Talk:Battle of Berlin/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RFC on Soviet rapes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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[1].
• 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 Wikipedia 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: "Wikipedia'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)

PraetorianFury later clarified: If this view is prominent among Russian historians, but not among historians of other nationalities, then I think it would be fair to give it some coverage. But we would need to need to mention that it is the Russian view. Others may disagree, but that is my interpretation of WP:WEIGHT.[2] -YMB29 (talk) 03:25, 3 May 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.[3] -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 "Wikipedia'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.[4] -YMB29 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

PraetorianFury, see the link to other sources I added above[5]
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.[6]

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: [7][8]).

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[9] 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 Wikipedia: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)

Motion to close or modify

This RFC is highly biased and doesn't represent the dispute on this page. This RFC either needs to closed or be modified to represent that dispute. The second option seems to be very misleading. It's as if Oleg Rzheshevsky and other Russian historians are denying all misconduct when that is not the case that has been made in the dispute on this page. As written it is highly bias and will only serve to bias this RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I posted about this on the admin noticeboard.[10] There is no response so far. -YMB29 (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Diannaa has followed the proper course as to an RFC. Anyone can start one and clearly, it is the best course of action at this point in time. Kierzek (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, but the RfC has to reflect the actual dispute and present the arguments of both sides. -YMB29 (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I agree that an RFC was called for to assist in dispute resolution. That was a good call on Diannaa's part. However as this RFC doesn't represent the dispute It can't actually help. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC) RFC questions have to be worded as neutrally as possible without guiding the other participants as to how to respond. There's no requirement that both sides have to agree on the wording; the requirement is that the question(s) have to be framed as neutrally as possible. I think I've done that, and don't see any reason to modify or close the RFC. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC) @Diannaa: I don't think both sides have to agree on wording. However RFC questions to have to be worded as nuetrally as possible and they have to represent the dispute. "Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread." This information is also a part of the dispute as I understand. Or is there no dispute on that information? If @YMB29: can include that information in this article it should be made known. It seems YMB29 thinks that is also a part of this dispute. If that is undisputed and not a part of the debate it should be made known. If you would like to keep that part of the dispute seperate for the moment I think that's fine as well but should also be made known so that YMB29 or someone else can be able to start a seperate RFC (or other means of dispute resolution) on that issue later.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC) I will add that sentence as a third question. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC) @Diannaa: That sentence should replace the sentence in question # 2 or be added as one of two options. It also has to be made clear what sources all the sentences are based on, so everyone won't constantly be asking who is Rzheshevsky or Senyavskaya and if they are reliable. Furthermore, it would help if you add a short statement from me that explains my position, and a statement from PBS could be added also. -YMB29 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC) @YMB29:No option 2) remains a leigitimate question. Oleg is a questionable source. Any thing you feel you have to say you can say in the threaded discussion section. That's what it's there for. @Diannaa: Thanks for your reconsideration.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC) @Serialjoepsycho: Questionable source based on what? Right now this RfC is invalid. -YMB29 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @YMB29:That big shining Reductio ad Hitlerum shown above in option 2 makes it questionable. Oleg Shows halmarks of Historical revisionism (negationism) in his critcisms of Antony Beevor. Has he even responded to Beevor's counter points? After minimising Russian War crimes Oleg made clear that the Germans could have expected an "avalanche of revenge". Great way to justify rape. He definetly should have responded to Richard Overy counter argument that Russians refused to acknowledge Soviet war crimes, "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". How is this rfc invalid? Here's the policy WP:RFC. And please be clear.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @Serialjoepsycho: What you are reading is selective quoting of Rzheshevsky. Did you actually read the quote from him that I posted above? He does not justify rape. He admits that crimes did occur because many soldier wanted revenge, but this was kept in check. The RfC is invalid because it does not represent the dispute accurately. You said this yourself when you created this section... Why are you now saying the opposite? There is also no mention of sources that support each sentence. -YMB29 (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @YMB29:I'm saying differently now because it was modified. Then in the threaded discussion talk about the sources that support each sentence. You have to make your own case. A section for you to do that was provided.