?

Strange that you are here for a long time and did not learn that reverting sourced text because you don't like what it says is not the way to go.

So the properly cited text is merely my opinion?

How is it "clearly biased and with no factual basis stated in support"? -YMB29 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time for snarky comments. Lets stick to the facts. You originally inserted WP:UNDUE opinion which states an opinion without any supporting facts, if you cannot see that truth, I can't help you. Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I can say the same thing about Beevor and others, only opinions... -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think you misunderstood some things.

The part about Soviet efforts to supply food and rebuild the city was not removed by me. I just moved it to the next paragraph.

Grossmann actually implies that Nazi propaganda was right about certain things. She used the Nazi propaganda term, not me. -YMB29 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Important also is that the user who reverted my edit (made on December 9th) without any explanation followed me here right after reverting me in another article.

That should tell you something... -YMB29 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

About NPOV, it would be a violation of NPOV if the accusations of Western historians like Beevor are left unchallenged. -YMB29 (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BRD, The idea is that you make a bold edit, it is reverted you then discuses those edits before reverting again. Three editors have clearly decided that you revert is not acceptable, so revering back in the version you prefer is against consensus and it is disruptive. The current wording is a based on a long discussion involving quite a few editors (so I suggest that you start by reading the talk archives). I also suggest that you consider the points I have made above, and address them. To take the sentences one at a time

• "During, and in the days immediately following the assault"

to

• "According to Antony Beevor, during, and in"

the implies that this is only the opinion of an odd-ball not not a generally accepted fact. This is not so, as the sentence has citations from four different sources. -- PBS (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you check those citations? The statement is supported by Beevor and Grossmann. I did not touch the sources, but clarified what they say and attributed the statements to the authors.

Have you read WP:ASF?

I added other sources that criticize the statements, so what is wrong with that?

Three editors decided? Are you counting the user who followed me in here and made the original revert without any reason?

The other user above has no reasons besides "I don't like it", while you wrongly accuse me of representing a fact as opinion.

Also, where were you all last month when the changes were made? -YMB29 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Are you counting the user who followed me in here and made the original revert without any reason" yes and I hope that user:IIIraute will confirm it. PBS (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Making blind reverts is disruptive... -YMB29 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides my points stated above, if it is just "propaganda" and "myth", then why is it that after the summer of 1945, Soviet soldiers caught raping civilians were usually punished to some degree, ranging from arrest to execution. Naimark, p. 92. The rapes continued until the winter of 1947–48, when Soviet occupation authorities finally confined Soviet troops to strictly guarded posts and camps completely separating them from the residential population in the Soviet zone of Germany. Naimark, p. 79.

O.A. Rzheshevsky admits he never READ Beevor’s book's source notes. He also flip-flops in his opinion which is not stated herein: Rzheshevsky states that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war (then they cannot be myth!).

Further, it is NOT just Beevor who has researched and written as to USSR Red Army rapes and war crimes. For example, Richard Overy, a historian, has criticized the viewpoint held by Russians, asserting that they refuse to acknowledge Soviet war crimes committed during the war, "Partly this is because they felt that much of it was justified vengeance against an enemy who committed much worse, and partly it was because they were writing the victors' history." Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No one said that it was only Beevor. Many Western historians accuse the Soviet Army of mass rape and many Russian historians criticize Western historians for misrepresenting facts and creating myths.

This difference of opinions has to be reflected in the article text, see WP:NPOV.

Rzheshevsky and other Russian historians do not say that robbery and rapes did not happen, but they question the scale of these crimes that Beevor and others claim.

Also, Rzheshevsky only read pieces of the book at the time the interview was taken, not that he never looked at it more thoroughly later... -YMB29 (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"No one said that it was only Beevor" you may not have said it but the change in the article text from "During, and in the days immediately following the assault" to "According to Antony Beevor, during, and in" implies it is Beevor assertion alone although the sentence contains citations to four authors. To answer your question have I read "WP:ASF" yes I have (as someone with an account that is over 10 yeas old it would be surprising if I had not)! and I draw you attention to the first sentence of the last paragraph of that advise. The facts are that multiple rapes took place and no serious historian argues that they did not happen. The only points that are argued about are the scale (which is addressed in a footnote) and whether such rapes constituted more than a moral crime -- which is deliberately not addressed in the wording you altered. You recent change to the wording of the first sentence under discussion by attribution it to one historian is a breach of WP:UNDUE. -- PBS (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, that sentence said a lot of things with different citations stuck to different parts of it. It was confusing, so I broke it down and clarified things.

