Talk:Battle of Berlin/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Erich Barenfanger

Erich Bärenfänger Wikipedia biography entry says

According to Read and Fisher in "The Fall of Berlin", German dictator Adolf Hitler promoted thirty-year-old Lieutenant Colonel (Oberstleutnant) Bärenfänger to Major-General (Generalmajor) on 22 April 1945. Bärenfänger acted briefly as Hitler's deputy during the one day that Hitler had personal command of the Berlin's defenses.

On 22 April and 23 April, the command of the Berlin garrison changed hands rapidly. From early March, Lieutenant General (Generalleutnant) Helmuth Reymann had been in command. On 22 April, Reymann was replaced by Colonel (Oberst) Ernst Kaether. Kaether, in command for less than a day, never physically took command and was functionally replaced by Hitler. Bärenfänger commanded the garrison acting as the dictator's deputy. On 23 April, Hitler appointed General Helmuth Weidling to command Berlin's defenses. Hitler appointed Weidling shortly after cancelling his own orders for Weidling's execution. In the general confusion caused by Hitler's rapid changes, Bärenfänger, as Hitler's deputy commander, fits in between the commands of Reymann, Kaether, and Weidling.

This seems like a piece of OR and even if it is not at most his name should be in the footnote. As at the moment the biography piece carries no inline citations, and the book is not referenced in this article, I am removing his name from the infobox. If someone has access to a book that can be cited over this issue and confirms the above we can add it to the footnote. -- PBS (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Polish Army in the battle box

From the history of the article:

• 04:37, 24 September 2011 PBS (removed polish army. The Polish army one of dozens of similar sized armies and part of a Front not an autonomous army. Only listing Fronts here.)
• 09:19, 24 September 2011 Chumchum7 (Undid revision 452141463 by PBS (talk) Hold on. This had consensus for a while (NB I didnt put it here). Threshold for inclusion can be notability.)
• 11:34, 24 September 2011 Philip Baird Shearer (Rv: last edit see my comment it was not agreed to include this. What makes the inclusion of this army more notable than all the other armies? We are listing at Front/Army group level for soviet forces.)
• 20:05, 24 September 2011 Lysy (RV: Polish was the only army besides Soviet to fight for Berlin)

Chumchum7 where was the consensus on the talk page that this should be there?

Lysy there were many soviet armies fighting in the Battle of Berlin and two polish armies who made up about 10% of the manpower. In this battle box we are not listing those armies but listing the army groups instead. Three army groups are enough detail, as the polish armies were not independent autonomous commands, but integrated into the Soviet Fronts (Army Groups) there is no need to list an army separately and to do so is misleading and give undue prominence to a Polish unit that was no more or less important than all the other similar sized units fighting under the operational control of the Red Army. -- PBS (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

PBS, thank you kindly for your query. (i) The edit sum was referring to the 25th August edit by user Nwze344 [1] which (bar a correction to the name) enjoyed WP:SILENCE for a period of 1 month until your edit yesterday, which was reverted once by myself and then once by Lysy. (ii) Honestly wasn't aware of any established consensus on this talk page that there are rules for inclusion specific to this infobox. Please point out to the diff where this was established. Consensus on that may have changed. (iii) In any case, per WP:CONS, Wikipedia consensus is not exclusively formed on Talk pages, it can sometimes be formed by collegial editing alone. (iv) The general threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia infoboxes is not set in stone; often it is a case of notability. Take the Battles of Saratoga, which unlike this article has Good Article status: it includes the tiny (probably less than 10%) contributions of Hesse-Hanau in the infobox. (v) It is entirely true that only 10% of troops in this battle were Polish Army, but with up to 200,000 troops theirs was a major deployment quite possibly bigger than the combined American, British and Canadian deployment on the Normandy Beaches at D-Day (where btw the Norwegian contribution appears in the infobox), and likely the 2nd-largest Polish Army battle deployment in the history of WWII. (vi) Naturally enough generalist WWII sources don't make an extremely big deal about the <200,000 Polish Army troops at Berlin, and naturally enough specialist Polish Army military history sources do. That's not necessarily a reason for exclusion. Because the Polish Army's contribution gets a notable mention in all sources, whether generalist or specialist, despite only being 10% of the whole. As a popular culture curiosity this includes the many Polish Army depictions in the Mosfilm dramatization of the battle. (vii) Like the Canadian Army under British high command, the Polish Army under Soviet high command was a separate military institution and was treated as such e.g. at the Moscow Victory Parade of 1945 (where it was the only non-Soviet army invited). (viii) Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a dictatorship. There are 3 editors supporting this inclusion and they should all contribute to the consensus. Thanks! -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, by the example of the current state of this infobox, the Prague Offensive and Battle of Kolberg (1945) should be listed as purely Soviet victories, which is not the case on those two battle infoboxes. I'd like to invite suggestions about how the inconsistency between these three articles can be reconciled. Best, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither of you have addressed the point that the two Polish armies were not under independent military (and arguably they were not under independent political control). What makes the Polish armies more notable than any other army taking part in the offensive? -- PBS (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think, the only reason for inclusion may be that those armies were composed from non-Soviet citizens, who were the citizens on another Allied state, wore the uniform that was different from the Red Army uniform, took no standard Red Army solder's oath, etc., so they were not Red Army units, and, therefore, should be listed separately. I participated in similar discussion regarding the Spanish Blue division. Eventually, we excluded this division from the belligerent lists in the Eastern front related articles, for example, from the Battle of Krasny Bor article because: (i) the Spaniards participated in the war not on behalf of their own state (Spain), (ii) they took a standard personal oath to Hitler, and therefore were just ordinary Wechmacht solders, (iii) they wore standard German uniform, (iv) their division was was formally incorporated into the Wehrmacht as the 250th infantry Division. None of i-iv criteria is applicable to the Polish armies.