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @Serialjoepsycho: Not everyone reads the threaded discussion. Did you read the quotes I pointed to here? Such important things need to be mentioned in the RfC wording. The modification that was made was a minor one that did not resolve most of the issues. -YMB29 (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @YMB29: No I haven't found Oleg's full quote on the "avalanche of revenge" just post it. No they don't need to be posted in the RFC wording. WP:RFC Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue. That was what was done. Make your case. There's a place for it. but if you feel that strongly about it then follow procedure and end this RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @Serialjoepsycho: Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue? That was not even done in this case. There were just questions thrown without any link to sources or explanation of the issues. I don't mean that all the quotes should be posted in the RfC, but that the link to them should be included. Once again, here[11] is the section with all the relevant quotes. Here is the quote from Rzheshevsky: 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. -YMB29 (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @YMB29:This is fair in my view. It may not be in your view. Above I provided you a link on the procedures of how to end this RFC.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @Serialjoepsycho: Yes, but that deals with formal closure. In this case, this has to be closed as invalid and most likely a new one has to be started. -YMB29 (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC) This is just a note to let everyone know that I don't intend to make any further amendments to the questions for this RFC. If people decide to participate it's up to them to do their homework so that they can make informed decisions about how to answer the questions. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @Diannaa: Well you can't expect everyone to waste time looking for answers themselves. This RfC won't yield a fair and accurate result that solves the dispute, as users are not being informed on the issues. Why did you create it? Did PBS ask you to? Can you at least close it as invalid? We can create a new one later. -YMB29 (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @YMB29:"Requests for closure can be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. WP:ANRFC " It's not invalid. It doesn't have your cherry picked details in the area you want them in but it doesn't have anyone elses either. Quit making basless accusations.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC) @Serialjoepsycho: I have made my points clear if you are not able to follow them that is your problem. Cherry picked details? An RfC should reflect the positions of both sides if it is supposed to solve a dispute. Otherwise it is useless. -YMB29 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC) The position not the evidence.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC) The evidence has to be linked or mentioned since without it a position may look baseless. -YMB29 (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC) That's why there's a threaded discussion section. For you to provide your evidence. You make your own case. If this isn't to your liking take it to some other form of dispute resolution.wp:dispute There's a list.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, but I can't go to dispute resolution while this RfC is open. Also, not everyone who comes for the RfC reads the threaded discussion, especially when there are a lot of comments. -YMB29 (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Then go to the village pump and suggest they change the language in how a RFC should be set up.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC) and yes you can move it to another dispute resolution while this is opened. Go read the policy. That is one of the ways to effectively close this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Before opening a DR request there is a page that says that the process cannot "Address disputes that are currently under discussion somewhere else (such as Requests for Comment, Mediation or Arbitration)". I will try the requests for closure noticeboard later. -YMB29 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC) YMB29 I am not at all sure what your beef is, because it seems to me that the RfC represents what you would like to see in the article. The text you originally installed on this page stated: 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. (diff) I have removed the footnotes from the copied edit to avoid confusion, but the diff shows that you stripped out all but the citations to Beevor from the first sentence -- presumably to show that the sentence now carrying in-text attribution to Beevor is only the point of view of one gullible English historian. I put bold on the last sentence to highlight it because because I do not see that there is a substantive difference from the sentence included by Diannaa at the start of this RfC: 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 YMB29 you do not need to answer this post as it is just an observation. -- PBS (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC) @PBS: I don't really care what sentence is in the article, the one that mentions Rzheshevsky or the one with Senyavskaya, but I am sure you like the second one more. However, with this RfC, where there are no sources presented or any arguments made in the questions, the sentence with Rzheshevsky looks like a denial of an established fact, which is very misleading. As for me citing the other sentence only to Beevor, we have discussed this before. The main part of the sentence regarding the crimes was cited to Beevor only before me. The other two sources were cited to another part of it ("and in the days immediately following the assault"). Like TFD said on the NPOV board, the citing in that sentence is poor. -YMB29 (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Can we pleas hat this whole subsection and get back to discussing the RfC as clearly there is no consensus for closing it, and this whole sub-section is a distraction. -- PBS (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC) It was actually modified as requested. No point in this now.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Whether it gets closed now or not, it still won't resolve the dispute as the wording does not reflect what exactly is disputed. So there is no point in keeping it open. Dispute resolution is the best option now. -YMB29 (talk) 06:43, 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:

