Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:45, 4 April 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries: Prussia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

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.

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)

Week break

Ok, I am back, thanks.

I would like to know what exactly PBS and others don't agree with as far as my latest changes go?

If "argues" and "claims" should be avoided, the sentence that mentions the Russian historians can be changed to "Russian historians say that these crimes occurred, just like in other occupation zones, but were not widespread".

I don't see what the problem is with presenting the view of Western historians like Beevor and what Russian historians have to say, especially since this is done in other articles that touch on the topic (see Rape during the occupation of Germany and Anthony Beevor). -YMB29 (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"According to Antony Beevor, Atina Grossmann and other Western historians," What does "Western historians" mean? Have you any evidence that it is a view only held by "Western historians", and yet again you are construction a sentence that implies a bias and that such views are not a major view but mealy a minority one. "Russian historians argue that these crimes occurred, just like in other occupation zones" One is not talking about occupation zones this is about a battle field and the immediate aftermath of the battle. Secondly what is your evidence that mass rape took place by British soldiers while the British were fighting in Germany or in British zone of occupation in Germany? -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is if you only read historians like Beevor you would think that the Soviets only committed those crimes, which is not true. There is of course evidence that it was not only the Soviets. I don't know why you are asking me for evidence, as if this is not mentioned in other articles. Also, the statement does not say that any side committed mass crimes.

However, I don't really care if that part is removed.

"According to Western historians..." does not imply that the view is a minority one. What evidence do you have that it is universally accepted as fact and WP:ASF should not apply to it? The fact that there are serious historians disputing it means that WP:ASF should apply. -YMB29 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If you mean "non-Russian historians" why use the term "Western historians"? What does "Western historians" mean? It is you who have opened the door my second question with the words you have suggested inserting into the article "these crimes occurred, just like in other occupation zones" what is your evidence that mass rapes similar to those in Berlin took place in cities such as Hamburg which was on the British line of advance and later in the British sector? Besides this is not an article about the invasion of Germany it is an article about the Berlin campaign commonly called the Battle of Berlin, and what happened in other battles and campaigns is outside the scope of this article. -- PBS (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Again you did not read what I wrote carefully.

The statement does not say that mass crimes occurred anywhere and I said that I don't care if that part ("just like in other occupation zones") is removed, so there is no sense in arguing about that.

Beevor and Grossmann are not Western historians? You seriously don't know what Western refers to? If you are so against it, "Western historians" can be changed to "other historians". -YMB29 (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So the wording you are proposing is now "

According to Antony Beevor, Atina Grossmann and other Wester historians, during, and in the days immediately following, the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape and looting. The looting and rapes gradually subsided. Russian historians argue that these crimes occurred,just like in other occupation zones, but were not widespread as claimed in the West.

Why mentioned "Antony Beevor, Atina Grossmann" unless it is to imply a minority view minority view? The sentence can be written "According to historians during, ...", but that then begs the question why not what is there now "During, ..."?

BTW I did read what you wrote carefully: "...engaged in mass rape and looting. The looting and rapes gradually subsided. Russian historians argue that these crimes occurred, just like in other occupation zones, but were not widespread as claimed in the West." As such you wrote that Russian historians argue that mass rape and looting took place in "other occupation zones". What is the evidence that there was mass rape in the British occupation zone? Why the comparison with other zones? Let us suppose that there was mass rape in the French zone (Beevor in his overview book on WWII states that some French troops did such things) would you consider it appropriate to write in an article called "Battle for Württemberg" "French ... engaged in mass rape and looting. The looting and rapes gradually subsided. French historians argue that these crimes also occurred in the Soviet zone and was not as widespread as Anglo-Saxon historians claim"? why mention the Soviet Zone in an article about a battle in a different zone and why Anglo-Saxon unless one wants to imply the usual Anglo-Saxon slur against the great French Nation and language to sow FUD to help discredit the claim?

The footnote already makes it clear that the statistics on which the numbers it are based is open to question which is why they are not in the text. The major problem with including Russian historian's qualifications and no historians from another nationality, is also the opposite of FUD: MRDA which is something that most politically aware Brits would read into it. -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

When I said read what I wrote carefully I meant the previous comment, and it looks like you still did not read it carefully. I told you that the part about other occupation zones can be removed, but you are still arguing about it.

Also, again, I did not imply that any side committed mass crimes.

Why Beevor and Grossmann are mentioned? Because they are the ones cited...

The claim of mass crimes by the Soviets in Berlin is not a fact for which there is no serious dispute, so you have to follow WP:ASF. -YMB29 (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And the wording I am proposing now is:

According to Antony Beevor, Atina Grossmann and other historians, during, and in the days immediately following, the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape and looting. The looting and rapes gradually subsided. Russian historians argue that such crimes occurred, but were not widespread.

-YMB29 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"The claim of mass crimes by the Soviets in Berlin is not a fact for which there is no serious dispute" Which historian denies that mass rape took place (not the scale of the crime but the crime of mass rape)? If they deny it what are the primary sources that they cite to dispute "other historian" analysis? -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I quoted Russian historians disputing Beevor's claims and you are still asking me this? -YMB29 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I have not explained myself clearly I am not asking if anyone disputes the numbers which Beevor has stated. That is covered by a footnote and is not in the text we are discussing. I asked "Which historian denies that mass rape took place (not the scale of the crime but the crime of mass rape)?".

OK, what I have done is read the full translated article from which you quoted an extract. Elena Sinyavskaya (8 May 2013) The Red Army “Rape of Germany” was Invented by Goebbels Komsomolskaya Pravda (original Russian). The first point to make is that articles from tabloids are not reliable sources. But leaving that aside (at least explains the truly awful style of the piece -- like reading something in The Sun) we could use a couple of lines from it:

The historian Elena Sinyavskaya has stated that mass rapes did not occur, and that "amongst there are no differences of opinion concerning this subject and there cannot be…".

Note

1. Elena Sinyavskaya cites an official Soviet record of the military prosecutor of the 1st Belorussian Front to support her position as it states that in the seven army 1st Belorussian Front during the period from 22 April to 5 May 1945 124 crimes against civilians were recorded, including 72 of rape.

-- PBS (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles from tabloids are not reliable sources? Funny that you say this when the main source in the disputed sentence is a tabloid article by Beevor ... I can also say that its style is awful.

It is not just Senyavskaya (that argues against claims of mass rape). See the quote from Gareev above and Rzheshevsky basically says the same thing. So for this article, the statement can be more general, like "Russian historians say..." or "Russian historians such as Senyavskaya and Gareev argue..." -YMB29 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a tabloid and is considered a reliable source. The think is that in this instance an interview with a professional Russian historian we can probably use it. The wording I quoted says every professional Russian historian, so I am not sure what it is that you are trying to add. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your change and I will revert it again (We are still discussing changes WP:BRD). If an historian says that the crimes subsided then QED it supports "During, and in the days immediately following the assault," otherwise there could not be a reduction in the levels of crime. If you persist then I will ask the article to be locked (again) on the previous stable version. -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you even try to check the cited page in the book? It is ridiculous to stick citations to text that they don't support. You cannot deduct what the source does not explicitly say, see WP:OR. -YMB29 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the book is online. If you search on the word rape it returns several pages and if you like we can add page 660 to the citation which is specifically talking about Berlin

... in the cellars throughout the spacious, one ultra-modern city German civilians.... And for the women, in particular, there was the hideous spectre of multiple rape, not only condoned but, we can be pretty sure, legally sanctioned by the political officers speaking for the Soviet government.

So then why don't you add the proper citations instead of reverting my change that corrects the issue with the current citation? -YMB29 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edit did not correct the issue. Y edit made per your request. -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

My edit added the correct text to the existing citation. -YMB29 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is that theses conclusions are drawn by all/most historians of the battle (with it seems the exception of all Russian historians) and have been since the histories of the 1960s, for example The World at War series interviews a Berliner who describes it as a matter of fact and "A Woman in Berlin: Eight Weeks in the Conquered City" was widely available in public libraries in English speaking countries from the time it was first published in English in 1954 (interestingly it was not widely available in Germany until quite recently), so it is not as if this is new or surprising facts. What is given in the citations is a representative sample from some historians who have published in the 21st century, but it is not new history and many more citation could be added by simply doing a Google book search on , but I do not see the point in that. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, publications about this started appearing in the West from the beginning of the Cold War. Beevor just popularized the topic. So what is the problem with attributing the conclusions to Western historians and adding what Russian historians have to say? -YMB29 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Western historians"? Please give a definition, or do you mean non-Russian historians? -- PBS (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You are asking me what "Western historians" means again...

If you don't like that, it can be US and British historians. -YMB29 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

But it is not just British and American historians. It is also other nationalities as well. The reason why British and American historians are cited here is because this is English Misplaced Pages which favours the use of English language sources. Do you have an example of any academics other than Russians who dispute that mass rapes took place? -- PBS (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Why does that matter? You are disputing that it is not Western historians, so I have to be asking you for an example of a non-Western historian who writes about mass Soviet crimes.

To British and US historians you can add German ones and who else? That still means it is Western historians... -YMB29 (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And here are some sources:

Western historians have generally accepted that rape and other forms of troop violence were committed primarily by the Red Army and that Allied soldiers were much better behaved in the western zones. A recent work, however, illustrates the extent to which troop violence was also a problem in the western zones.

In his book on the fall of Berlin in 1945, published in 2002, the British historian Antony Beevor graphically described the mass rapes of German and other women by Red Army soldiers. The Russian ambassador to Britain and leading Russian historians denounced this volume as neo-Nazi propaganda, questioning Beevor's sources while characterizing Soviet reprisals against German civilians for Russian sufferings during the previous years of war as well-justified revenge. Beevor pointed out that his book relied heavily upon evidence from Russian archives to document its allegations and other prominent Western historians defended the accuracy of his sources.

Western historians have written at length about the large-scale rape and violence committed by Russian soldiers in Germany at the end of the war. Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale.

Western historians would later estimate that at least 2 million German women were raped by Soviet soldiers, many of them repeatedly. Tens of thousands committed suicide.