In summary, although, per PBS's correct notion, these division were not notable, they were distinct from the Red Army troops. Therefore, I propose to list the Polish troops separately, however, since PBS correctly noted that the two Polish armies were not under independent military and political control, a footnote should be added to explain this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A footnote is not necessary because the nature of Wikipedia makes it possible to learn by clicking on blue links instead of reading volumes of super-tiny footnotes in sidebar infoboxes. 24.146.224.106 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I second that a footnote isn't merited here, though wouldn't go as far as saying they aren't sometimes helpful to establish consensus in Wikipedia. In this case, the issue isn't complicated if one reads up on the subject. (i) The Polish People's Army, despite heavy Soviet influence, command and senior personnel, is conventionally accepted across the sources to be a separate entity from the Soviet Army. This is comparable to the Canadian Army which was under heavy British influence, command and senior personnel. By the same token, there's no footnote for the Canadian Army, anywhere. (ii) If the Polish Army under Soviet high command was really so integral to the Red Army then there would be no controversy about Polish Army actions at the Warsaw Uprising, where it acted unilaterally of Soviet High Command and provided reinforcements for the anti-Soviet Polish resistance. (iii) As ever on Wikipedia one must consider the knock-on disruption of any change like this, there is a consistency issue. The Battle of Berlin would not be singled out for a footnote to the exclusion of Battle of Lenino, Prague Offensive, Battle of Kolberg (1945), Battle of Bautzen (1945) etc. So any Polish Army footnote here would have to be added to the Poland flag for every single one of these battles. IMHO that would be absurd. (iv) By the same token, I'm requesting a second time for establishment of consistency across 'Allied victory' (Prague), 'Allied victory' (Battle of Belgrade), 'Soviet-Romanian victory' (Siege of Budapest), 'Soviet and Polish victory' (Kolberg), 'Polish victory' (Lenino) and 'Soviet victory' (Berlin). I'm aware of the concern that 'Allied' might get misconstrued as 'Western Allied', but we cannot be afraid of that: it is not for us to pre-empt the reader jumping to false conclusions, it is for us to maintain accuracy. 'Allied victory' works best as a convention for all of them. If you disagree, please provide a constructive alternative; or else lets take it up with an RFC at MILHIST or some other council. (v) This is a straightforward question that I have no answer to yet: Given the British tactical air raids on Berlin at the start of the battle, should the United Kingdom be mentioned in the infobox? Or were the raids prior to the conventional start date for the battle? -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason we have different boxes panes in the Battle box is because there is a difference between "Belligerents" and "Commanders" if were were listing all the armies then there would be justification for including Polish commanders. But in this case there is not reason to include them unless we include all army leaders. There is really no need to list commanders below Army Group level and to do is is misleading. For example within Berlin those Polish troops who fought there were not under 1st Polish Army command they were attached to a Soviet army. It is a great weakness of Wikipedia that in many of these battle boxes all sorts of nationalistic clutter gets added into them for no logical reason but often because of editorial national pride. If I did not know Wikipedia better, I would assume that if there are three army group commanders listed in a battle box and then the commander of one national army then that army must have had an independent command separate from the three army groups and that the army was not integrated into the army groups. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Poplavsky implies that the 1st Polish Army acted more autonomously than the Soviet Armies. Was that the case?