wording by Elena/Yelena Senyavskaya
The Russian historian Elena Senyavskaya has stated that mass rapes did not occur, and that "amongst [professional Russian historians] there are no differences of opinion concerning this subject". Notes References Senyavskaya, Elena (8 May 2013), "The Red Army "Rape of Germany" was Invented by Goebbels", Komsomolskaya Pravda(original Russian

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 [Y]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.[12] -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:[13]

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[14], 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: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. 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)

Your anti-Soviet views are well known. You have been warned before for pushing your POV and being disruptive.

Minority Soviet view? Are you aware that the Soviet Union no longer exists? We are talking about Russian historians here.

Did you follow me into here? I don't see how your participation in this discussion will help things. I still remember your "methods" of discussion in the Continuation War article... -YMB29 (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hello again YMB29, Follow you "into here"? Are you suggesting persecution or stalking? That'd be an awful' long time on the road. 'Cuz that was February 2013, well over a year ago. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe our only interaction since then was one request per WP policy for a quote of a foreign-language source (a quote BTW I have not yet verified.) So you remember my being warned in February 2013, do you? It was exactly as follows, NOT for POV: "You have been disrupting the talk page of Continuation War," (which was for accidentally pasting twice the text of a simultaneous on-point discussion occurring at another page ('didn't know how to do links or diffs back then.)) I took major issue with my "warning" then and I still do; in fact I appealed it TWICE only to find among other things that alas you cannot very well appeal warnings. And I got quite an education in the process.
• QUERY: Are you suggesting that you have dibs on this article and that my comments are not welcome here? If so, I'd suggest a reading of WP:OWN. I actually was trying to agree with you in one key point above. I guess name-recognition trumped that. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Since YMB wants to talk about the Continuation War on the Battle of Berlin talk page, let me if I may refer anyone interested to a section of that article I authored complete with the soon-added rebuttal according to the Sovietist perspective by none other than YMB29, of course. Paavo273 (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sovietist perspective... Looks like you have not changed. -YMB29 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian historian Mark Solonin explains the Russian propaganda campaign rel mass rapes

Especially unless some better-authenticated and more scholarly info from Sensyavskaya is to be had than the caustic, "chip-on-her-shoulder" remarks found in the anonymous blog interview and translation, and IMO in any case, we have HERE a more reliable source in Russian historian Mark Solonin, who discusses at this link the nature of the Russian propaganda campaign that began rel the mass rapes, following the breakup of the SU and liberation of Warsaw Pact countries including E. Germ. Paavo273 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Solonin is not a historian. He is a controversial publicist and blogger. Hardly a reliable source... -YMB29 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Whether to include the Soviet/Russian view and proper treatment if there is 2B any treatment

• In a close reading of the talk discussion the last couple months, I find no consensus there whatsoever for change.
• Further, WP:Undue weight specifies, among other things, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."
• Finally, IF and WHEN consensus is found for treatment of the Soviet/Russian disfavored view, it must be clearly depicted as such. the statement, "the Soviet military command took strict measures to maintain discipline" does not even indicate that this is according to the R/S view.
• Altogether too much space is given to the minority/discredited R/S POV on this issue. In order for the R/S view to have this much treatment, the established/favored view would have to see about a five-fold increase in space in this article. Paavo273 (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you know what the "established/favored view" is? And how did you calculate how much space it must take up in the article?

It is also interesting to know how you came to the conclusion that the other view is discredited? Let me guess, because it is a "Sovietist perspective"?

Most of the users who have commented on the issue have said that the view should be included, see above. -YMB29 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion, whoever cares to read it, will not support that assertion. Other editors including editor/admin PBS were willing to compromise, but AFAICS, you insisted on parity for the Soviet/Russian view. Then during a several-day hiatus by PBS, you got busy editing, lacking in consensus though your edits were. Paavo273 (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that I started making changes because I somehow knew that PBS was going to be busy?

Did you read the section above? -YMB29 (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the addition as "parity" sought by YMB29, just a voice given to the minor view. Of course the mainstream view is that Soviet troops were raping everywhere they went, including East Prussia, Yugoslavia, Pomerania and Silesia, Budapest, and Berlin. However, the cited Soviet scholars have published contrarian viewpoints which should be presented to the reader as minor viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Binksternet,

• Are you still maintaining that there is consensus for YMB29's edits? If so, could you point me to that consensus and tell me WHO formed that consensus?
• There was a long and contentious particularized discussion during which User:PBS and at least a few others were willing to compromise and treat the Soviet view in the article. When YMB29 would not agree to their compromise rel the specific use of language--something as you are no doubt aware has received careful treatment in WP policy--no agreement and no consensus was reached. A reading of the protracted discussion including even in the section immediately above this one will confirm that. Paavo273 (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Above I quoted the users who agreed that the view should be included[25].

PBS has not made any objections after this. Also, he alone does not determine consensus, even though he is an admin.

Like I said above, PBS agreed to include the view before [26], but later reverted all of my changes because of a dispute over a tag I placed in the previous sentence. That tag is not there anymore, at least for now; I still want this to be resolved, but it is a separate issue. -YMB29 (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a significant view that should be included in this article, just like it is in every other article that touches on this subject.