So "According to Western historians..." is accurate and should be added to the article. -YMB29 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I am going to add it. -YMB29 (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless you can show that there is a consensus for such a change, then it will be reverted. I chose Tuba Inal below for two reasons, one because of what she recorded and two because, She does not fit the profile that you are pushing to include. I have suggested some wording above that we could include (quoting Elena Sinyavskaya), which should allow the inclusion on Russian historians, but your proposal for including "western historians" has of yet no support. -- PBS (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean no support from you... It clearly says "Western historians" in the sources I quoted above. Do you not see this or you think I made those quotes up?

It is not even about consensus, but about following basic wiki polices and guidelines. "I don't like it" is not a reason to ignore WP:ASF and WP:NPOV in general.

I have provided more than enough sources that prove my point. You have provided nothing and often fail to carry on a discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Tuba Inal? She is not even a historian and teaches at the University of Minnesota. Hardly a non-Westerner... -YMB29 (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Native language Turkish and is at Izmir University. -- PBS (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

PhD is from Minnesota. -YMB29 (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And Ghandi was an English barrister ... . -- PBS (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So what? You were trying to make some point? -YMB29 (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

yes (and I find it strange that you can not see it it is obvious): "PhD is from Minnesota" so what? -- PBS (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That means she was educated in the West, and her book was also published in the West, so how can you claim that she represents non-Western views? -YMB29 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that only "72" were reported does not mean that is all that occurred. And given the fact this article is only about the "Battle of Berlin" and ends "In June 1945..." then the time of subsidence would be after that timeframe. Kierzek (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The time frame in this article is 16 April – 2 May 1945. -YMB29 (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

YMB29, I was quoting the Aftermath section of the article. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I think that the discrepancy between the stats can be answered by reading page 109 of Looting and Rape in Wartime: Law and Change in International Relations by Tuba Inal. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. What does that answer? I just see a lot of speculation based on what Stalin supposedly said. -YMB29 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Attributing view to Western historians

So the only thing that is disputed now is the wording of the first sentence, which says that the Soviets committed mass crimes.
Before I do anything else, I want to know what exactly is your reasoning against attributing the view to Western historians, especially when I provided sources that explicitly attribute it to Western historians?
Who should it be attribute to then? -YMB29 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason has been explained to you by several different editors and as yet not one of these editors have indicated that you have persuaded them to change their opinion on this issue. Until you do not assume that their silence is consent for a change in the wording of the "first sentence". For example you have ignored what Buckshot06 wrote: "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." Have you looked at Google Scholar for languages such as Spanish and Portuguese, Japanese etc and found no evidence of similar assertions?

-- PBS (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok go search for sources in those languages, although all of these can be considered Western also...

It is up to you to prove that it is a universally accepted fact, not me.

Buckshot06 said that "I am categorically opposed to statements implying that mass rape did not happen in Berlin" when he did not know that there were reliable sources disputing this. He later realized that there were such sources.

Well I realize that you can call on users in support of you, but for you to claim consensus they have to actually participate in the discussion, something that you even struggle to do... -YMB29 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering did you even read the quotes I provided above ? -YMB29 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem to be forgetting sources that I quoted before, I am quoting them here again.
These below quotes support this sentence from the article: Russian historians argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread. -YMB29 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect in saying "So the only thing that is disputed now is the wording of the first sentence, which says that the Soviets committed mass crimes. The wording of a sentence about Russian historians is also under dispute. As to the first sentence you are the only one who wishes to change it. -- PBS (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

See again this proves that you do not pay attention... I posted this before you started reverting the other sentence. -YMB29 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence is not in dispute but an accepted well sourced sentence which has the additional detailed footnote which expands on the points made. There is no consensus for it to be changed or tagged. With that said, to be clear on the matter, I am open to a sentence being put in which sets forth what certain Russian historians contend for the timeframe in question for the article but have not seen one thus far, YMB29, which sets forth their points overall without undue weight or OR problems; and I don't believe a list of naming many of the Russian historians (loading up the sentence therein) is necessary and doing so can lead to undue weight and soapbox problems. PBS and YMB29, we need a sentence in a similar vein to the one in which Beevor is mentioned. If you two agree, let’s try to get something put together, in the limited time we all have, which can be presented to the editors of interest herein. Kierzek (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

PBS does not seem to be interested in discussion about this. As you can see below.

Also, in the existing sentence Beevor or anyone else is not mentioned, which violates WP:ASF and so the tag is needed. -YMB29 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

YMB29 From the history of the article:

• 13:55, 14 February 2014‎ PBS (Rv to last version by Kierzek. The consensus is that no attribution is needed, and there is no consensus for the addition of this tag.)
• 17:09, 14 February 2014‎ YMB29 (Undid revision 595447897 by PBS (talk) I need consensus to add a tag? By consensus you mean your permission? This issue is still unresolved on the talk page, so don't remove the tag.)

I see from you behaviour in editing the article you still do no appreciate WP:BRD. You make a bold edit to the article. It is reverted you then discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring in your changes. You have repeatedly attempted to edit war changes to this sentence and those changes not gained any support on this talk page. As far as that sentence is concerned I think it is time for you to stop flogging that dead horse. -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before, I don't need your permission to make edits, especially when my edits address NPOV issues.

I can maybe understand you reverting text per WP:BRD, but there is no excuse to revert tags when the discussion on the issue is still going on. -YMB29 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, the burden is on YMB29, not me or you, PBS; that is how BRD works herein. There is no consensus to change or a good reason shown to tag the well cited sentence in which Beevor is mentioned. As for a sentence as to what certain Russian historians put forth, as was mentioned yesterday to me (and is true), Footnote J shows there is a dispute how many rapes there were overall and how widespread the problem. Therefore, one must ask what is really needed; and if then a sentence is added as to the view of certain Russian historians it would, as I stated above, have to be one of a simple short statement that relates the point without undue weight. Kierzek (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am all for one simple sentence, but PBS wants to keep that out too.

As you said, there is a dispute, so the sentence that is cited to Beevor and others must be attributed. -YMB29 (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Quotes again

Russian historians

Senyavskaya, historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences and member of the Academy of Military Sciences:
It is also interesting how some important aspects of the war are reflected in the German historical memory. For example, the perception of the enemy - both the Western countries and the Soviet Union...
In this context, the popular mythology regarding 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.
Consequently, we can speak about individual (especially compared with the actions of the German side) violations of international law in the conduct of war. Moreover, all these events were spontaneous and not organized, and were strictly suppressed by the Soviet army command.

-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

Rzheshevsky, historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences and President of the Russian Association of World War II Historians:
The focus of the book (Berlin: The Downfall 1945), not by volume but by value, really are the atrocities of Soviet soldiers and officers committed against the German population, the return of the image of the "Asian hordes", which was instilled into the heads of the Germans by Nazi propaganda, and later by a small group of Neo-Nazi historians that have long been discredited in Germany.
In different areas where the Red Army entered, its relationship with the local population varied. Violence could not be prevented, but it was contained and then reduced to a minimum.

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

Gareev, historian and President of the Academy of Military Sciences:
Antony Beevor and his supporters are banal plagiarists. The real author of the myth about the "aggressive sexuality" of our soldiers is Goebbels, who for known reasons instilled fear into his countrymen.
Of course, instances of cruelty, including sexual, occurred. They simply could not be absent after what the Nazis did on our land. However, such cases were strongly suppressed and punished. And they did not become widespread. As soon as we occupied a town, a commandant office was created. It provided the local population with food and medical care. Order was controlled by the commandant patrol. I personally took part in the liberation of East Prussia. I say this honestly: I did not even hear of sexual abuse.

-Gareev, Makhmut; Tretiak, Ivan; Rzheshevsky, Oleg (21 July 2005). Interview with Sergey Turchenko. "Насилие над фактами " (in Russian). Trud.

Myagkov, historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences and member of the Academy of Military Sciences:
What other modern myths is the film (Generation War) based on?
For example, on the once again propagated myth that the Soviet troops that entered German territory were uncontrolled and raped German women in mass. There is talk of the figure of two million German women. The myth had surfaced in German monographs. It was also used by the English historian A. Beevor.

-Myagkov, Mikhail (8 May 2013). Interview with Yelena Novoselova. "Обыкновенный фальшизм " (in Russian). Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

Kremlev, member of the Academy of Military Sciences:
Humanism - despite everything, despite all that the Germans did in Russia. After all, the Russian violence against the Germans in the winter and spring of 1945 - real, but not massive - not at the least was sowed by the total violence the Germans inflicted on the Russians from 1941 to 1944! The fierce resistance from the Germans also played a role.

-Kremlev, Sergey (2010), Мифы о 1945 годе (in Russian), Moscow: Eksmo, ISBN 978-5-699-41253-2

-YMB29 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Mention of dispute in Western sources

Western historians have written at length about the large-scale rape and violence committed by Russian soldiers in Germany at the end of the war. Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale.

In his book on the fall of Berlin in 1945, published in 2002, the British historian Antony Beevor graphically described the mass rapes of German and other women by Red Army soldiers. The Russian ambassador to Britain and leading Russian historians denounced this volume as neo-Nazi propaganda, questioning Beevor's sources while characterizing Soviet reprisals against German civilians for Russian sufferings during the previous years of war as well-justified revenge. Beevor pointed out that his book relied heavily upon evidence from Russian archives to document its allegations and other prominent Western historians defended the accuracy of his sources.

The author of Berlin: The Downfall 1945, the acclaimed military historian Antony Beevor, also suggests that after brutalisation in extreme war situations almost all men are tempted to become rapists.
But the book has been condemned as an "act of blasphemy" by the Russian ambassador to the UK and its conclusions have also been rejected by a prominent Russian military historian.

When in 2002 the book "Berlin: The Downfall 1945" by Anthony Beevor was first published in London (now it has been translated into Russian by the publisher AST), the Russian ambassador to the UK, Karasin, wrote an angry letter to the Daily Telegraph newspaper. The diplomat accused the known military historian of slandering the glorious feat of the Soviet soldiers. Why? Beevor, based on documents from the main military archives in Podolsk, wrote about, among other things, the atrocities committed by the Soviet troops in liberated Poland, East Prussia and Berlin itself.
Historians of the Russian Academy of Sciences condemned the book "Berlin: The Downfall 1945" seemingly quicker than the ambassador. (BBC Russia)

Even so, according to Anthony Beevor, a British historian, the brutality against women from the Soviets was on a different scale. Writing in the Guardian in 2002, Mr Beevor said at least 2m German women are thought to have been raped, with 1.4m victims in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone. In Berlin, one doctor deduced that out of approximately 100,000 women raped in the city, some 10,000 died as a result, mostly from suicide. Many Russian historians dispute these claims saying the figures are based on faulty methodology and unreliable sources.