If we compare this article with, e.g. the Normandy landings, we will see that the "Belligerent" box contains several national flags, but the "Commanders" box contains only British and American flags.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

East Germany

Edit history:

• (diff) 14:05, 11 October 2011‎ Chumchum7 (East Germany didn't exist.)
• (diff) 09:54, 11 October 2011‎ PBS(This is about the outcome of this battle which was for Berlin and East Germany.)

East Germany is a geographical expression as well as a political one. Like for example the English Midlands or Great Britain. It was for that reason I used East Germany because it was the area west of the Oder-Nissen rivers and east the Western Allies. At that time eastern Germany was to the east of Berlin most of it now in Poland and this areas was central Germany (both of which are confusing for modern readers). -- PBS (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cannot agree. The chain of the events that lead to surrender was as follows: (i) Fall of Berlin; (ii) Hitler's suicide; (iii) Doniz's appointment as a leader of Germany; (iv) Jodl's appointment as a negotiator about the surrender, which the Germans tried to represent as a surrender to the Western allies only (a proposal that had been totally rejected by Eisenhower); (v) signing of the surrender of whole German troops to the Western Allies and the USSR in Reims; (vi) formal signing of the essentially the same document in Berlin.

Since no separate documents were signed regarding the surrender of German troops in the East, and since the whole chain of the events that eventually lead to Reims/Berlin surrender started with Hitler's suicide, the outcome of the Battle of Berlin was the surrender as whole.

Since there were no major battles between the BoB and surrender, the Reims/Berlin were a direct outcome of the BoB, and the infobox must tell that clearly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

By that logic one could argue that as the Americans fought no major battle after the surrender of the Rhur Pocket it was followed by the surrender of all German Forces. The point of this battle took palace in a specific area, the battle finished when the Germans in the area capitulated. Why they surrendered (whether to a general armistice or in detail) is another issue and subject to WP:SYN which does not need to be answered. -- PBS (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No. The Rhur pocket was the last major American operation. By contrast, BoB was the last major operation in Europe as whole (Battle of Prague had no serious strategic impact). However, more importantly, I described the sequence of the events that directly link BoB with Reims. Can you draw a similar link between the Ruhr Pocket and Reims?

BTW, thanks for removal of Poplavsky. I forgot to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not attempt to (I deliberately used the pocket as an example because I wanted to exclude Monty and Luneberg Heath). You did not described the sequence of the events that directly link BoB with Rheims, you described a sequence of events but the linkage is all yours. -- PBS (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably, Bellamy's "Absolute War" (p. 668) can serve as a link? The author clearly associates the fall of Berlin and Hitler's death (which, in addition, meant that the personal oath to Hitler was not in force any more) with the destruction of the Third Reich as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That Hitler was dead, was not directly relevant to the surrender of the forces in the East Germany. That was decided by Eisenhower when he gave those forces no choice but to surrender to the Soviets in East Germany. The specific campaign (the capture of the soviet area of occupation) ended with the surrender of German forces in that region. Now it happens to be coupled with the general capitulation, but as Prague shows that was not the only possible outcome. Whether there was a general surrender or not is only incidental to the end of this campaign, which came to an end when the German forces in the region surrendered. -- PBS (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Zoo flak tower

The Zoo flak tower was not fortified in the usual meaning of the term. It was an anti-aircraft platform not a fortress and to describe it as such is misleading. Further it is misleading to describe it as the "Zoo Tower" implying it is a proper noun, this is not a name that is usually used in reliable sources. See Google books:

• Berlin "Zoo flak tower" About 586 results
• Berlin "Zoo Tower" about 176

Which is a ratio of about three to one. So I think it is better to use Zoo flak tower in this article and link in the new article to go into details of what precisely it was. -- PBS (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Also in reviewing the books returned by the searches. It seem to me that the majority of the better sources for "Zoo flack tower" are military history books such as Beevor and Le Tissier (both cited in this article), while the majority of the betters sources for "Zoo Tower" are books dealing with the history of what happened to the artworks stored in the tower. -- PBS (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Name Change

I propose a name change to this article instead of Battle of Berlin we should use the term the Russians used Berlin Strategic Offensive. Because I was doing a OOB For this article and putting it in the Battle in Berlin article not even realizing it until someone pointed it out to me.--Corpusfury (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the common English name for the campaign. -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

there got to be a differentiation between these two article beside of and in--Corpusfury (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Then the one to change would be the battle in Berlin, but the first sentence in the article and paragraph makes it clear what it is (did you not read it?). Renaming was discussed before back in 2007, but no conclusion was reached: see Talk:Battle in Berlin#Article name -- PBS (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Then Battle in Berlin Should be changed then, and maybe we can change the picture on one of the two articles. That really threw me off also.--Corpusfury (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose change to both. The plain English meanings of both articles is clear enough. Corpusfury, now if you want to change the photo of "Battle in Berlin" then that may be okay depending on the proposed photo. We use to have the "Raising the Flag" photo up but after a long discussion (battle) were forced to remove its use; so you cannot use that one. Kierzek (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