Also, before Paavo273 claims that Soviet scholars are discredited, I want to note that it is Russian scholars, since I don't cite any Soviet era sources. -YMB29 (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

YMB29 So now you put words into my mouth "Like I said above, PBS agreed to include the view before" but not using these words. See above Elena/Yelena Senyavskaya: I specifically wrote ""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 am putting back into the text the sentence I do find acceptable. YMB29 please do not assume that I agree with any change you make unless I specifically state that I do, or make an edit to the article after you do in which case you may assume that I have either agreed your change or modified it as a compromise. I find it an tiresome that I have to repeat myself by adding anchors to this talk page to show that I have already addressed a point you make and that you are ignoring what I write. -- PBS (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No, once again it is not only Senyavskaya. You are trying to make it look like it is one Russian historian when I have presented so many other sources.

As for your claims of synthesis, we have discussed this before... See WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH_is_not_summary.

The only one who is ignoring points made by others is you.

You have agreed to that sentence before as the diff shows, so stop changing it. -YMB29 (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This is from the discussion above:

Another previous statements

"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)

You are taking my comment out of context (it was at that time an attempt at a compromise), and besides what you have put in place is not what was said in that compromise instead you have expanded on it in two ways first instead of just one citation you added more. "Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread"[27]. Then before any one else made an edit you expanded the sentence by adding "; the Soviet military command took strict measures to maintain discipline."[28].

Besides if is factually wrong "Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements": They have not criticise such stamens as no statement has been made in the text to be criticised, and none of them have commented about the wording in Wikiepdia. Senyavskaya has denied that mass rapes took place. Not all other Russian historians take that particular stance, more commonly the question the scale. To the best of my knowledge you have only produced three sources that deny that mass rapes took place, and that is with a trawl of the internet. Have you yet found a 21st century Russian history of the Berlin campaign written by a post Soviet Russian historian? If so what have they to say on the treatment of German civilians in Berlin? -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Although I think the section on Soviet war crimes is currently decently worded, it would be worthwhile to add back the other Russian-language sources to demonstrate in the citations a few of the other Russian historians that generally concur with Senyavskaya's views. In reference to previous comments, I prefer something like the current wording and I don't think we should present Senyavskaya as representing the "minority" viewpoint. In terms of the relative popularity of each viewpoint it doesn't appear that there are many sources that explicitly say that affirmation of mass rapes is the majority opinion and a source that simply ignores alternative points of view does not constitute a source proving that affirmation of mass rapes is the majority point of view. Senyavskaya, by contrast, clearly states that there are no professional Russian historians who agree that mass rapes occurred. Since much of the scholarship on Russian war crimes is naturally produced in Russian, then a majority viewpoint of Russian historians can automatically not be referred to as a minority viewpoint globally among historians. This article contains a dearth of Russian language sources and what concerns me here is that we will depreciate a viewpoint held by most serious historians on this subject simply because the sources are written in Russian instead of English. It reminds me of what Timothy Synder once said, "If you don't know Russian, you don't really know what you're missing." Having said that, the way the article is currently worded is more or less sufficient, but whatever the final version looks like it's extremely important we give fully equal weight in either the body of the text or else in the footnote to the views of reputable Russian historians like the ones that have been cited already.CurtisNaito (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a minority view, CurtisNaito; to illustrate, using one example from an earlier post by Buckshot06 way back on 19 January: "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." Kierzek (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Senyavskaya, however, says it's a majority point of view, in Russia at least. Could you quote the portion of those articles where it says that the denial of mass rapes is a minority point of view? If we have one source that says that this opinion is the majority, and another that says nothing at all about the relative popularity of the two views, then by Wikipedia standards we can't simply assume on our own that the two positions are equal.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Since much of the scholarship on Russian war crimes is naturally produced in Russian," but it is not because as Braithwaite quoted above wrote "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.". The advantage of using the quote by Senyavskaya is there is no need to add other sources, particularly as there is a dearth of sources Russian detailing the issue of Soviet soldiers behaviour in Berlin during the assault and immediate aftermath, produced on this talk page. It think that only two other Russian sources have been produced that deny the crimes the others just question the scale. If questioning the scale then the comments belong in the footnote on the numbers, only denial of mass rape should be appended to the paragraph rather than the footnote. -- PBS (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

All the source I quoted dispute the claims of mass crimes. I don't know how much times I had to repeat that only for you to ignore it.