-YMB29 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about Russian sources

This is not open to a third opinion as there have been a number of editors who have expressed opinions in this section. -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the only user who expressed an opinion on this particular sentence is you. -YMB29 (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

YMB29 you reverted my edit here with the comment "Read the quotes I provided carefully. It is not just Senyavskaya" yet what you reverted says:

The Russian historian Elena Sinyavskaya has stated that mass rapes did not occur, and that "amongst there are no differences of opinion concerning this subject".

What is it that you object to in the sentence as it does not say that it was just Senyavskaya who says no mass rapes took place because she goes on to say that all Russian historians hold the same opinion.. What you are doing is surveying a few Russian historians and drawing the conclusion she does. The difference is quoting her is quoting an authority. Your sentence is a synthesis based on a sample of some Russian historians. -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not synthesis when all of them say the same thing.

The real case of synthesis is the previous sentence, where there are citations stuck to different parts of it.

You are trying to make it look like it is only Senyavskaya's opinion that other Russian historians agree with her. This is misleading as other historians have said this themselves.

If you don't like that sentence, I am fine with having a sentence for what each historian I quoted says. -YMB29 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"You are trying to make it look like it is only Senyavskaya's opinion" that is not my motive nor is that what the wording says.

Your wording is a synthesis because what you are doing is surveying a few Russian historians and drawing the conclusion that all Russian historians agree, you can not draw that conclusion because you have not looked at the opinion of every Russian historian, and even if you did Misplaced Pages editors are not able to draw the distinction between amateurs and professionals that Senyavskaya does when she writes:

There are historians of the professional community, and there are people who have positioned themselves as such: we call them “folk-history” and they are amateurs trying to impose their views on the public. So, amongst the professionals there are no differences of opinion concerning this subject and there cannot be…

To do so is OR. -- PBS (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you are telling me that I can't generalize because I have not looked at the opinion of every Russian historian, while you are pushing to have a disputed statement, which is only cited to a few sources, to be presented as fact...

Some generalization is allowed when attributing statements and the Braithwaite source explicitly says Russian historians.

Like I said, if you are against this, I can cite the historians separately. -YMB29 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want separate sentences: Historian Yelena Senyavskaya argues that mass rape did not occur and that there are no different opinions on this among Russian professional historians; this theme was picked up from Nazi propaganda and exaggerated during the Cold War and after. Military historian Makhmut Gareev states that there were instances of cruelty against civilians, but they did not become widespread. According to historian Oleg Rzheshevsky, such portrayal of the Red Army (as rapists and looters) is a return to views that were instilled by Nazi propaganda and Neo-Nazi historians. -YMB29 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE -- PBS (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It is undue according to you. You can add some more of what Beevor and others are saying, but you can't have it both ways. You are against a simple sentence that includes all the sources, and also don't like a sentence for each source... -YMB29 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

All the Russian historians I quoted dispute the claim of mass crimes committed by the Soviets, while not denying that crimes occurred. It is not synthesis to generalize or summarize, especially when Senyavskaya says that all Russian historians (amateur historians are called publicists) agree and Braithwaite directly mentions this (Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale.) Why should not this be reflected in the text? -YMB29 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Senyavskaya denies that the crime of mass rape was committed (crimes ... "72 or rape")--72 rapes does not constitute mass rape--and she states that all Russian historians agree with her. -- PBS (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but mentioning only her is a little misleading. -YMB29 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, "Russian historians" can be changed to "prominent Russian historians" or "leading Russian historians", since the historians I quoted are all from the Russian Academy of Sciences. -YMB29 (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are taking a very small sample and extrapolating.

What do you mean? -YMB29 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are contradictory. Above you claim that "Russian historians" means all Russian historians, but below you say that it is unclear if that means all, most or some.

Simply saying "Russian historians" is not synthesis, see WP:SYNTHNOT. -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I know what "Russian historians" implies I asked you do you mean all most or some? -- PBS (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, that does not matter. Leaving it unclear like that makes the most sense. -YMB29 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Its important to note that Richard Overy the historian, in his comments for example, "criticized the viewpoint held by some Russians..." Therefore, there is a question to be raised as to the use of "all". "Certain" may be a better word. Kierzek (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Here it says "many", so I don't know. -YMB29 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think "many" can be used as a compromise, since it is not "all" and not "some". -YMB29 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The "many" in the Economist article to which you provide a link, refers to Russians historians that criticise the numbers that Beevor placed in his Observer article. The whole point from the earlier discussions on this talk page, and the text in the article that resulted from that discussion, was to remove the numbers that Beevor and others speculated and place them in a footnote with criticism of the methodology. So using "many" in the main body of the text is misleading if the Economist is used as a citation. -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The figures are used by Beevor to back up his claims of mass crimes, so if Russian historians dispute his claims, they will go after the figures.

However, the issue discussed there is the scale of the crimes, not only the figures: Anthony Beevor, a British historian, the brutality against women from the Soviets was on a different scale.

Your claim that "Many Russian historians dispute these claims" refers only to the figures is based on selective interpretation of the text. -YMB29 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean the sentence "Many Russian historians dispute these claims saying the figures..."? It is not I who is being selective. -- PBS (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are, just like with your earlier claim that "Russian historians" means "All Russian historians". The sentence says "these claims", not "these figures". -YMB29 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Then a sentence could be added to the footnote stating such and hopefully we can move on. Kierzek (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it belongs in the main text. -YMB29 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

So for me any of these are fine: "Russian historians", "Many Russian historians", "Prominent Russian historians" and "Many leading Russian historians".
If you don't like any of them, what do you propose? -YMB29 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So I guess everyone agrees that any of these will do? -YMB29 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No it is not agreed. The last exchange was with an editor who suggest placing the information in a footnote and as I have pointed out to you we have yet to agree on how many and whether it is a denial of mass rape or questioning the source for the quantity. -- PBS (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously a rebuttal of the mass rape claim. I don't know how many times I have to bring your attention to the quotes.

It is hard to agree on anything when you ignore the discussion.

I asked you which of the four formulations above are best, and if you don't like any of them, what do you suggest? -YMB29 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not "obviously a rebuttal of the mass rape claim" some seem to be arguing that mass rape did take palace but so did mass rape by all other Allied armies. Others that no mass rape took place, yet others seem to be questioning the numbers but not the allegation (just the scale). -- PBS (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So what sources out of those I quoted argue that mass rape took place?

What sources don't deny mass rape and question only the exact numbers?

Questioning mass crime while admitting that crime occurred means questioning the scale...

However, that is not the point. You are still not answering the question.

You claimed that attributing the statement to Russian historians is synthesis, so I ask again what do you propose instead of Russian historians? -YMB29 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So you are still not going to answer? -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a public discussion and I live in hope that others will participate, but I suspect that having make their point clear the see no point in engaging with further with you.

I think your question is back to front. The question is which deny that mass rape took place and the answer is none of them. It is a synthesis because you are looking at two historians and a third commentary which states it is only those Russian historians who are offended by the allegations. There is also Sinyavskaya statement (which I added to the article and you deleted) that claims no mass rapes took place and that all Russian historians agree on that point. Kierzek has made the point that if all you think Russian historians are doing is questioning the scale then as the article makes no claims about numbers outside a footnote the place to put that questioning is in the footnote. If you think that Russian historians deny that mass rape took place then the place to put it is in the body of the article, in which case why delete my addition? -- My problem with the footnote solution is that we have two sources that mention the number of Russian historians, one say offended Russian historians (that might be as few as 2 and as many as all -- no way to tell), the other that all professional Russian historians deny mass rape took place, so stating "Russian historians" is a synthesis which is the reason I constructed the addition the way I did and quoted a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring discussion does not make your claim of having consensus look strong...

You should not speak for others.

If a source says "Russian historians", this means more than just two and most likely implies many or most. That is just using common sense and basic reading comprehension.

How could stating "Russian historians" be synthesis if the source explicitly says "Russian historians"?

All the sources I quoted (there are four now) question the mass rape claim. I still don't get your claim that questioning the scale means only questioning the numbers.

The statement that I am suggesting does not even directly mention mass rape or scale.

Your addition was misleading because it suggested that only one Russian historian claims that there was no mass rape. -YMB29 (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the latest statement that I suggest (based on the first three sources from the section above):

Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.

If even this is not fine with you then we go to dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am OK with providing that Kierzeks' provisions are met: in this post (take out "instances of" and the other points raised in the same post); and in addition source it to Senyavskaya (as I did previously) rather than adding half a dozen sources. -- PBS (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with citing it to a few source, but it can be cited only to Senyavskaya with the current wording as long as no one complains that this is only her view.

I will add the sentence and then we can move on to the problem with attribution in the other sentence. -YMB29 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

Do the quotes in the section above support the sentence bolded below, that crimes were not widespread?
During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder. Russian historians argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.
-YMB29 (talk)

What does "Russian historians" mean does it mean "all", or "most", or "some"? -- PBS (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In the Braithwaite source it is just "Russian historians". -YMB29 (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you not appreciate cynical tone in which he is writing (MRDA)? As such he does not need to quantify, because it implies only those Russian historians with more patriotism than disinterested objectivity make this claim. Only those "Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished": Any native English language speaker with less than a child's naivety will see that in those words. It is like the old warn out rhetorical phrase "All right thinking people" to define a group who support the speakers point of view -- ("Right thinking people" may only be the speaker himself or it can include the vast majority of humanity, likewise there may only be one historian in Russian who is "offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished" or it may be every single historian in Russia). So although one can not tell how many from what Braithwaite writes, one can easily discern his cynicism. -- PBS (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not up to you to interpret or analyze what the source says.