thumb|Raising a flag over the Reichstag you talking about this picture if so what was wrong with using this picture?--Corpusfury (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not agreed whether we can use it on the main page here. Both Kierzek and I think it can be, while some others do not. But one thing is sure, it will not be allowed here on the talk page, so I have changed the image to a link before someone else removes it. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that one. It had to do with "fair use" and the fact it was determined not to be a free use photo. See here: [2] Kierzek (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Man you guys had a pretty deep "discussion" just on the use of this picture and you guys found no alternative?--Corpusfury (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Battle in Berlin we could use the Reichstag photo. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem to find alternative images (although the thumb|Raising a flag over the Reichstag is the best one, because it is more recognizable by a Western reader). The problem is with free alternative, because almost all (if not or all) those photos had been made by Soviet military photographers, so, according to Russian laws, they are not in PD). Like PBS and Kierzek, I believe the usage of this or other non-free photos fit our WP:NFCC criteria, however, some copyright rigorists do not accept our rationale for the reasons which are purely formal.

Nevertheless, I hope, the issue may be resolved soon, because the Russian RIANovosti news agency started to release significant part of its archival photos to PD, so I expect some good photos of the Battle of Berlin will be among them. Therefore, instead of renewing our old dispute over the Reichstag photo I suggest to wait a little bit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry when I said Reichstag I did not mean the flag but File:Reichstag after the allied bombing of Berlin.jpg (which is a photo taken just after the war and is misnamed as much of the damage is from the Soviet assault not RAF bombs). For those who do not know, Berliners have a black sense of humour. Towards the end of the war there was a joke going round "Hitler was right when he said that Berlin would be unrecognisable in ten years" and this photo goes with that description. -- PBS (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that photo, as well as with the File:Destruction in a Berlin street.jpg is that it shows neither the battle not its participants. By contrast, the flag over the Reichstag photo, as well as many non-free Soviet photographs show direct participants of the battle before the battle had ended (the photo you mean was made by some British photographer after German defeat). That is why they are irreplaceable with free alternatives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You are pushing against an open door, but I think it is a valid point that we should have different photographs in the battle box at the top between the two articles and of the set of pictures we have available at the moment over which we are not going to get into an edit war with the awkward squad, for the sub article Battle in Berlin the File:Reichstag after the allied bombing of Berlin.jpg is the best of a bad bunch. -- PBS (talk)

I agree PBS and will sub the photo suggested for "Battle in Berlin". When something better comes along it can be changed. Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Waving a flag on a pole off a balcony may be raising a flag, but it is not hoisting a flag. Hoisting a flag needs a proper flag pole and a rope. The caption of this photo should be "raising the soviet flag", not hoisting it.Eregli bob (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

One sided article

This is a very one-sided article. As I understand it from my studies elsewhere, there were also some Germans present, but they are barely mentioned here. No mention, for example, of the heroic stand of the Luftwaffe Felddivision that would certainly merit some mention, I think, in a balanced article, instead of making it completely about the Russians. 72.86.47.226 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have Reliable Sources, and information to improve the article, by all means bring it forward. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Outcome

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

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

He continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lusatian operation?

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

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

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

Section about the Battle of Seelow Heights

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

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

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

Add protection padlock template

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

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

Removal of tag

From the talk page of Kierzek

Earlier you said that a simple sentence can be added to the article that reflects the view of Russian historians.[3]
What sentence do you suggest?
Do you agree with the sentence I recently suggested (Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.)? -YMB29 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

[Editorial interjection See post by PBS to talk:Battle of Berlin at 15:09, 4 March 2014 (copy included below)]

Ok, those two words can be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

So you are going to take that sentence hostage?

The two sentences are different issues.

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

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

From higher up this page:

This is the latest statement that I suggest (based on the first three sources from the section above[4]):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have trouble comprehending WP:ASF? What you are suggesting is a blatant violation of it, and this is not just my opinion (see [5]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything you said has nothing to do with the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outside Opinion

The issue is with the following sentences:

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

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

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.[7]

The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.[8]

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

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

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

Goebbels's fevered prophecies

See WP:BRD.

From the history of the article

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

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

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

to

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

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

Change of

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

Removes a fact and inserts a Nazi propaganda term.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does this have to do with the topic?

That quote about Asiatic hordes comes directly from Atina Grossmann.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did it take you so long to revert them?

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

So the properly cited text is merely my opinion?