Can you quote the sources you think don't deny mass crimes and only question the scale? -YMB29 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29 I am well aware of the game of making minor changes that introduces new text into paragraph, because if those changes are reverted and editor such as you who play this game can say "I have not been making reverts", the other person has been reverting. So please revert out the change you made here by adding Western to the sentence (with the editorial comment "Added the word Western to make the statement more accurate." -- because it is clearly not more accurate and is adding your own POV to a sentence that does not need it) or I will simply revert all the changes made today back to the version by Paavo273, as I am not going to play those games, and we can simply wait until there is agreement here on this talk page before adding any new text. -- PBS (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Braithwaite didn't really deny the existence of such scholarship. He mentions that both Western and Russian historians have written on this issue, while adding that he believes that the Russian historians have a national bias. However, sources like Senyavskaya similarly accuse Western historians of having an anti-national bias. Of course the fact that rapes and murders did occur on some level is undisputed and I concur that we could put Senyavskaya into the footnote because this issue is dealt with in other articles. However, as we write up the appropriate wording I need to stress that we have no good reason to portray Russian views as being "minority".CurtisNaito (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The wording we have discussed in the section above should be used I think: Vengeful Soviet troops engaged in rape, pillage and murder, although the scale of these crimes is disputed. All the rest would go into the footnote. -YMB29 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, there are two view expressed by Russian historians on this page that are different from those of social scientists and historians outside Russia. The first is denial which is the view put forward by Senyavskaya and AFAICT from those sources dredged up by YMB29 is only supported by two other sources, both in passing and without mention of the papers they are refuting. The other view that seems to be more prevalent in Russia is not outright denial, but a questioning scale (mixed in with various justifications/explanations such as -- all armies did this) -- but the article carries a footnote on that and a reference to a paper that highlights this problem. So either we append something along the lines of "Russians historians have also questioned these estimates" to the footnote, "This estimate has been questioned by Nicky Bird ... who argues the statistics are 'unverifiable'." Or we can go for denial and append it to the paragraph. I object strongly to "Western" as it implies it is not the world view, as it implies an old cold war propaganda term. -- PBS (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So what makes you think that it is a world view. The West is not the world... Don't be ethnocentric.

You can replace Western with British, American and German if you like.

Senyaskaya is not just denying it. She explains how all these mass crimes accusations originated from Nazi propaganda and then expanded upon during the Cold War. She also explains the dubious statistics the claimed figures are based on. It is all in the interview I linked to you (translated into English)[29].

Your interpretation of what the Russian sources say is all wrong.

I am going to ask you again, what sources, out of those I quoted, only question the figures and not that there were mass crimes? -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Even Senyavskaya admits a bare minimum of 72 rapes took place so even this source is not in effect adopting a position of total denial. 72 rapes is still a war crime. I favor deleting "Western" but we should also delete "widespread". Some scholars use that adjective but no evidence has yet been presented that they are the majority. Adding "Russian historians have also questioned these estimates" to the footnote is worthwhile following Nicky Bird's comment. For the purposes of this particular article, I'm not sure the body of the text needs anything more than something like "During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city Soviet troops engaged in acts of rape, pillage and murder, although the scale of these crimes is unclear."CurtisNaito (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@PBS That statement (Although most sources agree that there was widespread rape...) is a claim with no sources to back it up. Adding "Western" does make it more accurate and less biased.
I will remove it and replace it with a citation tag, but only if you add the text and sources you removed from the article today. -YMB29 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What about deleting both "most Western" and the word "widespread"? The problem lies in the difficulty of defining "widespread". Senyavskaya denies widespread rape while also noting that 72 cases of rape were reported on the Belorussian front over a short space of time. 72 rapes could itself be called widespread by some definitions in the same way that 72 murders could be called mass murder. In the interests of writing history through global consensus rather than writing national history, certainly there is at least agreement that rapes occurred. Various historians have different estimates while applying different adjectives to describe those estimates.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, words like widespread or mass are relative.

72 cases of crimes can also be considered mass, but when talking about mass crimes in this context Western sources mention figures of over one hundred thousand.

The statement is in the footnote, so I think it could stay, but it has to be properly sourced and attributed. -YMB29 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

72 individual rapes or 72 individual murders by an invasion force by over 2.5 million solders would would not constitute a crime against humanity, and so they would not be called either mass rape or mass murder. The sentence is a summary of many sources and many of those mention the 100,000 rapes. Mass rape is what it was and that is a fair summary of the sources, any search of Google Scholar or Google Books returns dozens of sources, this is an extract from a typical example on scholar, and here is a book example both taken from the first 10 in the searches. A similar search using "widespread" in place of "mass" returns scores of sources Scholar and Books-- PBS (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So you are just looking at the search results in English without checking the quality of the sources or what they say exactly.

I have been careful to only quote quality Russian sources (real historians).

Anyway, you still need sources that say that most sources agree that mass crimes took place. -YMB29 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I just want to note that Senyavskaya says that 72 rapes occurred according to the documents. She does not deny that rapes occurred outside of that. -YMB29 (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

PBS, can you tell me why you attributed the Russian view only to Senyavskaya and removed the other sources I cited [30]?
They all criticize the claims of mass rape from Western sources, and summary is not synthesis.
If you don't have a good reason, it should be changed back. -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

How many times does one have to repeat the same point to you? As I have explained simply doing an electronic search and summarising "Russian historians" or what ever is not acceptable. Using Senyavskaya and quoting her removes the need for a search. -- PBS (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And how many times do I have to tell you that attributing the statement to only one historian is misleading.