It does not matter if the tone is cynical to you or how many historians he meant; he writes that Russian historians have their view. -YMB29 (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

He does not say " Russian historians" he says "Russian historians, offended..." one can not tell from what he has written how many that may be. -- PBS (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why does that matter? We are not trying to establish how many exactly. -YMB29 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Add protection padlock template

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Subject line says it all. If a bot is supposed to do this, it doesn't seem to be working. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• david, this is disruptive mess clogging up User:AnomieBOT/PERTable and Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests is very inappropriate. I've closed the request and added an appropriate list request on WP:RFPP#Missing protection padlocks. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of tag

From the talk page of Kierzek

Earlier you said that a simple sentence can be added to the article that reflects the view of Russian historians.
What sentence do you suggest?
Do you agree with the sentence I recently suggested (Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.)? -YMB29 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I would take out: "instances of" but otherwise find it the most acceptable proposed sentence which you have put forth thus far. With those 2 words omitted I could agree to the sentence cited to RS sources and your tag of "Attribution needed" in the Aftermath section of the article being removed in light of the detailed footnote therein. However, in the end, PBS is the one with whom you must reach an agreement with so there is stability and finality. If that is not reachable in discussion, I would suggest an RFC on the talk page over taking it to dispute resolution as you mentioned on the article talk page recently. Kierzek (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, those two words can be removed.

The tag for the other sentence is another issue that I want to discuss next. -YMB29 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The tag has been discussed and should go. Kierzek (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed, but there was no agreement yet as the focus was on the other issue.

That sentence violates WP:ASF, so the tag is needed until there is an agreement on how to attribute the statement. -YMB29 (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29 that is your opinion. I only agreed to the placement of the Russian sentence if Kierzek conditions were met. So I have removed the template. Your choice either the Russian sentence or the template but not both.-- PBS (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are going to take that sentence hostage?

The two sentences are different issues.

What you are basically saying is that you will agree on one issue, only if the violation on another is ignored.

This is not how things are done on wiki. You should know that... -YMB29 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

From higher up this page:

This is the latest statement that I suggest (based on the first three sources from the section above):

Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.

If even this is not fine with you then we go to dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am OK with providing that Kierzeks' provisions are met: in this post (take out "instances of" and the other points raised in the same post); and in addition source it to Senyavskaya (as I did previously) rather than adding half a dozen sources. -- PBS (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with citing it to a few source, but it can be cited only to Senyavskaya with the current wording as long as no one complains that this is only her view.

I will add the sentence and then we can move on to the problem with attribution in the other sentence. -YMB29 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29: I made it clear in my answer that the addition of the new sentence was conditional on the tagged sentence remaining as it was with the tag removed. I only agreed to your addition on the understanding that it was an addition to the current wording. You should not have added the text if you were not willing to agree to the conditions on it addition by Kierzek and myself. It seem to me that either your understanding of English is poorer than I thought or you acted in bad faith.

If you intend to try to change the current wording then it changes the nuance in the addition, therefore unless there is agreement for removing the tag then any new sentence will have to wait until there is agreement to change the tagged sentence. Your choice as to whether we keep the new sentence and drop the inline attribution issue or remove the new sentence until agreement is met on attribution, and then we can look at additions. As you have had absolutely no one agree with your wish to use inline attribution on the sentence you tagged although it has been tagged for a number of weeks it is time it was removed and I think you should stop flogging a dead horse, as your behaviour over this is now disruptive (See here your behaviour ticks 31⁄2 out of the five boxes). To show that you are not acting in bad faith I look forward to you either reverting out your insertion of the Russian editors or the reverting out of the attribution tag that you added to the article before engaging in further discussion on these points. -- PBS (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The change made is not what I said I would agree to above. The context is changed with the sentence added and the insertion of "attribution" you unilaterally made without consensus from any other editor, YMB29. WP:Consensus is how Misplaced Pages works. Kierzek (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two separate but related sentences with different issues we have been discussing; you can't take the sentence added yesterday hostage and threaten to revert it unless I ignore the issue with the violation of WP:ASF in the other sentence.

You are asking me to trade in one sentence for another. Do you two think you are at a market? This is not how compromises are done on wiki. Misplaced Pages policies are not to be compromised.

You were not happy with the sentence I wanted to add, so I changed it to the wording you were ok with. This is an example of a valid compromise.

Consensus is not required to follow basic wiki policies. You can't even say that you have consensus anyway.

Do you have trouble comprehending WP:ASF? What you are suggesting is a blatant violation of it, and this is not just my opinion (see ).

If you remove the attribution I added, you have to add the tag. I don't need consensus to keep a tag. A tag is to be removed when the issue is resolved.

What is your reasoning to ignore WP:ASF? You can argue about how the statement should be attributed, but not that it should be attributed. -YMB29 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your last edit which did not reinstate the tag but actually added attribution against consensus. The issue has been resolved you are the only one who considers attribution to be required. Various stated on this page that they disagree with you. The two sentences are related and agreement was only reached on the Russian sentence if attribution to the other sentence was not added. -- PBS (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above. That is not how agreements here work.

You don't have consensus, and consensus is not required to follow basic rules. -YMB29 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

YMB29, we don't need Wiki-lawyering or edit-warring on this. The fact is: consensus WAS reached back in 2010, as to the sentence you have now "tagged". Thus far, you are conducting a one man war. There is no need for an inline attribution as to a view widely held and supported. The main reason for the footnote (added at the end of the sentence) was to show the readers that what was stated is not original research, nor a WP:fringe viewpoint. The sentence footnote adds historical views and information, without WP:undue. There is sufficient secondary sources given for the numbers and the queries in relation to validity, therein. Therefore, the tag is not needed. Kierzek (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus was reached all the way back in 2010? Was there some major RfC? Were these exact issues discussed?

Everything you said has nothing to do with the issue.

A view may be widely held and supported, but that is not an excuse to ignore WP:ASF.

Again, I have asked about this issue on the NPOV noteiceboard (see here), so it is not just me. -YMB29 (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course what I've stated has to do with the issues. And yes, these exact issues were discussed; it's all there in May 2010 in the archives. Further, I haven't reverted anything in recent days, so please do not make false accusations and let's stay on point. Kierzek (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is the discussion about attributing the sentence in question? All I see is talk about attributing the estimates. -YMB29 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It is the estimates that most Russian historians you have presented here on this talk page are questioning, most do not deny that mass rapes took place. -- PBS (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't know how many times I have to ask you to refer to the quotes on top... -YMB29 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not a suitable question for a third opinion because more than two editors have already expressed opinions on this (see above). Starting a new section on a talk page does not make it suitable third opinion as it is a form of forum shopping. -- PBS (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you just worried that someone will prove you wrong again?

It does not matter if this is called third opinion or not. The point is that outside input is needed. -YMB29 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You said see talk in your last revert, but there is nothing new... So it was just a blind revert. Can you stop edit warring? -YMB29 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you consider that I am edit warring then so are you. My revert is not a blind revert it is a revert to put back the status quo while debate continues, as clearly you did not consider the compromise edit to be a compromise.

I said see talk page, because I have been corresponding on this talk page about this issued for months. The comment is there for third parties to read (as I assume that you are fully aware of my reasons for reverting your change). You made a suggestion about an addition to the article. Two other editors agreed to that addition in your preferred location. This was against their better judgement (as they both think it is more appropriate, that it be placed in a footnote). BUT its placement into the main body of the text was agreed as a compromise solution and it was a qualified agreement that no alteration would be made to the first sentence and that the tag would be removed.

This was necessary in the opinion of the two editors who expressed an opinion keep the article balanced. By ignoring the qualification for inclusion you invalidated the reason for the inclusion and have lost the consensus gained for the inclusion. You can end this dispute quite easily by accepting that you may include the Russian sentence in the article where you want it because you have battered in a sentence that is not in an appropriate place, or you can continue to debate the issue, but then you will have to show that you have a consensus for the changes you wish to make. To date you have shown no such consensus. -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, you said see talk page and there was nothing new, so you were not honest and it was a blind revert.

You constantly claim that there was an agreement years ago, but fail to point me to the RfC or long discussion where that agreement was reached.

Even if there was an agreement on the sentence, it is not an excuse to not change it.

Once again, you don't represent consensus and I don't need consensus to follow basic rules.

Your condition for including the sentence you agreed to is ridiculous for wiki. You can't force me to ignore WP:ASF just because you agreed to add that sentence. -YMB29 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Outside Opinion

The issue is with the following sentences:

During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder. Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread.

Does the first sentence violate WP:ASF? These are the guidelines for WP:ASF and WP:NPOV in general:

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

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.

I think it is clear that, since the view in the first sentence is disputed by other historians, the statement in the first sentence is not a fact and has to be attributed. -YMB29 (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not a suitable question for a third opinion because more than two editors have already expressed opinions on this (see above). Starting a new section on a talk page does not make it suitable third opinion as it is a form of forum shopping. -- PBS (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well then if one opinion, from the NPOV board, is enough for you to accept that you are wrong... -YMB29 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC on Soviet rapes

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

1. Is inline attribution needed for the sentence "During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder" ?

2. Should the article include the sentence "These claims are criticized by Russian historians like Oleg Rzheshevsky, who stated that such descriptions of the Red Army are similar to the images instilled by Nazi propaganda" ? -- Diannaa (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

3. Should the article include the sentence "Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread"? -- Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC wording issue

I have restored my original questions, which were altered by User:YMB29 with this series of edits. Please do not alter other people's talk page posts. Any further comments on my questions or critique of my wording should be placed in the "threaded discussion" section, not here. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I have added a third question. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The way the RfC is phrased now is misleading. What is the point of this if you are misleading people? -YMB29 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the sentence I would rather have for question #2: Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread. -YMB29 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Important information

• For this RfC I think it is important to mention that sources for the Russian view are here.
• Also, other articles that deal with the subject mention the Russian view and generally attribute specific statements (see Rape during the occupation of Germany and Anthony Beevor). -YMB29 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Furthermore, important issues here are violations of WP:NPOV in general (not including the sentence about the Russian view) and WP:ASF (not attributing the first sentence - "During, and in the days..."). -YMB29 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• For question #1, I don't think this well-sourced statement can be mistaken for the opinion of Misplaced Pages editors, and therefore inline attribution is not required. For Question #2, my opinion is that Soviet denials of the extent of the rape problem don't ring true. For example, Beevor in "Downfall" (p 413) says the problem was still ongoing as late as August, and Zhukov issued orders (curfews etc) to try to control his men. I think the Soviet / Russian historians who try to minimise the scope of the problem are trying to cover it up, and therefore the sentence should not be included. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC) For question 3, I don't agree with its inclusion, for the same reasons I gave for question 2. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter if the statement is well sourced.