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

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

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

Also, I think you misunderstood some things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to

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

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

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

Have you read WP:ASF?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You did not see the sources I added?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added them to the article:

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

Rzheshevsky, Oleg A. (2002), "Берлинская операция 1945 г.: дискуссия продолжается" [The Berlin Operation of 1945: Discussion Continues], Мир истории [World of History] (in Russian) (4).

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

Senyavskaya, Yelena (2006), Противники России в войнах ХХ века. Эволюция «образа врага» в сознании армии и общества [Advesaries of Russia in the Wars of the 20th Century: Evolution of the "Image of an Enemy" in the Minds of the Army and Society] (in Russian), Moscow: ROSSPEN, ISBN 5-8243-0782-2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More details with quotes from Senyavskaya

From a translation of an interview with Senyavskaya:[10] Elena Spartakovna, is all this the result of restructuring (Perestroika)? Those years generated a lot of rubbish... Not really. This nasty story began much earlier, with Goebbels' propaganda, when it was announced to the population that the Red Army was brutally raping all German women between the ages of 8 to 80 years. And the people were really intimidated to the limit, to the extent that Nazi party activists firstly killed their families and then themselves. So why was such an Image necessary? Firstly, to increase resistance against the advancing Red Army, and secondly, so that the population would leave the lost territories and could be of no assistance to the Soviet armed forces. Goebbels’ line was then continued in the same year of 1945 by the allies, when the first publications appeared in which it was attempted to represent the Red Army as an army of looters and rapists and with absolutely nothing said about the outrages that were happening in the western zone of occupation. With the start of the “cold war” the theme was exaggerated, but not so aggressively and massively as has begun to occur in the last twenty years. The numbers “raped” were initially modest: from 20,000 to 150,000 in Germany. But in 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in Germany there was published a book by two feminists, Helga Zander and Barbara Jor, “The Liberators and Liberated,” where for the first time a figure of 2 million was arrived at. Moreover, it was derived from a completely flawed premise: statistical data for 1945-1946 were collected in a Berlin hospital in which there were born somewhere around 500 children per year and approximately 15-20 people were listed under “nationality of father” as “Russian”. Moreover, two or three such cases were classified as “raped”. What did these “researchers” do? They arrived at the conclusion that all the cases where the father was Russian were the result of being raped. Then Goebbel’s formula from “8 to 80″ was simply factored in. However, the mass distribution of this figure took place in 2002 with the publication of Anthony Beevor’s book “The Fall of Berlin”, which was published here in 2004, and the mythical figure of “2 million” was then taken out for a stroll by the Western mass media on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the Victory.

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

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

How is that not a denial of mass rape?

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

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

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

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

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

More quotes

Oleg Rzheshevsky (president of the Russian Association of World War II Historians): Documents about this problems are available and most of them are published, but they are absent in Beevor's book. For this reason, information on the number of raped or killed women (including Russian, Ukrainian and Polish women and women of other nationalities, who were liberated from the Nazi concentration camps and raped "on the fly " by Soviet soldiers) is based on the retellings of the victims and witnesses themselves, selective excerpts from interviews and similar types of evidence. Judging by the book, the less of them remain alive, the more such accounts appear. Such references to sources as "Berliners remember..." or references to the "experience of raped German women" ( p.116 ) may be suitable for pulp fiction, but unacceptable for scholarly research. Makhmut Gareev (historian, president of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences): Of course, instances of cruelty, including sexual, occurred. They simply could not be absent after what the Nazis did on our land. However, such cases were strongly suppressed and punished. And they did not become widespread. As soon as we occupied a town, a commandant office was created. It provided the local population with food and medical care. Order was controlled by the commandant patrol. I personally took part in the liberation of East Prussia. I say this honestly: I did not even hear of sexual abuse.

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

The lady doth protest too much

Part of Senyavskay's historical analysis is not accurate "and secondly, so that the population would leave the lost territories and could be of no assistance to the Soviet armed forces" the Nazi's made little to no timely provisions for people to flee west (so the propaganda was not to encourage Germans to move west -- their propaganda was that they were still going to win the war. Besides in ruthless military terms (and the Nazis were ruthless) friendly refugees are a hindrance they block roads and so hinder military redeployments, and they use up resources that are better used by the armed forces). If it were a myth then why the line "when the first publications appeared in which it was attempted to represent the Red Army as an army of looters and rapists and with absolutely nothing said about the outrages that were happening in the western zone of occupation" or is she saying that only soldiers in the west committed "outrages"? If not then she is admitting that "outrages" took place in the east.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Week break

Ok, I am back, thanks.

I would like to know what exactly PBS and others don't agree with as far as my latest changes go[11]?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again you did not read what I wrote carefully.