Again, if there are multiple sources that say the same thing, it is acceptable to summarize them into one statement.

Also, I have quoted sources that directly attribute similar statements to Russian historians. -YMB29 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

New changes

I changed the text to the wording suggested by CurtisNaito. -YMB29 (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the current version of the article benefits from, firstly, the fact that the information in the body of the text is not controversial and is not disputed by anyone, and, secondly, that the controversy is left to the footnote. Though obviously there is a lot more to be said on this issue, I think that what exists now is sufficient for this article and that other details can be left to other articles. However, since other users were concerned about the possibility of synthesis, I thought we could try separating the name of Senyavskaya into a different sentence.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

* Whether it's in regular text or footnote, this is altogether too much treatment space-wise of at best a minority view. My technical corrections are not an acceptance/endorsement of the latest revision.

* In this case, it becomes instantly an issue of WP:Undue Weight to start quoting stuff like "72 rapes" per Sensyavskaya. If the space AND LEVEL of detail accorded the minority Russian view outstrips or even equals the mainstream view, this is bright-line, black-letter undue weight.

* This most recent effort appears to be a back-door attempt to assign undue weight to the minority/fringe view by using a footnote.

* The blog relating and TRANSLATING and interview with Sensyavskaya does not appear to be a scholarly or reliable source for Sensyavskaya at all, nor a reliable source of translation! If she is going to be cited at all, it should be from her original published source material, and INCLUDING both the Russian original AND an English translation. Paavo273 (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, first of all no evidence has yet been presented to indicate that views similar or identical to those of Sensyavskaya's are a minority viewpoint. Sensyavskaya stated that this viewpoint is the majority in Russia. I suppose my reasoning in adding Sensyavskaya's document back into the article was that it had already existed in the article before without being objected to, and since we have already included in the footnote an example of a large estimate which could be described as "widespread" rapes, as well as an example of a person saying that estimates are unverifiable, I though we could finish things off with a smaller type of estimate which might not be described as "widespread", because the view that rapes were not "widespread", so to speak, is certainly a significant viewpoint. If quoting the document is controversial we could take that part out and then put the Sensyavskaya citation back into the previous sentence where it was originally before I edited it.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• First, unless Sensyavskaya is properly cited from her publication rather than a supposed interview in a blog with no authentication or even name of interviewer or translator provided, she shouldn't even be suggested here as a possibility for inclusion, per WP:RS.
• Next, if she or her views are validated in the relevant literature, she could be included very briefly in the discussion subject to WP:Undue weight as copiously discussed above.
• If Sensyavskaya's views are not endorsed by the mainstream historical literature, it beggars belief and strains A-ingGF to suggest that one Russian professor would be even an RS, not to mention the majority view.
• This is ENGLISH Wikipedia, according to WP the language of 360 million native speakers and a further 430 million second-language speakers, compared to the 150 million people who speak Russian as a native language with second-language status speakers unknown but very small.
• This sort of treatment may work in RUSSIAN Wikipedia. But especially given the lack of knowledge or interest in the Russian language in the rest of the world, it's nonsense to suggest under the circumstances, as CurtisNaito appears to have done here (above) on May 5, that equal weight should be given to Sensyavskaya's minority, likely fringe, view. (One statement I wholeheartedly endorse is CurtisNaito's quote of s.o. else, "If you don't know Russian, you don't really know what you're missing," although unfortunately my Russian is not good enough to call it a second language.) Paavo273 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Senyavskaya citation I first added was to her book, not the interview.

The interview is a valid source also; it is a translation of the interview from the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper.

She is also one of the four sources cited, and there are even more sources that I quoted above [31].

The Russian view is significant and should be in the article. The current wording does not give it undue weight. -YMB29 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Paavo273, why are you all of a sudden concerned so much with a topic you never took interest in before?
We can resolve our differences on the Continuation War on that article's talk page. You don't have to follow me into other articles that I edit. -YMB29 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• It behooves you to address the substantive and policy issues raised rather than make personal attacks or false insinuations against me personally. The Akashic record as one august admin. called it--including to articles we've both edited--is available for all to see. In fact, my first contribution here was over a month ago, at a time when to the best of my recollection I had not edited the CW article for several months. You at that time also suggested persecution of you:

"Did you follow me into here? I don't see how your participation in this discussion will help things. I still remember your "methods" of discussion in the Continuation War article... -YMB29 (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)" If I subsequently looked at the CW article, it just MIGHT have had something to do with the fact you brought up the CW article on the Battle of Berlin talk page.