What matters is that there is serious dispute, see WP:ASF.

Check your talk page, this RfC is not set up properly.

You can't base your opinion on only one book by an author who is not a real historian.

The sources I brought up have to be presented. -YMB29 (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• RFC response - Regarding 1, WP:CITE says: "Misplaced Pages's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". In this case we have something that should have a mountain of sources available that has been challenged. It should be no problem to provide inline citations even if it does not seem necessary.

Regarding 2, has any attempt been made to verify the reliability of Oleg Rzheshevsky? WP:RS says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If Rzheshevsky is denying the well documented war crimes committed by soviet troops (and admitted by Stalin), there are most likely many historians dismissing his claims, disqualifying him as a reference in this article. Who are these other historians that make this claim? This is from WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper): "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." This is why we need a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". PraetorianFury (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• See here "Oleg Rzheshevsky" appears to be a published author and is (or was in 2004) "at the Institute of Universal History at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow" ( Gunnar Åselius (2004) Rise and Fall of the Soviet Navy in the Baltic 1921-1940 p. xii) He also published articles that are cited on Google Scholar and he is cited on jstor. -- PBS (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• As for question #1, this well-sourced statement is cited and was hammered out during a long discussion where consensus was reached in 2010. Again, the addition of the detailed footnote, is to made clear that what was stated is not original research WP:OR, nor a WP: fringe viewpoint. The sentence footnote adds historical views and information, without WP:undue. As for John's query above, if it is decided here that one more source is required then that of Historian Roger Moorhouse (2010), Berlin at War, Basic Books, pp. 376-380 can be added. He confirms and goes into greater detail of the "conduct" of the Red Army soldiers in Berlin, supporting the sentence in question. As for #2, I agree Diannaa; it is similar in context to certain statements made by certain Japanese politicians and historians as to the events at the Nanking Massacre, for example. There was an earlier suggested sentence which was more WP:NPOV, but it was removed by YMB29 on March 7 and replaced by the sentence now at issue above in this RFC. Kierzek (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't even know what is going on... PBS reverted the sentence you both agreed to.

Your claims and comparison to Nanking Massacre are baseless.

You simply dismiss the sources that you don't like.

All disputed statements must be attributed; you just keep on ignoring WP:ASF, which is alarming considering you say that you are an experienced editor. -YMB29 (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

For those new to this dispute who find YMB29's comment above this one cryptic see the section Removal of tag higher up this page which contains an explanation of who did what and why. -- PBS (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see my post there about how PBS and Kierzek set absurd conditions for compromise and ignore wiki policies. -YMB29 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I know the entire history of the matter. You, YMB29, made the last change and apparently decided the current query as stated in number 2 above is what you wanted to unilaterally place in the paragraph in question. That is what is now being considered. And You really should refrain from baseless personal attacks that carry no weight; instead of raising your voice, you should enforce your arguments, if you can. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not making personal attacks.

You ignore my arguments and even revert my questions and comments from your talk page.

If that sentence is used, the proper information on the source has to be provided. -YMB29 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment

1) Yes as made clear above.

2) Is Oleg Rzheshevsky a reliable source? Biased sources are allowed. I assume this is a minority viewpoint so how prominent are those that share it? Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. You really can't use a Charles A. Beard of the Russian World. Other Historians? You'd really have to be clear.

@YMB29:'s question Same logic as above.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

2)Is that a notable minority point of view is the question that comes to mind. The Holocaust article doesn't forgo mention of holocaust denial. I do however categorize this as Historical revisionism (negationism) and wouldn't give it to much of a platform.

3) Is that again a notable minority point of view? I would suggest giving this more of a platform than number 2 if this is Historical revisionism as opposed to Historical revisionism (negationism).Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho. you write :1) Yes as made clear above. what has been made clear above? If it is to a specific posting please provide a link to that posting. -- PBS (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to confuse you. wp:cite "Misplaced Pages's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged"Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• 1)standard citation should do the trick. 2)nope. Since the Russian attempt to re-write history (again) appears to have only started post 2000 I'd say we can wait a decade or so to see if it has any staying power.©Geni (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? 10 years? I'll have to find that wikipedia policy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Question 1 It is easy to source this and we can and should do so. --John (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  When you say this? what do you mean by "this"? Sources are cited for both sentences. -- PBS (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Question 2 Per PraetorianFury above, we would need to find other sources or perhaps note that this is the view of one Russian source. --John (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  It is not quite that simple and I think you will have to read the conversation above to grasp what the complications are (it starts with the section Goebbels's fevered prophecies). But broadly when there was last an RfC on this issue (2010) it was decided to remove the numbers from the text and place then in a footnote. At the moment that footnote is here. It includes three paragraphs including the statement Although most sources agree that there was widespread rape, the numbers put forwards are estimations. A frequently quoted number is that 100,000 women in Berlin were raped by soldiers of the Red Army (Helke Sander & Barbara Johr: BeFreier und Befreite, Fischer, Frankfurt 2005). This estimate has been questioned by Nicky Bird (Nicky Bird, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944–), Vol. 78, No. 4. (Oct. 2002), pp. 914–916) who argues the statistics are "unverifiable". Because of the 2010 RfC the body of the text does not include numbers and the reasons I think are fairly summarised by footnote. -- PBS (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  There problems of the sources that have been presented by YMB29. For example one of the sources that YMB29 presents and quotes above is Rodric Braithwaite Moscow 1941: A City and Its People at War (2009)—Braithwaite is a former British ambassador to Moscow. Braithwaite writes Western historians have written at length about the large-scale rape and violence committed by Russian soldiers in Germany at the end of the war. Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale. AFAICT YMB29 reads that as all Russian historians presumably because (s)he thinks all Russian historians are "offended" by the allegations. See my comments about this in the section above called Third opinion -- PBS (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  AFAICT, The Russian sources that have been presented higher up this page fall into three categories. (1) no mass rapes took place (this seems to be the position of one Russian historian presented above, and she claims all other professional historians agree with her. (2) mass rape took place but it was comparable with those of the other Allied armies (3) mass rapes took place but not in the numbers stated. The first seems to be based on selective reading of the sources and is not the work of an Objective historian. The second one can be dismissed because it presents a POV for justification and does not actually explain what the numbers were. The third one is the crux. So the question then needs to be asked should the Russian criticisms be placed in the body of the text or appended to the footnote that already exists? -- PBS (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Braithwaite is not even the main source, and I never said that he means all Russian historians; this is your false interpretation of the general phrase "Russian historians".

All of the Russian sources I quoted criticize the claims that there were mass or large scale rapes and crimes in general.

Your selective interpretation and dismissal of sources you don't like is the main problem here.

I am not even sure that you read carefully the quotes I posted. -YMB29 (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Came here by seeing it on the RfC/A page, which I peruse occasionally.

• Question 1 - It's a direct claim, and I think it's safer if it's sourced. It could be challenged by somebody in the future. Side note: I think this sentence should be rephrased to be smoother...there's a lot of commas in that sentence, and it's quite choppy.
• Questions 2 and 3 - I feel they're related, so I'm answering them at the same time. I think it's fair to have them both showing than Russians and others dispute certain parts of the original statement, because that shows all aspects of the statement - which is what an encyclopedia aims to be. It's a holistic approach, and I'll quote WP:NOTOPINION here:" the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." So the bottom line is, are the sources that would be used for these two statements produced reliably? If so, then yes, include them. GRUcrule (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  GRUcrule, I think you will have to read the first sentence as it appears in the article at the moment. It has both sources and a detailed footnote, so I think that you may wish to comment further once you have read it in context. As to your comment on questions 2 and 3, they can both be reliably sourced, but if you read this RfC you will see that is not really the issue. -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

PBS...No, I meant grammatically it's a poorly-written sentence that could be improved with simple tweaking. For example, my take: "In many areas of the city during and after the assault, Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage, and murder." (So, I screwed up pinging PBS earlier...I stink at typing. Sorry about that, it's been fixed).

The content of the sentence, I have no issues with...I answered the RfC question for all three, which were simple yes-or-no questions. I did (attempt) to read this RfC to gain more context, and all I see is debate between you and YMB29 regarding who's an actual historian/reliable source and who isn't, which is not something I'm willing to get in the middle of. It may behoove you (if you haven't already) to head to WP:30 or something of that nature at this point. Thus, I quoted WP:NOTOPINION and will emphasize the need for reliable scholars, and attempt to leave it at that. GRUcrule (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

GRUcrule, you said that the statement for question #1 should be sourced. By sourced do you mean that it should be attributed ("According to..." added, per WP:ASF)? I am assuming yes, since you said that the statement is a claim, not a fact, and that it could be challenged. -YMB29 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think an inline citation would be appropriate at the end of the sentence, and if there could be two or three that'd give the sentence a high degree of credibility. That's my fear upon reading the sentence, YMB29, is that it will be challenged without reliable sources backing it up directly. Now, if there are multiple sources, the sentence could read "According to multiple sources..." but I think it reads better without that phrase, and with inline citations at the end. Hope this helps! GRUcrule (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@GRUcrule: Ok, I understand what you mean, but the issue in this RfC is not about the citations (how many are needed and where they should be placed). It is about if the statement should be attributed (with "According to..."), because there are other sources disputing it and so it cannot be presented as an undisputed fact (see WP:ASF). -YMB29 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps the question shouldn't be asking about inline citations.... Okay, so this is what I get for mis-reading the question. To be frank, no, I don't think it needs the "according to" because multiple reliable sources back up the claim. Agree with many before me who seem to indicate the same, such as PraetorianFury. Everyone keeps says "if it's sourced, keep it" and thus I think the consensus is No inline attribution is needed (bolding for my own sake) GRUcrule (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see everyone saying this, including PraetorianFury. Also, this is about your opinion, not what you think is correct based on what others said.