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

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

So the wording you are proposing is now "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the wording I am proposing now is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

Articles from tabloids are not reliable sources? Funny that you say this when the main source in the disputed sentence is a tabloid article by Beevor [12]... I can also say that its style is awful.

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

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

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

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

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

... in the cellars throughout the spacious, one ultra-modern city German civilians.... And for the women, in particular, there was the hideous spectre of multiple rape, not only condoned but, we can be pretty sure, legally sanctioned by the political officers speaking for the Soviet government.⁶⁶

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here are some sources:

Western historians have generally accepted that rape and other forms of troop violence were committed primarily by the Red Army and that Allied soldiers were much better behaved in the western zones. A recent work, however, illustrates the extent to which troop violence was also a problem in the western zones. [13]

In his book on the fall of Berlin in 1945, published in 2002, the British historian Antony Beevor graphically described the mass rapes of German and other women by Red Army soldiers. The Russian ambassador to Britain and leading Russian historians denounced this volume as neo-Nazi propaganda, questioning Beevor's sources while characterizing Soviet reprisals against German civilians for Russian sufferings during the previous years of war as well-justified revenge. Beevor pointed out that his book relied heavily upon evidence from Russian archives to document its allegations and other prominent Western historians defended the accuracy of his sources. [14]

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. [15]

Western historians would later estimate that at least 2 million German women were raped by Soviet soldiers, many of them repeatedly. Tens of thousands committed suicide. [16]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attributing view to Western historians

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

The reason has been explained to you by several different editors and as yet not one of these editors have indicated that you have persuaded them to change their opinion on this issue. Until you do not assume that their silence is consent for a change in the wording of the "first sentence". For example you have ignored what Buckshot06 wrote: "I am categorically opposed to statements implying that mass rape did not happen in Berlin. A ten-minute search on Google Scholar will show multiple independent historians reporting that Red Army forces committed mass rapes." Have you looked at Google Scholar for languages such as Spanish and Portuguese, Japanese etc and found no evidence of similar assertions?

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

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

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

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

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

I am wondering did you even read the quotes I provided above [18]? -YMB29 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

YMB29 From the history of the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotes again

Russian historians

Senyavskaya, historian at the Russian Academy of Sciences and member of the Academy of Military Sciences:
It is also interesting how some important aspects of the war are reflected in the German historical memory. For example, the perception of the enemy - both the Western countries and the Soviet Union...
In this context, the popular mythology regarding the mass rape of German women by Soviet soldiers, with the alleged absence of such evidence in the areas of occupation of the Western allies, is noteworthy. This topic, in the context of the general political pressure on Russia, is actively exaggerated in the Western media.
Consequently, we can speak about individual (especially compared with the actions of the German side) violations of international law in the conduct of war. Moreover, all these events were spontaneous and not organized, and were strictly suppressed by the Soviet army command.

-Senyavskaya, Yelena (2006), Противники России в войнах ХХ века. Эволюция «образа врага» в сознании армии и общества [Advesaries of Russia in the Wars of the 20th Century: Evolution of the "Image of an Enemy" in the Minds of the Army and Society] (in Russian), Moscow: ROSSPEN, ISBN 5-8243-0782-2

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

-Rzheshevsky, Oleg A. (2002), "Берлинская операция 1945 г.: дискуссия продолжается" [The Berlin Operation of 1945: Discussion Continues], Мир истории [World of History] (in Russian) (4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isaev, military historian:
The accusation is that our politicians and journalists specifically incited the Red Army against the civilian population of Germany. That is not true. There were no orders calling for violence against civilians by the command of our army and nothing of this sort was encouraged. There were individual cases of looting, robbery and rape, because in the army of ten million there were of course some criminals and people with a sick mentality, but they were not massive. Crimes were very severely punished. The guilty were sent to penal battalions or often shot.

-Isaev, Aleksey (9 May 2012). "Разрушитель мифов [Mythbuster]" (in Russian). Vkurse.

Lavrenov, political scientist, and Popov, military historian:
In Western post-World War II historiography, and later in our country too, there was a whole "school" formed whose main subject was to show "Russian atrocities" on German soil. The thesis is: the arrival of the Red Army was accompanied everywhere by massive violence against the locals, the rape of the entire female population and savage looting. This thesis is not new; it was actively created and developed by Goebbels' propaganda in the last stages of the war.
How true are these principal accusations? Documents of the time make it possible to look at this problem as an eyewitness.
From the first days of the occupation of Germany, the Soviet command and political agencies launched efforts to strengthen discipline and order, prevent violence against and looting of the German population. This was one of the main tasks of the Soviet military commandant administrations that were being set up in the German localities. Political records and reports of the formations and units of that time contain information about cases of misconduct by individual Soviet servicemen against the local population...
It would be naive, perhaps, to argue that the Soviet troops that occupied Germany were staffed 100 percent by deeply honest and intelligent people. No, there were half-criminal elements among the soldiers, there were also obvious bandits and semi-literate people from the peripheral national regions of the USSR. And it looks like the commanders did not always show examples of respectful behavior towards the locals.
However, the important thing is that all these events were regarded by the Soviet military command as extraordinary occurrences, and a determined and ruthless struggle was waged against them.