• At that time you also made a further personal attack, alleging that I had no business editing this page.
• I will not respond in kind here and now; but as far as dredging up personal editing issues from the past, I would suggest, "Не пили сук, на котором сидишь" and "Не ищи соринку в чужом глазу, не замечая бревна в своём."
• Your remarks, in addition to being uncivil, smack of WP:OWN. Paavo273 (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess it is a coincidence that we are disputing issues at the talk pages of both articles...

When you first commented here the same debate was going on and suddenly you came in with your usual accusations about "Sovietist perspective" and stuff like that.

After you first edited here[32], you made a revert at the Continuation War article[33] and the edit summary was directed at me (and possibly others who had argued with you about the war's result). Again, is this a coincidence?

You can get blocked for wikistalking. -YMB29 (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You can get blocked for wikiHOUNDING, which your link is a soft-redirect to. If you read that policy, you'll see nothing I've done is even in the same universe. What I see going on here if I am 2 AGF, seems more like a false perception of being persecuted. As mentioned above, the only reason I even looked at the CW page which I hadn't touched for MONTHS is you brought it up on THIS BofB talk page.

It's TRUE: I showed up here and edited. That's what editors do: Edit pages. That is NO wikistalking, wikihounding, or any other current or former WP violation.  :::: I looked at the CW article because you brought it to my attention HERE at BofB talk. I found an obvious lingering cite error, which I fixed AFAICR w/o any drama, it being my first edit to that article in several months. It seems like your definition of harassment is if I TOUCH a page that you have edited. That's illogical, impractical, cumbersome, and certainly not WP policy.

I'd suggest in addition to close scrutiny of the wikihounding rule, a reading of Wikipedia:Harassment#Accusing others of harassment. Making false (even if in good faith) accusations and personal attacks seriously distracts from building an encyclopaedia. Falsely accusing another editor of harassment can itself be harassment. Paavo273 (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess you just happen to first come by here at the same time you revert something you have been disputing with me and others in another article...

Besides that, you show up here to talk only when someone makes a change you don't like and you revert it. -YMB29 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

??? This is starting to not make much sense. Before making any further accusations of this nature, please read carefully and understand the above-cited portions of the harassment policy that YOU raised, AND what harassment is not, which includes the following text:

"[T]here is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user. [T]racking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above) [is not harassment]; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly(my bold)."

Paavo273 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

These are not unfounded accusations... -YMB29 (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

At least your m.o. is consistent--bearing only a casual connection, at best, to actual Wikipedia policy as it does, indicating you edit in a wikiworld not encumbered by black-letter Wikipedia policy: whether it's (a) these personal attacks and false insinuations that even were they true would amount to no policy violation; (b) finding discussion consensus (5 May) for your latest bold edits clearly lacking consensus, never mind that the other supposed consensus finders have not participated in the discussion nor are even aware of your edits; OR (c) creatively finding that one Russian professor's fringe view contradicting the overwhelming weight of RSs now deserves equal treatment with the long-established majority view.

IMO your prize if you actually succeed in this campaign is not that you fool very many people, but rather only that Wikipedia's reputation nosedives rel the subject matter.

Paavo273 (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You are talking about personal attacks. Well this is an example of one...

You are the only one reverting the new version, so don't talk about having consensus.

Why are you still claiming that it is "one Russian professor's fringe view", when I have presented many other sources? Repeating false claims won't help you. -YMB29 (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to the body of the text, I prefer "During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city Soviet troops engaged in acts of rape, pillage and murder, although the scale of these crimes is unclear", but at the same time I think "During, and in the days immediately following, the assault, vengeful Soviet troops engaged in acts of mass rape, looting and murder in many areas of the city, although Russian historians challenge the scale of these crimes" is an acceptable alternative. The leading historians denying the widespread nature of the crimes are Russian so calling them Russian is acceptable, though at the same time I think all sources agree that the scales of the crimes is indeed "unclear" since the reliability of each estimate is hard to ascertain. The "mass" part is denied by a significant number of historians though frankly even 72 rapes in less than a month could be called "mass" by some definitions so in my view this word doesn't need to be quite as contentious as it seems to be. Ultimately, I would say that either of these sentences are somewhat acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and it just depends on which one can gather the most support of users.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is better too.