I think you are still missing the point. If you are saying that the statement is a claim, not an undisputed fact, it has to be attributed. It does not matter how well sourced it is. Other sources dispute the claim. -YMB29 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

GRUcrule, what I said above is based on this rule: 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) 20:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

PraetorianFury, see the link to other sources I added above
Rzheshevsky is a historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences and President of the Russian Association of World War II Historians. He is mentioned in other articles on this subject. The issue is not him denying well documented war crimes, but it is about him and others questioning the scale of the crimes as claimed by Western authors like Antony Beevor. -YMB29 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Lower down I talk about rhetoric/propaganda it is interesting that you phrase the first comment in this thread as "Rzheshevsky is a historian" but Antony Beevor is an author. Was that inadvertent or deliberate rhetoric, and if deliberate then presumably you are not including Professor Atina Grossmann yet (as we have seen) she too states that mass rapes took place. Which is it deliberate or inadvertent trick with rhetoric?-- PBS (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What are you trying to imply exactly?

Yes, Beevor is not an actual historian.

I did not say anything about Grossmann not being a historian... -YMB29 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29: What exactly do you think is wrong here with this RFC? Please be clear and keep it short.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See my comments that are above the Survey header. -YMB29 (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: did you read my comments above?

There I pointed to the section that has all the quotes and information about the historians.

There is no reason to think that Rzheshevsky is unreliable. Like I said earlier, he does not deny the obvious (that crimes were committed in Germany), but questions the claims of mass crimes and the general image of uncontrolled drunken hordes of Soviet soldiers and officers terrorizing Germany. These claims were popularized by Antony Beevor, who is not an actual historian (no academic degree), but a popular writer. Rzheshevsky is responding to these claims. The same goes for the other historians I quoted above.

If the RfC was formulated correctly, you would not be asking me this question. -YMB29 (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29:I asked you above what exactly is wrong with the RFC. You pointed to what you wanted included in the article. As such that is my response. Of the 3 desired inclusions all of them can be put in here.The first is the Majority viewpoint I assume. I assume the other two notable minority viewpoints. They all 3 can be posted here. I've seen no reasonable claim that any of the sources are unreliable unless I missed something. You just can't type in something like "other historians" or what ever in the article I would say. If you do that I automatically think who? If they are good enough to mention they should be good enough to name. Don't use the Russin equivalent to Holocaust deniers. That's not to say that a historian that denies the rapes can't be used. That doesn't automatically make them unreliable. There's a standard for reliable sources. You say Rzheshevsky is a reliable source I say ok. They say who ever is a Reliable source I say ok. If I want I can go verify that. I'm not going to though. I'm not really interested here. But I digress. If someone calls your source into question you'll have to back that up and vice versa. As far as that goes wp:rsn might be useful if there is a source disagreement. Beyond that however, it doesn't matter how this RFC is written. If you have any concerns you can put them in here and they can be addressed. You don't have to change the RFC as written. There is plenty of room for talk.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC) RedactedSerialjoepsycho (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Yes, this can be discussed here, but it would have been easier for you and others if everything you needed to know would have been included in the RfC questions.

I pointed you to what I wrote above about the RfC to avoid repetition (if I was not clear, I meant these edits: ).

Both Rzheshevsky and Senyavskaya (and all the others I quoted) basically say the same thing, so one or the other can be mentioned followed by "other Russian historians". To make it clear who the others are, citations can be added to all or most of the historians I quoted here.

Creating a sentence for every historian can also be done, but another user complained that is giving them undue weight.

As for checking the reliability, yes, that can be done at the RS board, but that is usually up to the person who doubts the reliability and in previous discussions no one really questioned the reliability of the sources I quoted. -YMB29 (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would just list the most promenient historians that have that view. If they are good enough to mention they are good enough to name. If not don't mention them.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

http://http-server.carleton.ca/~jevans/2509/grossmann.pdf This is by Atina Grossmann I think. I think it mentions that the number of rapes were based on abortion statistics. And I think an alternative explanation for the number of abortions is offered.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: What is your opinion about sentence 2 and 3 being examples of historical revisionism based on? Why do you think these are revisionist and not the first sentence? -YMB29 (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29: Read Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (negationism). You should first know what is being said before you ask your questions. The Rape of Berlin didn't suddenly come into history. The two most prominent Russian historians named here (neither seem to be prominent outside of Russia) focus more on insulting those they disagree with than presenting scholarly discourse to display their examnination of the facts.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Where do they insult anyone?

How do you know that they fail to present "scholarly discourse to display their examination of the facts"?

Keep in mind that the quotes (did you actually read them?) were provided only to back up the wording of the two sentences (2 and 3 above), so they contain only some arguments.

The point is not to decide who is right and who is wrong. That would require much more quoting and analyzing, which should not be done here (per WP:OR).

WP:NPOV has to be respected, which means that all significant views in reliable sources have to be presented.

And again, there is no outright reason to think that the Russian sources are unreliable or fringe (which is what you are implying). They are published and the authors hold academic degrees.

The burden is on the person doubting such sources to prove that they are unreliable or fringe. Is not there a procedure for that?

I don't think you know enough about those sources (which is understandable since you can't read Russian) to judge them as unreliable or fringe. -YMB29 (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a translation of an interview with one of the Russian historians. It has more details and arguments. -YMB29 (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've read all of the information on this page and did my own research. Don't need your cherry picked sources. The source you have provided starts with a classic case of decption. It's full of denial, Relativization and trivialization. Is she like Oleg? has she ignored criticism directed at her positions? Has she submited any of this to peer review? That's not to say that this imformation shouldn't be included. Again the Holocaust article does contain mention of holocaust denial. That's certainly a precedent for this being allowed here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I am really curious what research you have done? What have you read?

On what do you base your claim that this is similar to holocaust denial?

Why exactly are my sources cherry picked?

Also, it does not look like you have read the article, just like everything else I pointed you to...

Do you at least admit that those sources meet the criteria for reliable sources and represent an alternative view? -YMB29 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29:Which sources? None of them that can be connected to what he said about Beevor's book can be considered reliable. He read excerts of the book and did not even touch the source notes of the book. Hardly professional conduct of a so called Historian. Moat of it is tantamount to Historical revisionism (negationism) (That is what Holocaust Denial is). I'm not interested in a game of shotgun argumentation. Perhaps you should consider moving this to some other form of dispute resolution WP:DR However my conversation here is done. At this point I just find you to be rude. My answers to this RFC are above in the apropriate section.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: He did read the book. His review contains quotes from it. The online article that says he read only excerpts is lying or it was written before he was able to read it fully.

Well I don't know how I was rude... I can also say that you were not friendly with your quick judgements and comparisons to holocaust denial. You also did not give much attention to the quotes and article I pointed to.

You took it upon yourself to decide what the truth is, without understanding the sources from both sides and their arguments. -YMB29 (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the eassay. But as I said, "Is that a notable minority point of view is the question that comes to mind. The Holocaust article doesn't forgo mention of holocaust denial." Meaning does his view represent a notable minority point of view. If that answer is yes he should be in the article just like holocaust deniers are in the article. He read the book? Great provide a source. However his credibility is already shot. Not that he had much credibility in the first place. Good bye.

Saying that someone is similar to a holocaust denier is a serious claim. Did you find some mention of this in reliable sources or do you at least have some real arguments?

However, again, this is not about who you think is right or wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone similar to a holocaust denier isn't that serious of a claim when holocaust denial is just an example of Historical revisionism (negationism). It is just one of the most known examples. The USSR had a firm history of Historical revisionism (negationism). After the Fall of the USSR I much govenmental involvement in Historical revisionism (negationism) until 2009 with the Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia's Interests. Calling someone similar to a holocaust denier is only as serious as connecting them to Historical revisionism (negationism). The moment Oleg started taking pop shots at Beevor on the basis of his career with out reading the source notes he threw his credibility out the window.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Rzheshevsky did read the source notes and noted that Beevor lacks enough documentary evidence.

Whether you call someone a holocaust denier or historical revisionist, does not really matter. You still have to properly back up your claims.

Also, that Russian committee was set up to counter historical revisionism coming from the West and Eastern Europe (especially the Baltic States). -YMB29 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That BBC article is evidence. I haven't called him a historical revisionist. Why would I comapre him to respected historians? His historical revisionism is one of negation and not of scholarship. It would be wrong of me to compare him to respected intellectuals who question the status quo based on all the availible evidence. That would be a disservice to them to compare him to them. The moment he decided to open his mouth with out regard to the provided evidence he threw his credibility our of the window. It doesn't matter that later he corrected that error in juddgement. Has he even bothered to answer the criticisms offered after that error in Judgement?

The Russian committee was a political farce.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What does your opinion about the committee have to do with the topic?

What error in judgement are you talking about?

It sounds like you are giving some political speech... There is no place for that here, because, again, it does not matter what you think the truth is.

All you are doing is jumping to conclusions based on some online politicized article. You did not read anything published by Rzheshevsky, including his full review of Beevor's book. Again, this is understandable since you don't read Russian, but you still can't make baseless claims. -YMB29 (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Error in judgement being that he spoke without touching the source notes in an article from a reliable source. So later after intense scrutiny he corrected course. Has he answered Overy's criticism? Political speech? Not at all. You just don't seem to understand that Historical revisionism is a positive thing distinct from Historical revisionism (negationism). One is good. A common practice in the history profession. One is bad. WP:TRUTH? How is that relevent? I said the minority viewpoint you desire should be included. Just that not much wieght should be given to it. Not the weight that the majority viewpoint should get. What that means is even though I feel that he clearly is a low caliber historical negationist he should be included.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how he is a historical negationist, but that is what you think and probably won't change your mind.

No one said that he should be given undue weight.

I don't know if he answered Overy's criticism. He is probably not aware of it.

I mentioned WP:TRUTH because you are judging who is right and wrong here. -YMB29 (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Are you going to respond here to my comments about WP:NPOV, WP:ASF and WP:TRUTH? -YMB29 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

YMB29 posted a request to the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (at 22:51, 4 March 2014) under the section title Violation of WP:ASF?. One of the follow up responses to a comment by YMB29 was:

Lots of things are mentioned in sources. You need to show that it is a significant view. The advantage of using academic sources, such as Grossman's Jews, Germans, and Allies: Close Encounters in Occupied Germany, the only academic source used for the sentence, is that events can only be presented as factual if there are no serious disputes, and any substantial dissenting views must be acknowledged. Here is a link to his book, the matter is discussed on pp. 48ff. I suggest using this as the sole source for the sentence, but do not see any equivocation in his narrative. If the facts were in dispute, that would be a serious error in his writing and while that can happen, you would need to show that the book received criticism on that account. TFD (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC) (edit diff)

I think that TFD is wrong in stating that it is the only academic source, but putting that to one side. I would be interested in seeing what YMB29 has to say about TFD's points. -- PBS (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: What he is saying to me is that I need to show that the Russian view is significant. I did not point him to any sources, so of course he has no way of telling if it is significant or not.