The part that said "engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder" was cited only to Beevor.

The Bellamy and Grossmann citations were stuck to the part that said "and in the days immediately following the assault" in the beginning of the sentence. -YMB29 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I clarified what Grossmann writes in the next sentence. The Bellamy citation was to page 670 of his book, which only says that the looting and rapes subsided, so I created a new sentence for this. -YMB29 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Read what I wrote above, that statement in question was originally cited only to Beevor. If you want to add citations to other sources, do so.

All you have stated is that you don't like the text and the sources that I added. -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Repeating a misquote of my points does not help your arguments, YMB29. Kierzek (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well you keep on repeating that the sourced text I added somehow violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. -YMB29 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that Kierzek have shown great patience and restraint in dealing with your (YMB29) edits which are a clear breach of the WP:BRD process and the consensus policy. So continuing in that vein for the moment and attempting to reach agreement with you.

1. Do you or do you not agree that most reputable historians agree that mass rapes took place (even if the number of those rapes are disputed)?
2. If you do not then how many histories do we have to cite for you to agree to the original wording of the sentence you changed to start "According to Antony Beevor".

-- PBS (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is a reputable historian and who is not is a matter of opinion.

I don't have a problem if the start of the sentence is changed to "According to Western historians like Antony Beevor" or something like that, if a few more proper citations are added.

However, I don't see how the statement that follows can be presented as fact, because it is debatable.

Also, I don't think that the WP:BRD process is intended to be used to revert sourced information without giving a proper explanation. There was no explanation at all for the first revert. -YMB29 (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A proper explanation was given and you still reverted. I suggest as an act of good faith that you revert your revert and see if you have a consensus for those changes.

Do you have any reliable historians who deny that mass rapes took place? If not you insistence on "Western" is not appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You did not see the sources I added?

Kierzek did not give a proper explanation, only accused me of violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

You only gave a proper explanation for reverting the "According to Antony Beevor" part, but I explained to you that, given the citations that were there initially, my changes were accurate.

If my changes were reverted right after they were made (and not over a month after by a user making a disruptive revert), then I would probably have to wait for a consensus, but now it is a different situation I think. -YMB29 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Any real arguments or only those based on WP:IJDLI? -YMB29 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that deny that mass rapes took place? -- PBS (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I added them to the article:

According to Oleg Rzheshevsky, the president of the Russian Association of World War II Historians, such portrayal of the Red Army is a return to views that were instilled by Nazi propaganda and Neo-Nazi historians.

Rzheshevsky, Oleg A. (2002), "Берлинская операция 1945 г.: дискуссия продолжается" , Мир истории (in Russian) (4).

Yelena Senyavskaya, historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences, writes that the myth of relative mass rape by Soviet troops, while there is supposedly no evidence of this in the areas occupied by the Western allies, is spread in the West and used for putting political pressure on Russia.

Senyavskaya, Yelena (2006), Противники России в войнах ХХ века. Эволюция «образа врага» в сознании армии и общества (in Russian), Moscow: ROSSPEN, ISBN 5-8243-0782-2.

-YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes, that is exactly what I did with my edits, so why did you revert them? -YMB29 (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And yes those Russian historians say that the estimates are very exaggerated and based on dubious methods of calculation. -YMB29 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You did not put hard quantities of estimated rapes into your edits. You implied that Beevor was the only one who thought the Soviets committed mass rape in Berlin. You also made the two Soviet historians sound revisionist or reactionary rather than calmly assessing the facts. I thought your preferred wording was not neutral at all. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

How is it not neutral? If you think that it is not neutral then change it. Why revert everything?

The statement "engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder..." is only cited to Beevor. Look at that sentence now.

Why do hard quantity estimates matter, especially in this article? -YMB29 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hard numbers matter because they allow us to sift through the biased viewpoints, including the ones you brought forward that horrifically set 150k as a "modest" number of Soviet rapes in Germany. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What have I brought "forward that horrifically set 150k as a "modest" number of Soviet rapes"?

I still don't understand why you are asking for numbers... -YMB29 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Going beyond Beevor, eg. Bos, Pascale R. "Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945; Yugoslavia, 1992–1993." Signs 31, no. 4 (2006): 995-1025. ; Grossmann, Atina. "A question of silence: The rape of German women by occupation soldiers." October 72 (1995): 43-63. ; Messerschmidt, James W. "The Forgotten Victims of World War II." Violence against women 12, no. 7 (2006): 706-712. ; Ruby Reid-Cunningham, Allison. "Rape as a Weapon of Genocide." Genocide studies and prevention 3, no. 3 (2008): 279-296. This listing is a selective list of the first two pages of the Scholar search. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, what are you talking about? Where did I say that rapes did not happen? I am talking about mass rape as claimed by historians like Beevor. Please understand what is going on before issuing such warnings.