Also, the second one contains the word mass, which we agreed should not be used, at least in the main text. -YMB29 (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to make the point again. That there were crimes committed is not disputed, but the statement that there were mass crimes is disputed, and so if that statement is used in the article, it must be attributed (see WP:ASF).
It does not matter if you think that the Russian view is in the minority; a disputed statement cannot be asserted as a fact.
The current text does not present any disputed statements as facts. -YMB29 (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mass rape

I am putting back the word "mass" in front of rape. "rape" is not a fair summary of what the sources say, and as far as I can tell is a deliberate attempt to play down what was a war crime under the Hague conventions, and distorts what the vast majority of non Russian sources say. -- PBS (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What do the Hague conventions have to do with the discussion?

Once again, no one disputes that rape occurred, but mass rape is disputed and you can't present it as a fact. -YMB29 (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Hague Conventions states "Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected." -- rape is [obviously] a violation of honour. -- PBS (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"mass rape" is supported by most sources--Here is a source War & Civilization: Price of War 8/8 (12:25-13:00) with the historian John Keegan emphasising the point (BTW The extract comes from a 1998 publication, and so pre-dates Beevor's book). The only sources that have been produced that disagree with that summary are those summed up in the source that you found that says "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. The words "mass rape" should be in there because that is what the vast majority of sources say. If that is not so can you point to one non-Russian source that denies that mass rape took place? The phrase "mass rape" has been in this article for many years, and it is up to you to show that there is a consensus to remove the word. -- PBS (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter if it was there for years, especially when it violates WP:ASF and WP:NPOV in general.

Russian historians are reliable sources too...

There is no way you can go around WP:ASF if you insist on adding the word mass.

Also, as has been mentioned before, what does the word mass mean exactly? Hundreds of rapes, thousands, hundreds of thousands? Keegan does not use the word mass. He mentions estimates that, as you have been saying, belong in the footnote. -YMB29 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It matters that the phrase has been in the article for years, you have to show that there is a consensus to remove it. You have not done so and until you do you ought not to keep removing it.-- PBS (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Russian historians are reliable sources too...", how can that be when they work in an environment that creates "Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia's Interests which was supported by Andrey Sakharov then director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It seems to me that their reliability when it comes to issues such as this is very compromised, (the title of the commission is in itself negationist because in implies it is OK to falsify history if it is to the advantage of Russia's interests). Also despite the environment that Russian historians are forced to work, you have found very few Russian sources (3?) that deny that mass rapes took place (so your position is trying to place undue weight on the use of those sources). BTW What is your motivation for ignoring non-Russian sources? For example how do you explain away sources such as this: Harrowing Memoir: German Woman Writes Ground-Breaking Account of WW2 Rape? -- PBS (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

As to specific phrase "mass rape" it is a summary not a quote. Keegan like many other historians and social scientists, make the point that the number of rapes was abnormally high compared to the amount of looting and murder that took place. If you want a specific wording that uses the phrase "mass rape" then there are many reliable sources that use that phrase here are are few (I have placed a BBC review first because it is summarising Beevor and uses the phrase in the summary):[34][35][36][37](page 49) (Google Scholar (take your pick))

So lets see you present one non-Russian reliable source that denies that mass rape of women by members of the Red Army took place in Berlin during and after the assault by the Red Army on the city. If you do then we can talk about it further, but until you can show that there is at least one non-biased source from a country that does not have a history of academic censorship that supports the contention that mass rape did not take place in Berlin in 1945, the phrase should remain in the article. -- PBS (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Your speculation about Russian historians is ridiculous, and only shows your own bias and stereotypes.

What does the commission about the falsification of history have to do with the topic?

I can also claim that Western historiography is biased and reflects the propaganda of Western governments.

I have explained to you too many times that all the historians I quoted dispute mass rape. Constantly ignoring me won't help you.

Are you trying to say that a memoir of one person takes precedence over academic research?

Again, something being there for years is not an excuse to not change it. Otherwise, that can be used as a reason against any changes... -YMB29 (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The dispute is now mostly about the word mass. I think it can be easily settled through dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to go to dispute resolution over, the outcome of the RfC on this page was clear on this point. If you like we can hold another RfC on that specific phrase, to see if there is consensus to remove the word mass from in front of rape.

To repeat my questions to you:

1. What is your motivation for ignoring non-Russian sources?
2. Do you know of one non-Russian source that support the contention that mass rape did not take place? -- If not terms like "Western historiography" is meaningless as what you mean is non-Russian historiography is biased.

-- PBS (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So you again refuse dispute resolution...

Dispute resolution or mediation can lead to an RfC you know, and that can ensure that it will be properly worded and advertised.

I am not ignoring non-Russian sources. You are ignoring Russian sources.

So what makes you think mass rape is part of the historiography of every country except Russia?

All the sources cited in the article and discussed here are Western sources, so "Western historiography" or "Western sources" is accurate. -YMB29 (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)