However, you are aware of the sources, what the leading Russian historians say and that what they say is mentioned in Western sources.

So it is still a mystery to me how you can claim that the view is insignificant and there is no serious dispute on the issue. -YMB29 (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What TFD is stating is The advantage of using academic sources ... is that events can only be presented as factual if there are no serious disputes, and any substantial dissenting views must be acknowledged. Grossman does not do this he specifically states that mass rape to place in Berlin, no if or buts. If he is factually inaccurate where are the published papers stating he has his facts wrong and criticising his footnotes? -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Grossmann's book is not nearly as popular as Beevor's, so it of course did not get nearly as much responses. Maybe there is criticism; I have not looked into that.

However, what is your point? She is not the only person to write on the topic, and it is not like she is saying something very different regarding mass rape than Beevor (though she is critical of the big numbers that are thrown around). -YMB29 (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Oleg Rzheshevsky

@YMB29 from the collapsed section "Motion to close or modify" immediately before:

• So you dislike "These claims are criticized by Russian historians like Oleg Rzheshevsky, who stated that such descriptions of the Red Army are similar to the images instilled by Nazi propaganda"
• you approve 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."

What do you think is the substantive difference between them? -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no substantive difference between them. You missed my point.

I said the way this RfC is worded makes the Rzheshevsky sentence look like a denial of an established fact, so the sentence with Senyavskaya is better. -YMB29 (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So we agree that your summary of what he writes sounded like a denial of the academic consensus. -- PBS (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I said in this RfC it looks like that, at least that is the impression users have gotten or may get. -YMB29 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Elena/Yelena Senyavskaya

@YMB29The sentence you prefer:

"Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread"

is a distortion of what she wrote. She argues that no mass rape took place and that all other Russian historians agree with her. I previously included as summary of her potion with citations in the article which you removed:

I think her reliance on one source is analogous what is mentioned in Revisionist techniques. However that is beside the point is a tangential point. As can be seen in the collapsed box Senyavskaya does not "argue that ... such crimes occurred" she denies that mass rapes tool place and she states that all Russian historians agree with her. -- PBS (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you did not read carefully. From that same source:

-And what actually happened to these raped people?

We cannot say that such things did not happen. There were rapes, but not on the scale about which they are now lying today.

I also quoted Senyavskaya from her book and intended to use that as one of the sources, but you asked to use her interview only.

Senyavskaya, Yelena (2006), Adversaries of Russia in the Wars of the 20th Century: Evolution of the "Image of an Enemy" in the Minds of the Army and Society, Moscow: ROSSPEN, ISBN 5-8243-0782-2:

It is also interesting how some important aspects of the war are reflected in the German historical memory. For example, the perception of the enemy - both the Western countries and the Soviet Union...

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.

Consequently, we can speak about individual (especially compared with the actions of the German side) violations of international law in the conduct of war. Moreover, all these events were spontaneous and not organized, and were strictly suppressed by the Soviet army command.

-YMB29 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Also, you claiming that she relies on one source is further proof that you don't carefully read what the sources say. -YMB29 (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

YMB29, I assume it is you who has emphasised the phrase two phrases in bold. Now it may be that the translation is not very accurate but the phrase "mythology relating to the mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers" does not mean that the mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers was a myth. It means that things surrounding the mass rape are myth/story and she go on to assert what she thinks these are:

• The Western soldiers did the same: "alleged absence of such evidence in the areas of occupation of the Western allies"
• The Germans did worse: "compared with the actions of the German side"
• The Soviet government did not encourage their troops behaviour "not organized, and were strictly suppressed by the Soviet army command".

How competent she is as an historian is becoming clear, but she is not a political scientist. How can the actions of solders 70 years ago possibly put pressure on Russia today? It is like saying that commenting on the negative behaviour of French troops during the Napoleonic wars puts pressure on France today, or British troops behaviour in Ireland (name a decade)...

A problem here is credibility, as she produces no citations to either secondary academic (or primary) sources to back up her statements (with the exception of the one I have noted above). For example in her book does she analyse with citations the British Army record on rape in Germany during 1945 if not how does she state with any authority that "the alleged absence of such evidence in the areas of occupation of the Western allies, is noteworthy"?

Her techniques remind me of classic Holocaust denial. One of the reasons why the Dresden government asked a committee of experts to look into the number of deaths in the bombing of Dresden was because David Irving and his ilk had for many years used the Bombing of Dresden (Irving wrote The Destruction of Dresden that was for more than a decade very influential (it was still being cited in popular histories up until the late 1980s) -- which they often describe as a holocaust (as it is using the old literal meaning of the word from which the modern meaning of Holocaust is derived)-- so they can say (or imply) "yes the Holocaust was bad, but in war bad things happen just look at Dresden over a hundred thousand burnt to death in a night".

You are now faced with a choice either she denies that mass rape took place (my quote) or that she agrees that mass rape took place your quote. If one uses your sentences as a source then she is no use as a source of denial as she agrees that mass rape took place. -- PBS (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well your analysis, if it can be called that, looks like a poor attempt to try to discredit a source that you don't agree with.

Your comparison to holocaust denial is baseless.

Western armies committing crimes, the Germans doing much worse, and the government taking discipline seriously are all known facts.

Are you questioning these? If you question that the Germans were much worse, then you can be compared to holocaust deniers...

As for your question about how the actions of 70 years ago can be used to put pressure on Russia today, it just shows that you probably don't follow the news.

Senyavskaya is a real historian with a higher doctorate in history, while your main source, Beevor, is just a writer with an honorary degree.

She does quote and cite sources in her book. I just did not translate everything.

The translated interview has a whole section of quotes from primary sources, which you apparently missed.

Also, I may not have translated the sentence you mentioned correctly. The more accurate translation is mythology regarding the mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers. However, the rest of the quote, as well as the quote from the interview, makes her position clear. You should have figured that out... -YMB29 (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is clearly no reason to talk to you any further. It's not being questioned if the Germans did worse. It's being questioned why your source emphasizes this. Western Crimes are well known and well documented. Western Historians have been writing history without fear for their lives since World War 2. It's interesting that a historian with higher doctorate has to focus on the well documented history of the West to defend Russia. Yes German War Crimes are much worse than the USSR's. Genocide is far worse than rape. How ever rape is still bad.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say? No one said that rape is not bad.

Putting something in parenthesis does not exactly mean that you are emphasizing it... -YMB29 (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

YMB29 you write "She does quote and cite sources in her book. I just did not translate everything". What sources does she use to record and analyse the instances of rape by the British and Canadian armies of the 21st Army Group? (I am not asking for a complete list just an example of a prominent secondary source that she cites). -- PBS (talk)

@PBS: Well she mentions only the US army in her book. She cites documents that are in the Russian archives. One is a Soviet army report about the work of the US military with the civilian population from 11 May 1945. It says that there were 100 cases of rape. The other source is an account from a German communist, who was set free from prison by the Western Allies, about crimes committed by the US army.

Also, in the interview, there are quotes from Osmar White and a US officer (see the section "Eyewitnesses of Germany, 1945"). -YMB29 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

there was self-censorship over World War II issues for decades after the war in many countries, and some archival material will not be released into the public domain until 120 years after the events, but generally enough time has passed that things can be looked at reasonably dispassionately without suppression of the facts (some things will always arouse passions, but information is not suppressed) -- see for example the Forgotten Bombardment. It seems to me from the evidence produced here, possibly due to suppression under communism(?) that this process is not as far advanced in Russia as it is in countries such as Holland.

I am basing the rest of my reply here on what you have written as I have not read Elena Senyavskaya's book. As a Russian Senyavskaya has access to Soviet archives, but instead of building up a detailed analysis of what happened in Berlin with dozens of primary sources to explain that foreign historians have used sources that are not representative and give a false picture, she makes vague statements about "alleged absence of such evidence in the areas of occupation of the Western allies". She bases this innuendo, not on specialist secondary sources from historians who have researched the issue and have used the archives of the countries they have studied, or her own research into those archives, but instead she extrapolates "all Western Allies" from one Red Army report (presumably a contemporary one) about the US zone, and one German Communist (about the US zone?), when she means "US ally". Either she chose "Western Allies" deliberately because for propaganda effect or (worse?) because she does not appreciate the difference between US ally and "Western Allies". Let us suppose it was the other way around, that a US historian writing about crimes by US solders in April 1945 was to explain away "alleged US crimes" by writing

In this context, the mythology relating to the mass rape of German women by US soldiers, with the alleged absence of such evidence from East European historians in the areas of occupation of the Eastern allies, is noteworthy. This topic, in the context of the general political pressure on the US, is actively exaggerated in the Russian media.

The obvious retort by objective historians would be what has the comparison to do with whether or not the US soldiers committed crimes? And where are your sources for the alleged Eastern crimes? If that American historian justified the comment by producing one contemporary US Army report and the comments of one German member of the CDU who returned from the east, no one would take the "historian" seriously -- particularly after the Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt case which exposed to the public this type of fraudulent analysis of history.

You still have not answered my question does she deny that any mass rape took place, or does she deny the scale? If the former then my quote covers it, if the latter then the appropriate place to put her views is in the footnote concerning number of mass rapes.-- PBS (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

She does not talk about the total number of rapes, so what she says does not need to go into the footnote.

Again, questioning the scale is not only about specific numbers. Senyavskaya directly questions the scale (There were rapes, but not on the scale about which they are now lying today.) and says that mass rape is a myth (mythology regarding the mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers).

I don't know how you can just keep on ignoring the quotes I post...

If she mentions Western allies committing crimes, it does not mean that she has to present evidence about all of them. Here again you see an "all" when it is not there. The crimes committed by the Western allies are not the focus of that part of the book.