If you want to say that it is not just Beevor then add the proper citations to the article. -YMB29 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29: the quotes in the two sources you give to not seem to deny that mass rapes took place instead Rzheshevsky tries to say that it "is a return to views that were instilled by Nazi propaganda and Neo-Nazi historians", this is a classic example of not refuting a point but trying to besmirch it by associating it with tainted sources ("tainted by association"), Has Rzheshevsky published anything using primary sources to show that mass rapes did not take place? Looking at what you say Senyavskay writes he does not deny that mass rapes took place just that similar mass rapes in the west have been ignored. Now that may or may not be true (but it is outside the scope of this article), and Senyavskay is not denying that mass rapes took place in Berlin. PBS (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Both sources do deny that mass rape took place as portrayed by Beevor and others. I did not include more details when adding the text, because this article is not specifically about the topic.

Below is more from Senyavskaya from an interview I just found. -YMB29 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

-YMB29 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT Senyavskay does not deny that mass rapes took place, he just argues that the rapes in the east are exaggerated and those in the west downplayed, therefore he is querying the numbers not denying that mass rapes took place. The problems with the numbers are already covered by the footnote j in the article. If you like this can be expanded to include this historian, but it does not affect the conclusion that mass rapes took place, and so attributing it to "Beevor" or "Western historians" is a distortion. -- PBS (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

How is that not a denial of mass rape?

Her book that I cited for the article directly says myth of mass rape:

In this context, the mythology relating to the mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers, with the alleged absence of such evidence in the areas of occupation of the Western allies, is noteworthy. This topic, in the context of the general political pressure on Russia, is actively exaggerated in the Western media.

-YMB29 (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And what is wrong with attributing that statement to Beevor if he is the only one cited for it? -YMB29 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think, given the quotes that I provided (by serious historians in Russia), it is clear that mass rape by Soviet troops is not a fact and so WP:ASF must be applied: The text of Misplaced Pages articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution. -YMB29 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

-YMB29 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Senyavskay makes the comment "mass distribution of this figure" and ignores the other primary sources that Beevor presents particularly Soviet sources. Nor has she tried refute the 100s of other primary sources such as diaries and interviews used in other publications, all she has done is question one statistical analysis -- which is already done in the Misplaced Pages article.

As to your question about attributing Beevor in the body of the text I have repeatedly explained why it is inappropriate (for example see my first posting to this section), so I see no reason to do so again. -- PBS (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So you are going to ignore WP:ASF? ...when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source... This is not clear to you?

When you cite a specific source for a specific statement, you have to attribute that statement (if it is disputed) to that source.

That statistical analysis is the basis for the accusations of mass rape and figures like 2 million. Beevor uses Soviet sources also, but they don't prove mass rape; they actually serve as evidence that the Soviets seriously tried to keep order and discipline.

Also, your above analysis and criticism of Senyavskaya is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I probably won't be able to reply for a week, but I think the changes I just made are fair. -YMB29 (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

YMB29, I have reverted your edits, in accordance with the majority consensus. However, we are getting nowhere with this edit war, and you are now traveling away for a week. Thus, putting my admin hat on, I've locked the page also for ten days. Honestly I'm not entirely sure which version to leave as the locked version, but you must admit this is En-wiki and not Ru-wiki, so there is some value in an English-language consensus. It's time to stop the changing of pages without consensus and go to the next stage in this process: the drafting of paragraphs on the talk page for inclusion once talkpage consensus is reached.

Thus would people kindly consider starting to draft compromise and inclusive language? PBS, I know you're a pretty experienced editor here. Would you consider drafting yourself something along the lines of 'Beevor xxx etc says.. But recent Russian scholarship says ..' Would ask you in the interests of fairness to avoid 'asserts', 'claims' 'argues' etc, and simply stick to 'says' on both sides. Those are just my drafting ideas - feel free to use anything of value.

I am now going to stop taking a position here and simply referee both sides. Regards to all, and YMB29, hope your week's absence goes well. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• A-Class military history articles
• A-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• A-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• A-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• A-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• Successful requests for military history A-Class review
• A-Class Germany articles
• High-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• Top-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• A-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance A-Class Russia articles
• A-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2010)