-Lavrenov, Sergei; Popov, Igor (2000), Крах Третьего рейха [The Fall of the Third Reich] (in Russian), Moscow: ACT, ISBN 5–237–05065–4

-YMB29 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Mention of dispute in Western sources

Western historians have written at length about the large-scale rape and violence committed by Russian soldiers in Germany at the end of the war. Russian historians, offended that the glory of the victorious Red Army should be so tarnished, have denied that anything of the kind happened at all or at least on that scale.[19]

In his book on the fall of Berlin in 1945, published in 2002, the British historian Antony Beevor graphically described the mass rapes of German and other women by Red Army soldiers. The Russian ambassador to Britain and leading Russian historians denounced this volume as neo-Nazi propaganda, questioning Beevor's sources while characterizing Soviet reprisals against German civilians for Russian sufferings during the previous years of war as well-justified revenge. Beevor pointed out that his book relied heavily upon evidence from Russian archives to document its allegations and other prominent Western historians defended the accuracy of his sources.[20]

The author of Berlin: The Downfall 1945, the acclaimed military historian Antony Beevor, also suggests that after brutalisation in extreme war situations almost all men are tempted to become rapists.
But the book has been condemned as an "act of blasphemy" by the Russian ambassador to the UK and its conclusions have also been rejected by a prominent Russian military historian.[21]

When in 2002 the book "Berlin: The Downfall 1945" by Anthony Beevor was first published in London (now it has been translated into Russian by the publisher AST), the Russian ambassador to the UK, Karasin, wrote an angry letter to the Daily Telegraph newspaper. The diplomat accused the known military historian of slandering the glorious feat of the Soviet soldiers. Why? Beevor, based on documents from the main military archives in Podolsk, wrote about, among other things, the atrocities committed by the Soviet troops in liberated Poland, East Prussia and Berlin itself.
Historians of the Russian Academy of Sciences condemned the book "Berlin: The Downfall 1945" seemingly quicker than the ambassador. [22] (BBC Russia)

Even so, according to Anthony Beevor, a British historian, the brutality against women from the Soviets was on a different scale. Writing in the Guardian in 2002, Mr Beevor said at least 2m German women are thought to have been raped, with 1.4m victims in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia alone. In Berlin, one doctor deduced that out of approximately 100,000 women raped in the city, some 10,000 died as a result, mostly from suicide. Many Russian historians dispute these claims saying the figures are based on faulty methodology and unreliable sources.[23]

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

Discussion about Russian sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are taking a very small sample and extrapolating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here[24] it says "many", so I don't know. -YMB29 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what sources out of those I quoted[25] argue that mass rape took place?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You should not speak for others.

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

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

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

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

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

This is the latest statement that I suggest (based on the first three sources from the section above[26]):

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

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

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

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

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

Third opinion

Do the quotes in the section above[27] support the sentence bolded below, that crimes were not widespread?
During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder. Russian historians argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.
-YMB29 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soviet crimes continued

PBS, so are you going to explain why you think the top Russian historians are fringe sources?
The RfC did not help much, but there have been enough users here who said that these sources should be included if they are reliable, so you cannot say that I have no support.
Again, there is no reason to keep out one of the major views on this controversial topic.
If you are still against it, this will have to go to dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• The "top" Russian sources you have presented hold two different opinions of which you (after months of searching) only seem to have found three who deny that mass rape took place (hence they form a tiny minority among all Russian historians). I put wording into the article months ago that covered that POV you deleted it. If you wish to say that [some/most/?] Russian historians question the figurers then that belongs in the footnote where the figures are mentioned.
• I am still waiting for you to follow up my questions: "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?" with the title and author of such a book not an answer such as you gave before "have quoted the historians that have something to say about the behaviour of the Soviet soldiers." which was not a direct answer to the question.

As to dispute resolution we have already had an RfC on the issue in which you gained no traction for you views. Note that the dispute resolution policy says "use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or open a request for comment (RFC) or request for mediation" (my emphasis), you are now moving into the realms of forum shopping. I think that in starting this section you are now being tenacious and I strongly suggest that you follow the advise given in WP:DISENGAGE and drop the stick. -- PBS (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: You are just finding any little excuse to not include the view you don't like.

I have explained to you many times that all the Russian historians I quoted say that mass rape, as claimed by many in the West, did not happen, so you are just ignoring what I say as usual.

Even if there were only three top historians, that does not mean their view should not be included. How many is enough for you? 10? 100?

As for your question about books by modern Russian historians, it is like me asking you if you have any books about mass Soviet crimes written by authors not indoctrinated by Cold War propaganda... They are all modern Russian historians. It is not up to you to decide who qualifies as a modern Russian historian and who deserves to be included in the article.

The RfC is over now, so this can go to DRN.

Actually, I did gain some traction, even though the RfC wording was misleading. The users who were neutral coming into here basically said that my sources should be included if they are reliable.

Forum shopping is "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators...", which does not apply here. If I go to DRN, I will give links to everywhere the issue was discussed.

If you are refusing dispute resolution, you are the one who should follow "WP:DISENGAGE and drop the stick"... -YMB29 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So I guess you disengaged... -YMB29 (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Support for the Russian view

I have provided more than enough sources[28] and there has been enough support to add the Russian view:

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?[29]

The user 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.[30]

Per PraetorianFury above, we would need to find other sources or perhaps note that this is the view of one Russian source.[31]

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.[32]

I think it's fair to have them both showing that 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. [33]

You have two Russian historians saying Soviet soldiers did not rape as much as they have been accused of. Do they have estimates of how many rapes? Or do they just say the Western sources are exaggerated? I think we need their estimates so that hard numbers can be compared. At any rate, these two historians do not erase previous scholarship, they add to it. We will present the reader with both views. We will not pick which view is correct.[34]

Thus would people kindly consider starting to draft compromise and inclusive language? PBS, I know you're a pretty experienced editor here. Would you consider drafting yourself something along the lines of 'Beevor xxx etc says.. [end paragraph] But recent Russian scholarship [mention pub dates] says ..' Would ask you in the interests of fairness to avoid 'asserts', 'claims' 'argues' etc, and simply stick to 'says' on both sides. Those are just my drafting ideas - feel free to use anything of value.[35]

-YMB29 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that you agreed to add this view [36], but then pushed for it to be removed because I would not ignore the violation of WP:ASF in another sentence[37].

I offered dispute resolution, but you dismissed it as forum shopping...

So if you refuse dispute resolution or to even continue discussing the issue here, you should follow your own advice and "drop the stick". -YMB29 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be better to include the views of Yelena Senyavskaya and others in the footnote rather than in the text. I personally advocate that we delete the word "mass" before rape and change the sentence to "Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in rape, pillage, and murder". I think this part is not controversial, though precisely how "widespread" such crimes were is a matter of debate. I don't feel that treatment of this issue needs to be much longer than this in the body of the text because there already are articles on Rape during the occupation of Germany and Soviet war crimes which discuss the matter in more detail. The footnote that follows this sentence already provides a nuanced summary of historical views on the subject and I think the footnote could benefit from the additional sentence, "Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while such crimes occurred, they were not widespread." It's worthwhile to include a counterpoint like this from respected Russian historians because, of course, much of the historical literature on this subject is written in Russian and this article currently uses very little in the way of Russian language material. The opinion that rapes by Soviet units were not necessarily "widespread" appears to be a significant viewpoint among reputable Russian scholars and that justifies mentioning it, though since a footnote already exists to clarify the circumstances under which these crimes occurred I'd say we put this information in the footnote.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well if there is a sentence in the article text about Soviet crimes based on Western sources (even if the word mass is not used), there has to be a statement based on Russian sources in the text also, to balance it out, since, as you said, that is a significant viewpoint.

Maybe it is better to have one neutral sentence in the article text and put both views in the footnote. -YMB29 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it occurred to me that since this is an article on the Battle of Berlin itself rather than Rape during the occupation of Germany, it might be better to leave the details of this matter and the controversial areas in the footnote. My understanding is that "Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in rape, pillage, and murder" is not controversial in any source, but rather the controversy lies in whether or not such acts were "widespread".CurtisNaito (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That sentence still implies that these crimes were widespread, because otherwise why would they be mentioned?

Something like "Soviet troops engaged in rape, pillage and murder, although the scale of these crimes is disputed" would be better. -YMB29 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that way of phrasing it works a lot better than the current version. If we eventually decide to put controversial arguments in the footnote then I would say that we leave out words like "mass" and "not widespread" in the main text, both of which are used in the current version in reference to rapes, because such words are ambiguous in the absence of reliable quantitative statistics.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I think we should make these changes. -YMB29 (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)