You are just desperately trying to find an excuse to criticize her and present her as bad and biased historian... -YMB29 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If it not the focus of that part of the book then why cite that passage? Is there no Russian historian who has written a 21st century account of the Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation? -- PBS (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There are many who write about that. What is the point of your question?

The reference to the Western allies was part of the sentence I wanted to quote and I usually quote complete sentences. -YMB29 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What do the Russian authors of the 21st century accounts of the Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation say about this issue? -- PBS (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

PBS, it is not about what you think, but about what the sources indicate.
Senyavskaya is cited and/or mentioned in many Western publication: a b c d e f g
Even Beevor, her main opponent on this issue, uses her as a source.h
Therefore, she cannot be considered unreliable. -YMB29 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Beevor is not Senyavskaya's main opponent, he is not even an opponent unless she has a scholarly position to defend (and it appears she might see blow) that he has contracted. No historian can be an expert on everything (that is how some reputable historians managed to be embarrassed by Irving) what cautious historians do if they comment on a controversial area outside their area of expertise is attribute the facts and often the opinions to historians who have specialised in an area. I do not know what Senyavskaya's areas of expertise are but it appears that the experiences of Soviet soldiery during World War II is one such area. If so has she produced a scholarly analysis of the sources available on the subject of allegations of crimes committed by Soviet soldiers?

BTW is Senyavskaya's style of writing common is Russian academic writing with its type of bias? Take for example the quote in (d) of the sources you found: "the outcome of any war is determined in the end by people. The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet people against Fascist Germany shows this especially clearly." Why the terminology "Soviet people" against "Fascist Germany" as more neutral form of writing would be "Soviet Union" against "Fascist Germany" or "Soviet people" against "German people"? Is it is inadvertent adoption of a Russian bias (because most Russian writers adopt such phrases) or deliberate use of propaganda terminology? It was this quote that caught my attention because of the conclusion she draws "but the moral-psychological superiority of Soviet soldiers proved to he the weightiest factor of all", because she wrote that in 1999 and when that is coupled with the another quote given in your source (b) "There was more freedom in war, more room, less pressure...". She seems to be saying that there was more freedom in the war which helped to draw out the "moral-psychological superiority of Soviet soldiers". If of course that freedom allowed a portion of them behaved in a less than moral way, then it strips the sentence down to the "psychological superiority of Soviet soldiers" -- and it is moral superiority (not just over the Germans, andt at least moral equivalence to the behaviour of all soldiers) that she seems to want to hold onto, and takes it as a personal slight if someone publishes something that undermines that view. It is just a pity you have not come across a piece by her that defends he position using the best scholarly techniques of building up a case through scholarly research rather than innuendo such as "alleged absence of such evidence in the areas of occupation of the Western allies, is noteworthy". -- PBS (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Your above analysis does not qualify as scholarly criticism. You continue to desperately look for things to criticize her for.

Beevor is her main opponent in that he represents the view that she is criticizing.

Senyavskaya can be considered an expert on crimes committed by the Soviet military, as she has written a lot on the subject, and not only what was mentioned here.

She has done the necessary scholarly analysis of the sources you are talking about, but what is the point of asking this?

Again, you are not supposed to analyze sources, to decide who is right and wrong or which historian did better research.

All that matters is if the sources are reliable, and it is obvious that Senyavskaya is reliable. -YMB29 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29 you wrote "She does not talk about the total number of rapes, so what she says does not need to go into the footnote". In which case are you saying she is denying that mass rape (not isolated instances of gang rape) took place? -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Yes, as her quote obviously suggests... -YMB29 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

She denies the mass rape. She doesn't mention numbers or even define mass rape. I don't see a reason to include it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of numbers? Did someone else define mass rape?

It does not matter how many rapes it takes to say that mass rape occurred. What matters is that she says that the crimes were not on the scale claimed by Beevor and others. So she denies the type of mass rape claimed by them.

There is nothing wrong with someone denying something that is not an established fact, especially if that something is based on dubious research. -YMB29 (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear you. Denying dubious research without evidence is a good thing. Another negationist.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There is evidence, but you just don't read...

So you are calling me a negationist? -YMB29 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

YMB29 you wrote at the start of this section Rzheshevsky ... The issue is not him denying well documented war crimes, but it is about him and others questioning the scale of the crimes. The sentence you want to balance does not go into numbers, so you have to find historians who deny that mass rapes took place not those who query the scale and/or justify it by saying everyone does it. Those who query the scale or excuse the crimes belong if anywhere in the footnote. Who other than Senyavskaya, and her claims that all Russian historians support her in this, deny that mass rape took place? -- PBS (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see anyone excusing it?

Once again, all the historians I quoted say that the crimes did not happen on the scale claimed by Beevor and others, or, in other words, they say that the crimes were not widespread as claimed.

Maybe your understanding of the word scale is different, but it does not have to refer to specific numbers.

If you want to be picky and insist that any sentence added to the article text about the Russian view has to be based on sources that directly question mass rape/crimes (by using the word mass), I do have two other sources besides Senyavskaya that do that. See the last two sources. -YMB29 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If the issue is one of scale then the information needs to be added to the footnote which already notes that there is disagreement over the scale. If it is about denying that mass rape took place then that is for appending to the current sentence in the body of the text. It has repeatedly been stated here that there was a previous RfC were it was agreed to remove the claims over scale from the body of the article and move them into a footnote, so your statement "I quoted say that the crimes did not happen on the scale claimed by Beevor and others" seems to be missing the point that the scale "claimed by Beevor and others" is not mentioned in the text, you are reading that into it based on your knowledge, not on what is written in the article. -- PBS (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is that RfC you talk of?

The footnote deals with specific numbers that are claimed. It notes that these are just estimations that may be unverifiable.

The sources that I brought up not only question the numbers, but the whole concept of mass rape as portrayed by some Western authors, both directly by using the words mass rape/crime or indirectly by using other words.

By using other words, I mean that if a historian writes that violence "could not be prevented, but it was contained and then reduced to a minimum" or that cases of cruelty "did not become widespread", this is rejecting the claims that mass crime occurred.

However, again, if you are insisting on sources that directly reject mass crime, there are three of those. -YMB29 (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Battle of Berlin/Archive 5 for the discussions, although on reviewing them I have concluded there may not have been an RfC. Do these three Russian sources fall under Braithwaite's "Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all..."? on 12 February 2014 I added text to the article that covers Russian historians and you removed it. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I told you why I removed that. You were making it look like this was a view of a fringe historian.

No, these historians are not just denying something they don't like, if that is what you are asking.

It is obvious now that there are enough reliable sources to include the Russian view, so what do you have against including one of the sentences above? -YMB29 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have explained why. -- PBS (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Can you be more specific? -YMB29 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

PBS, your arguments against including the view challenging Beevor and others were that the sources I quoted are unreliable and that they only argue about the numbers without denying that mass rape occurred (and so you said that they need to go into the footnote).
From the discussion above, it seems that you understood that the sources are reliable.
I have also shown you that the sources challenge the claim that mass rape occurred (and some of them do this explicitly).
So do you still object to including a sentence cited to those sources in the article text? If you do, what are your arguments? -YMB29 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I still object and to date you do not have one editor who endorses your proposed change. I have explained in detail the reasons why your wording is not suitable. I have already added wording that I think is suitable which you removed. I would remind you (and warn others who read this very looong debate that your initial wording that you edit warred to keep in the article said:

According to Antony Beevor, during, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder. Historian Atina Grossmann claims that for women "Goebbels's fevered prophecies about the threat from the Asiatic hordes seemed to be fulfilled." The looting and rapes gradually subsided. 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.

to enhance this change you removed all the citations from the first sentence apart from Beevor's, presumably to make it look as if this was a view put forwards by just one oddball British historian/author. At first I assumed good faith and that you did this out of ignorance. Now I see your edits on the same continuum as Braithwaite's "Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all...". From dearth of sources you have brought to the debate it is clear that it is only a fringe of Russian historians who deny that mass rapes took place. I asked above and you did not answer. So I will ask again: is there a modern Russian historian (not one who qualified as an historian under the Soviet regime) who has written a detailed 21st century book on the Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation? If so what is it if anything they have to say about the behaviour of Soviet soldiers during the Strategic Offensive Operation and specifically during the operation to capture the city? -- PBS (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have quoted the historians that have something to say about the behavior of the Soviet soldiers.

Some of them like Myagkov became historians in the post-Soviet period. Why does this matter anyway? Are you saying that historians who were educated during the Cold War are biased. In that case, this applies to Grossmann and Bellamy, not to speak of Beevor who is not even a historian...

I don't know why you brought up my initial edits. I have explained before that they correctly reflected the citations provided, but I guess you are really desperate for some arguments against me.

So I see that your new excuse is that the Russian historians I quoted are fringe sources.

It is ridiculous to call members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and/or Academy of Military Sciences, the leading Russian historians, fringe.

On what do you base your claim?

As for your other claim, that no editor endorses my proposed change, a number of editors above have said that if the sources are reliable, they should be included. It looks like you ignore what others say when you don't like it. -YMB29 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Also, I want to say that it is obvious that generally speaking Western and Russian historians are divided on the issue. However, instead of understanding the need to present the views of both sides (per NPOV), you are pushing the view of the historians from your country.

This is really sad, especially considering that you are an admin and should know better. -YMB29 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

*'Can't see how THIS single sentence + footnote of THIS long article c/b a proper forum to push this minority Soviet view.

*A quick search on google books turns up these and tons more, few if any of them sourced to Beevor: , , , , , , , , , . Estimates ranging from 100K to 1 million, many of them kidnapped, gang-raped, held for days.

*I also agree that it's not an accurate way to frame the opposing views as Soviet versus "Western." More like censored state-run propaganda machine versus the rest of the world, at least some of which approached the truth. The Soviet historians who re-published freely post-USSR and the post-Soviet-era material: That'd be different.

*I DO agree with the quotes (posted by YMB29?) that atrocities & other negative stats committed by the non-Soviet Allies are probably understated. (Kinda' how it always works.) But I haven't seen evidence that it happened on any large scale; and in any case, that is not the subject here. The Soviets, not the British or Amis, took Berlin. Paavo273 (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• 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
• A-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries 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)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment