Talk:Battle of Berlin/Archive 5

...engaged in looting and raped an estimated 100,000 women and murdered civilians for several weeks...
The source (the Beevor's article) does not contain the words "murder" or "kill", so the words " and murdered civilians" must be removed. It states:
 * "Yet after the initial fury of January 1945 dissipated, the sadism became less marked. By the time the Red Army reached Berlin three months later, its soldiers tended to regard German women more as a casual right of conquest.",

so that should be reflected in the article. In addition, Beevor does not tell about "several weeks" of rapes and murders, by contrast, he outlines four phases of interaction between German woman and Soviet military:
 * (the first phase was a mass rape, although less sadist then in East Prussia)
 * "After the second stage of women offering themselves to one soldier to save themselves from others, came the post-battle need to survive starvation. Susan Brownmiller noted "the murky line that divides wartime rape from wartime prostitution". Soon after the surrender in Berlin, Ursula von Kardorff found all sorts of women prostituting themselves for food or the alternative currency of cigarettes. Helke Sander, a German film-maker who researched the subject in great detail, wrote of "the grey area of direct force, blackmail, calculation and real affection".
 * The fourth stage was a strange form of cohabitation in which Red Army officers settled in with German "occupation wives". The Soviet authorities were appalled and enraged when a number of Red Army officers, intent on staying with their German lovers, deserted when it was time to return to the Motherland. "

The fourth stage closely resembles the situation in occupied West Germany, suggesting that the proposed article's text is an oversimplification. Based on that I conclude the everything in the sentence but the number of raped woman is not supported by the source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul Siebert-On page 107 of my 2002 Berlin book by Beevor it states:"...it is still striking how little they intervened to stop looting, rape and the random murder of civilians." One could take out the "several weeks" part of the quote; unless one has that part of the quote directly. Kierzek (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Raped numbers

 * I would say that the claim that 100000 German women were raped Beevor attributes to an unnamed German doctor. He does not do any estimates himself.--MathFacts (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And this is the direct cite: One doctor deduced that out of approximately 100,000 women raped in the city, some 10,000 died as a result, mostly from suicide.--MathFacts (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to go and wont be able to look at this again till later tonight but do give the page number for your quote and which book edition (2002 or 2003), unless you are quoting the later newspaper article. Kierzek (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is from the article. Beevor attributes the rapes claim to a doctor from German hospital.--MathFacts (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From the sentence structure, "One doctor deduced that out of approximately 100,000 women raped in the city, some 10,000 died as a result, mostly from suicide.", it would seem that the approximation number is coming from Beevor, and the deduction is the number that died as a result. Also from the news paper article - "Estimates of rape victims from the city's two main hospitals ranged from 95,000 to 130,000." Lt.Specht (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Added several sources which give the number of women raped between 110,000 to 130,000. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please give exact citations from other sources?--MathFacts (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Particularly, can you please provide a citation from "Shlapentokh 2008, p. 99" ?--MathFacts (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I made some research into the question and can say that Beevor cites Helke Sander and Barbara Johr, BeFreier und Befreite: Krieg, Vergewaltigung, Kinder as well as Stiglmayer's. It turns out to be references to the same source.--MathFacts (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest the following change: According the estimations by Helke Sander and Barbara Johr, based on data from two Berlin's hospitals, number of raped women during the operation was 95,000 to 130,000. This result is repeated in numerous sources, including A. Beevor' s "Fall of Berlin".--MathFacts (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And the 'unnamed doctor' was in fact Gerhard Reichling, also from Barbara Yohr's book.--MathFacts (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestion above. Lt.Specht what say you? Kierzek (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Beevor in fact cites Barbara Yohr in his book (it's reference 936 in his book). A hilarious picture emerges: Cook cites Melynn who cites Beevor who cites Yohr who cites Reichlig who is dead and whose analysis never published and nowhere available. Fascinating!--MathFacts (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The text that was proposed above is fine. However, Shlapentokh does not cite Helke Sander and Barbara Johr and it should be left intact by its self. Does Sander's and Johr's source also state that it was "based on data of children born with Russian fathers from Berlin's hospital "Kaiserin Augusta Victoria Haus""? The source you also added criticizing Johr is incomplete, 'Igor Petrov. To the question of "two millions"', needs a page number, etc., I searched and found nothing on it. I might also add that you have removed other things, requesting citations, when they already were cited correctly. Lt.Specht (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Shlapentokh, can you provide a quote?
 * Does Sander's and Johr's source also state that it was "based on data of children born with Russian fathers from Berlin's hospital "Kaiserin Augusta Victoria Haus""? - Yes. They found that 804 newborn in the hospital had Russian father (and rounded it to 5% of all newborn, i.e. 1156). They assumed that all they were a result of rape (although officially only 9 of them were registered as a result of rape). They also arbitrarily assumed that in 90% cases of rape there was an abortion (this is contradicted by data from other hospitals) and that pregnancy occured in 20% cases. So they multiplied 1156 by 10 and by 5 and got 57800. They then assumed that not only fertile age group was raped but also all women starting from 14 without higher limit and applied the same proportion to all women in Berlin. Thus they got 95000-130000 raped out of 9 registered rape cases. Ivan Petrov also notes that according the hospital's statistics the share of children who had Russian father did not differ much depending on when they were concepted - before or after Red Army entered the city (Berlin had its own population of Russians - refugees, ostarbeiters etc).--MathFacts (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Shlapentokh
Shlapentokh gives exactly the same data as Reichling and Johr. Please provide an inline citation. Does he refer to any sources?--MathFacts (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The inline citation is given in the article. He refers to no specific sources (as he is the source himself), however the source is a published book by an academic publisher, there is no need to question the reliability. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the answer. Source himself? He dreamed it? Any research is based on sources: archive data, witnesses or other research. Anyway please provide the quote of the cited claim.--MathFacts (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not require reliable sources to have sources of their own. The quote reads: "By the time the Red Army reached Berlin, rape had evolved into treating women as carnal booty. According to some estimates, some 100,000 women were raped in Berlin, of whom 10,000 died (out of a total of about two million German women raped in Soviet occupied Germany). There were numerous cases of gang rapes of "girls under 18 and old women included"." Lt.Specht (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, "according to some estimates" about which we already wrote, as I expected. Probably there is a reference in the text also. We do not need different sources which all in the end come to one: the Johr's book. All three numbers belong to this source: ~100000 raped belongs to Johr, 10000 died and 2 million raped in Germany belongs to Reichling.--MathFacts (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're really conducting original research by associating all three sources to one. There is a footnote given in the estimation portion which reads: "Omer Bartov, "The Last Battle," Times Literary Supplement, June 14, 2002." Lt.Specht (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bartov's "The Last Battle" is a review of Beevor's "The Downfall of Berlin" --MathFacts (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And the review was published in a reliable source, The Times Literary Supplement, his own viewpoint and analysis is his own, not Johr's. Please also note that what you just removed from the article was mainly sourced from another book, not Shlapentokh's. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Grossmann also has a reference. Can you quote it?--MathFacts (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get Grossmann's material quoted soon. And, please, just because one source uses parts or figures from another is no reason to revert or remove. - The part also used Shlapentokh in that sentence was not from Beevor or anyone. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not 'using part of figures'. It is direct reference to those sources. If there was any critique of the original analysis we could of course include it (correctly labelling it as critique). Anyway we do not need an additional source to additionally prove that there are such estimates as we already directly cited them.--MathFacts (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The part also used in that sentence was not from Beevor or anyone. - if you are referring to the gang rape claim - this is also from Beevor.--MathFacts (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And the two million raped women is also from Beevor and ultimately, from Reichling.--MathFacts (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

According to A. Beevor, Soviet troops also murdered civilians during the occupation
Can anybody please provide the citations? The phrase is very vague. Does it refer to isolated cases or refers to mass murder etc? What is counted as murder, i.e. whether bombing, shelling is counted? Does he cite any other sources?--MathFacts (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I cited another source which you removed. It specifically stated that the Soviets engaged in sprees of "random murder" of civilians. Lt.Specht (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked through the other source, the specified page and found nothing about the murder. Can you provide a citation? Anyway this my question is specifically about Beevor. What does he say. Saying something that the troops murdered civilians in itself has no information. Who murdered? Was it according an order? Was it accidentally during a battle? How common it was? Who was murdered? Were it the improvised executions? This is like to say "New York citizens are engaged in murder of innocent people".--MathFacts (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Grathwol's source states (p. 23) "The Red Army exercised a draconian occupation...The troops of the Red Army showed little discipline, engaging in pillaging, rape, and often random murder". Beevor does not state any exact cases of murder, however, I'm not sure why such would be needed, as the part of the section is only a very brief overview of detailing murders, I believe that would be better suited for the Soviet war crimes article. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I found this in the source but this refers to the time some months after the battle the main point here is low discipline. Regarding Beevor - what does he say exactly? Can you provide a similar citation? --MathFacts (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Grathwol refers to no specific time frame, only during the "occupation", which started on May 2nd. If you look two sections up you can see an example Kierzek gave regarding one of the instances mentioned in Beevor's book. I took out the wording "several weeks" as Beevor does not specifically mention that, and changed it to during the occupation, as per Grathwol. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Beevor provide any sources regarding the murders?--MathFacts (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Grathwol says about the period of May to July 1945.--MathFacts (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * MathFacts I do not have Beevor's book to hand, but he certainly mentions that along with the rapes, that some attempts to prevent rapes taking place by other family members or friends lead to the person intervening being killed. Clearly such killings were a war crime, (murder) even if at the time rape was not considered to be so. Neither the rapes or the murders had to be condoned by the authorities for the murders to be a war crime. There are far to many eye witness accounts recorded in various western histories for this statement to be disputed. For example in the Guardian piece by Beevor 'They raped every German female from eight to 80' he writes:


 * -- PBS (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand why did you put here this quote by Beevor. My question was concrete: in what context in his book Beevor says that the civilians were murdered and does he cite any other source or not. I do not contest that some civilians were murdered, but the phrase is very vague: just as saying "New-Yorkers commit murder every day". Out of context this means nothing and probably not notable.--MathFacts (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Russian source - "Igor Petrov. To the question of "two millions"
Per WP:RSUE, English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. The source used here is a Russian website, no information can be found on publishing, even the author, etc. Beevor and other multiple English sources use the content which are described in this source and comment on them (they are also academic published sources). WP:RSUE also requires that a translation be provided, preferably by a reliable source, to be provided if requested (which I am requesting for verifiability and to determine notability of the source). Therefore I am removing it until at least a translation can be provided. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Beevor does not comment on Johr's work, there is no critique on Johr's work in his book, he just cites it. This is the automatic translation: I can clarify difficult places.--MathFacts (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The link didn't work but Yahoo Babel Fish translation did, []. I'm still concerned with the notability of the article, and that it could be a fringe source (as it looks, multiple reliable academic publishes sources use Johr as a footnote and don't question anything), the same website has a "myths" section (where this article is listed), [], which, as examples has an article titled "The myth: The USSR was the totalitarian state". And a "The myth: Joint Soviet-German parade in Brest", which tries to argue that the German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk was fake, and that the Germans fabricated fake photographs and video tapes, and the whole parade was a hoax. I'd like to know other editor's views on this. I think that its obviously not reliable, and a fringe source. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the link now, you can compare the Google's translation.--MathFacts (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read that article about the parade you can find that is does not say the photographs are fake, it says that there are different photographs including irrelated to the parade (because the place where the tribune was standing is empty) which some people present as photos of the parade. Also it says the parade was conducted but the Soviet participation included only Krivoshein standing on the tribune and Soviet troops did not march along the German ones (this is exactly what Krivoshein wrote in his memoirs).--MathFacts (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if the things discussed on this website article are truly notable and not fringe, then you should be able to find at least one academic published English source that covers whats mentioned, I would not object then. Lt.Specht (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if such source exist but Igor Petrov is quite known: he was a co-author of Dyukov/Pykhalov's The Great War Slandered - 2. He wrote a chapter about Nemmersdorf episode.--MathFacts (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's no academic published work on it, then it's probably not notable enough to have in the article. I'm also not sure how co-authoring a book with Dyukov would increase Petrov's credibility, from the looks of it many consider Petrov to be a controversial and revisionist author. His own Wiki article states "Alexander Dyukov is not a historian in the academic sense of the term. While some refer to him as a "historian", others have chosen not to consider him as one." Lt.Specht (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dyukov is historian by his education. He graduated History and Archive Institute and his diploma work was about partisan movement. He then always worked in history-related positions. There are many his enemies in Wikipedia who don't want to recognize him as historian because they want only their point of view represented. But in Russian Wikipedia he is called historian and is in the "Russian historians" category.--MathFacts (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the additions made to the aftermath section since the start of this month. Beevor is a accepted authority on the issue and we do not need to cite foreign language sources for this information. In additions the analysis of the figures in the paragraph is in my opinion placing undue weight to this issue. Yes it should be mentioned but the sentence "In many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in looting and raped an estimated 100,000 women and murdered civilians for several weeks " is sufficient. -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Beevor cites Johr and cites inaccurately. He does not add anything to their analysis, just puts numbers with a footnote. I am restoring the link to the initial source. If you think it gives undue weight to the issue, the paragraph may be shortened or reformulated or clarified rater than just speading slander.--MathFacts (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:SOURCES, "... as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." If you can demonstrate that Dyukov really gives more accurate and detailed picture than the Beevor's book does, I would support your changes. Can you find any review on the Dyukov's works, or provide any other proof of his notability?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the above, you'd see that Dyukov wrote nothing about this particular case.--MathFacts (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have made a bold change. I have reverted it, giving my reasons: (a) The changes in my judgement overemphasise the issue and (b) Dyukov's notability is not an issue, nor is the notability of Sande & Johr, our policy (WP:V) is to use English language sources if they are available. If you want to include this change then build a consensus on the talk page first. -- PBS (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This already has been discussed. But I really see the point. We can attribute to Beevor but mention that he attributes the data to Johr. But please give a ref to the academically published Beevor's book rather than an article in newspaper.--MathFacts (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the reference. It only needs a correct page number in the Beevor's book. If someone has one, please insert.--MathFacts (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you edits. There is no need for an inline attribution as there is a view widely held, and the Beevor newspaper article is a perfectly acceptable reliable source, that verifies the sentence. In my opinion putting in the extra wording does two things: structually it raises a question of whether this is a widely held view (it is) and it also over emphasises the point. If you want to include this change then FIRST build a consensus on the talk page. You wrote above "rather than just spreading slander" I am interested to know what slander (I think you mean libel) is being spread. -- PBS (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no other estimate of the number of raped in Berlin. In any case it turns out to be a direct or indirect reference to either Beevor or Johr. It would be fair to give a reference to the original calculation.--MathFacts (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's guidelines about citing scientific sources WP:Scientific_citation_guidelines says: Where possible, Wikipedia should strive to provide the original reference for any discovery, breakthrough, or novel theoretical development, both for attribution and historical completeness. I think this rule is enough for us to restore the reference to the original analysis?--MathFacts (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) This not a scientific article (b) you seem to be ignoring the point of undue weight and (c) before re-adding the text see if you have a consensus to do so, because to date four people have spoken on this issue and you have yet to convince any of the the other three that your point of view on this should be followed. I suggest you now wait and see if any of the others, or new editors to the debate, agree with you, or may suggest wording that to which you can agree. -- PBS (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Several quotes may be helpful. The source (Stuart Liebman and Annette Michelson. After the Fall: Women in the House of the Hangmen. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995)) discusses the Sandeand Johr's data:
 * "According to Sander, between March and November of 1945, approximately 1.9 million cases of rape occurred in the territories of the ruined Third Reich. In the area surrounding the Reichshauptstadt Berlin alone, an estimated 100,000 women were assaulted, the vast majority over a ten-day period, between April 24 and May 3."
 * "women both old and young-Polish forced laborers, Jews only recently emerged from hiding, but above all Germans-were raped, often repeatedly, primarily by soldiers of the Red Army, but also by American and French troops in considerable numbers. Thousands of women were murdered in the process; many others, driven by fathers, brothers, husbands, or lovers who could not forget-or refused to forgive-their dishonor at the enemy's hands, killed themselves. Tens of thousands of cases of venereal disease had to be treated. Tens of thousands of abortions were performed. Many thousands of unwanted children, mostly "Russenkinder", were nevertheless carried to term."
 * "Red Army soldiers were unquestionably the major perpetrators of the rapes. By defining them at various points as "criminals," "Asians," and "Bolsheviks" whose animal lust was whipped up by the Russian Jewish writer Ilya Ehrenburg's hysterical propaganda, however, the [Sander's] film comes perilously close to reactivating old stereotypes that retrospectively reaffirm the Nazis' rationale for their aggression. Compare the views of Ernst Nolte, who represented Hitler's decision to launch "Operation Barbarossa" as a logical response to a purportedly imminent threat from the Soviet Union. See Nolte, "The Past That Will Not Pass." "

It can be concluded from the source that, (i) according to author's interpretation of Sander's and Johr's data, 1.9 million rape should be attributed to all Allies, not to the Soviets only, although the lion's share of rapes was committed by the Soviets; (ii) 100,000 rapes occurred mostly in late April - beginning of May 1945, so "raped an estimated 100,000 women and murdered civilians for several weeks" is a Beevor's interpretation (probably too frivolous); (iii) according to the authors, the story of rapes should not be taken out of a context, otherwise it may become an apology of Nazism. I also have to add that "raped an estimated 100,000 women and murdered civilians for several weeks" may create a distorted picture of the events: although we know more or less accurate scale of the rapes (that took place mostly during ten-days period), nothing is known about the scale of murders. However, by combining these two things together we imply that both rapes and murders had similar scale. Since no information is available to verify or debunk that, we should separate these two. In general (based no the source quoted above), the section (except the first para) should be re-arranged. The story should start from the explanation of the fact (well known for the Eastern readers but rather novel for the Anglophone audience) that almost every Soviet military had very serious personal reasons to be "vengeful" (this explanation is lacking now). Then it should be stated that initially the Soviet command was unwilling or unable to prevent rapes, murders or similar excesses. Then we should tell about the scale and timing of rapes (the source allows us to do that, about 100,000 rapes mostly during the ten day period). As we cannot tell anything specific about the scale murders and looting, the only thing we can tell is that they took place and that many Soviet solders and officers were punished for that. And finally it should be stated that Soviet military authorities took measures to feed civilians and prisoners in the conquered city. That is how in my humble opinion the events should be described in a neutral way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul, I have to say that '1,9 million raped' figure does not belong to Johr proper, but to Reichsling, a German statistician. Neither his analysis was ever published not data he used. Johr just says Reichsling did the analysis "for them" and gives the results. Regarding 100,000 raped in Berlin I suggest you re-read this page. In fact their figures are based on only 9 registered cases of rape. To reach 100,000 they make many assumptions such as all those with Russian father were raped. Regarding consensus, just re-read this page. I have suggested the change and user Kierzek agreed with me. --MathFacts (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to PBS: Regarding consensus, just re-read this page. I have suggested the change and user Kierzek agreed with me. He recently reverted to your version, contrary to his initial position, I asked him, why, and he said because you are the administrator, so take into account that your authority influence others. This not a scientific article - the rules I quoted do not require the article to be scientific, it just provides the rules on how to quote scientific sources, and Beevor's book as well as Johr's are the ones. The article should correctly reference the original source of any scientific result such as discovery, breakthrough, theoretic development etc., properly naming the original author, not those who quoted him. This is already in the rules of Wikipedia.--MathFacts (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I can state my own position, MathFacts. Also, please don't misquote me or attempt to paraphase without full context. The main points of what I said was "...I agreed with his conclusion (PBS) as he had valid points to raise (that I had not previously considered) and it had NOTHING to do with his position..." One must be open to other points and facts. I told you "to seek clarification" on the matter and I would "certainly agree to consensus". Remember, history (as written), in the end, is a matter of consensus. Certainly Beevor is an accepted authority on World War II and the Battle of Berlin. With that said, he like all historians are secondary sources in the end. The Beevor cite SHOULD be accepted, however, a small properly CITED addition of facts on the matter is something I believe would be reasonable: if the sources for the cite are reliable and the historians/authors are accepted sources of said information. Further the matter should only be noted as a portion of the Aftermath section. Anything more should be placed in other Wiki articles, such as, War Crimes. Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Both Beevor and Johr are the scientific sources. And the Wikipedia's rules require us to reference the original source of a scientific result (either theoretic development, discovery of breakthrough). If someone finds a planet, we name the author of the discovery, not someone who quoted him. While I agree that since Johr's work is not in English and the Beevor's book is the most close English-language source, we can cite Beevor, but the original author of that theory/estimation should be directly named in accordance with the Wikipedia's rules.--MathFacts (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "The Beevor cite SHOULD be accepted" Not necessarily. The fact that the source as whole is reliable does not warrant its inclusion in every particular case. To decide which source should be used, and which deserves just a brief mention (if any), we need to compare all these sources. If all of them quote the same figures, the source that gives the greater degree of scrutiny to the issue should be used. By the way, Beevor's evidences, that are based on individual stories of rapes and murders, are not convincing, because the general picture cannot be drawn based on few selected cases. To demonstrate my point, let me point out that Stuart Liebman's and Annette Michelson's article quoted by me contains a rather idyllic picture of Soviet soldier and his German girlfriend. We know that that was not a unique case, because the Soviet command even issued the order explicitly prohibiting such liaisons. However, it does not allow us to conclude that the stories of mass rapes were a falsification. Similarly, individual stories of rape and murder cases just obscure the picture and do not allow a reader to see real statistics.
 * Again, if comparison of Beevor with other, more specialised works will demonstrate that the former gives a superficial picture, Beevor should not be used in this particular case, because other, more reliable sources are available. In addition, the Beevor's newspaper articles testify against him, because serious historian writing sine ira et studio is not supposed to allow emotion to dominate over his mind.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We can compare "reliable" "accepted" sources and come up with a cite and minor addition, I agree, Paul. And I still believe Beevor supports the sentences in question. We should not lose sight of the fact this long discussion relates to certain sentences/points in the article and the cites thereto. It should be noted that Beevor discusses the Soviet behavior in different chapters of his book, not just in the city limits, so to speak, of Berlin. Editor Lt.Specht gave quite a few good cited pages as examples. They are not all just based on a few reported cases as you state. With that said, what composition of sentences for the points in discussion do you now suggest? Kierzek (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) No one argues that Beevor "supports the sentences in question". The question is if the events can be presented in somewhat different way using more adequate sources. For instance, Nicky Bird in his review on the Beevor's "Berlin: the downfall I945." (International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 78, No. 4. (Oct., 2002), pp. 914-916) points out that "Following the enormous and unexpected success of the author's Stalingrad (Viking, I998), Beevor and his publisher decided that tales of destruction and heroic, if futile, sacrifice are a recipe for commercial success." He also notes:


 * "Perhaps 2 million German women were raped, Ioo,ooo in greater Berlin. Beevor estimates that I0,000 died, some murdered, most from suicide. The mortality rates for the 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were probably much higher. Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor - how can we possibly know that 90 per cent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 per cent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 per cent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers?


 * Beevor adds little new to the politics and strategy surrounding the capture of Berlin, beyond stressing the urgent Soviet need for uranium (to build an atom bomb) believed to be stored in a Berlin suburb... And Omer Bartov in the Times Literary Supplement pointed out that Grossmann brings more psychological insight into the phenomenon of mass rape in an essay in West Germany under construction( ed. Moeller, 1977). All of which has prompted some reviewers to ask: what is the book for?"


 * In other words, we have the Anglophone scholarly secondary source that confirms the MathFacts' point about the data obtained from a single doctor, and that explicitly states that Beevor's book is not the most accurate source for the rapes in Berlin (although quite good in general). --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: " Editor Lt.Specht gave quite a few good cited pages as examples." I am not sure if I understand which concrete quotes do you mean.
 * Re: "...what composition of sentences for the points in discussion do you now suggest?" The number of rapes (~100,000) is reproduced by many sources. All these sources agree that that was just estimation, some of these sources agree that the estimation was made by extrapolation, and the data are unverifiable. In addition, according to some sources (Sander, Grossman) most of these rapes occurred during "the notorious week of "mass rapes," from April 24 to May 5, 1945". Taking into account all said above, and bearing in mind that this article is not supposed to go into the details of these events, the wording should be as follows:
 * "According to unverifiable data, Soviet troops (often rear echelon units ), raped about 100,000 women, mostly during the period from April 24 to May 5, 1945. "
 * Since I found no even indirect estimations of the scale of looting and murders, the mention of these events should be separated form rapes to avoid creation of the false impression of accuracy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul, I still insist that the estimation should be properly attributed to those who did the estimation, i.e. Barbara Johr (regarding 100,000 raped). This is required by the rules and only will add to historicity. Attributing something to Beevor which he did not in fact estimated (he references Johr's book in his book) would be completely unjust like attributing a scientific discovery to a secondary source who just cited the original. Also the estimation by Johr does not say it was by 'rear echelon units'. In fact they even do not determine if the rapes were made by the army. It may be interesting that Johr herself in her book says that they understand the term rape inclusively, as any circumstances which force a woman into sex, such as selling herself for food. This does not however make any impact on her results as they assume any child with Russian father as a result of rape. --MathFacts (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 ┌  I agree with Kierzek, and think it is a good idea to add an additional citation to the agree to the sentence, if there is one that gives access for someone interested in the subject access more a detailed analysis than Beevor gives. But the primary reason for a footnote is to demonstrate that the sentence or sentences that are noted are not OR and that is covered by the current footnote.

Commenting Paul's post "In general ... the section (except the first para) should be re-arranged.". I think that the ordering of the current paragraph is about right. The official Soviet actions, the rounding up of enemy combatants and the feeding of the population -- they could have left the population to starve -- should be mentioned first, the unsanctioned mass criminal acts should also be mentioned but not dwelt on. If I was to rewrite the section, I would chop the text from "However, Berlin had been ..." and add information on the politics of Allies including the removal of infrastructure from the Western Allied sectors and briefly mention the post World War II outcome for Berlin and East Germany with links to follow up articles like West Berlin the Berlin Blockade, but as any Wikipedia article is a horse designed by committee (and hence a camel), it is not too bad.

The mention of looting and murders I think that should stay, and I do not think that the wrong doings by the Soviet army should be expanded to dominate the aftermath section which is likely to be done if too much detail is given. I happen to think that mention of numbers is unnecessary, as all the sources I have read including A Woman in Berlin (a book widely available in English long before it was in German -- perhaps because the subject was a taboo in Germany) makes it clear that not being raped would have been the exception to the rule, however other editors like numbers and the 100,000 while speculation is mentioned in reliable sources and does meet that liking, and was added to the sentence long after the sentence was initially added to the section. -- PBS (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally agree. Frankly, my proposal to "re-arrange" meant mostly to shift the accents, not necessarily to change the order. One way or the another, I think that the number of 100,000, that has been reproduced by many reliable sources, should be in the article, however, the statement of unreliability and unverifiability of this number should also be there. In addition, "the week of rapes" should be mentioned explicitly. Let me also point out that I didn't propose to remove any mention of looting and murders, just to place them into a separate sentence. And finally, let me re-iterate that one important thing is missing in the section, as well as in many other similar article: the explanation of why the rapes and murders were much more probable in the East than in the West. Firstly, for four years the Soviet authorities conducted a vehement anti-German propaganda under the slogan: "kill Germans", and that was absolutely correct, taking into account that almost all Germans the Soviet military dealt with were military. After entering East Prussia (and later, Silesia, Pomerania, Berlin area) the Soviet authorities just appeared unable or unwilling to sharply change a tone (that had been done later). Secondly, by contrast to the West, Soviet military were constantly the witnesses of numerous and widespread atrocities committed by the Germans. These atrocities were not limited with the Holocaust (as majority of peoples think), they affected almost every Soviet soldier (many soldiers had their relatives in the occupied territories, many of them died perished occupation for various reasons). That is why, whereas the American military authorities took special anti-fraternisation measures, the Soviet authorities had to do the opposite. Again, since majority of English audience is simply unable to imagine the overall brutality of the Eastern Front, the explicit explanation is needed that there were some very serious objective reasons (other than poor discipline) for Soviet military to be "vengeful".--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * About 'week of rapes' - was it derived from the Guardian article or from the Beevor's book? If the latter, I am sure there was a reference to another source. Beevor does not put such claims to his book without references. And we should attribute that original source.--MathFacts (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the mention of the "week of rapes" in the Grossman's article, which seems not to cite Beevor. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "No one argues that Beevor supports the sentences in question". I assume, Paul, you mean that no one is arguing he does not support the facts stated in the sentences of the article on the points that are being discussed. I was replying to earlier sentiments expressed by another. As for your query about Editor Lt.Specht's cited pages - in the beginning days of May he had added a number of cites from Beevor's book in the article as to rape, murder and looting. However, at this point, we need to just write something as I think we are all basically on the same page now. In the end guys, I agree that the best we will be able to do is estimates based on what facts are known from a time that was both chaotic and an upheaval. Kierzek (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So people, what about the following: According to an estimation by Helke Sander and Barbara Johr based on unverifiable data,[1] Soviet troops raped about 100,000 women. The high rate of random murders and rapes persisted for several weeks[3]--MathFacts (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. No sources state that rapes and murders correlated with each other. It would be correct to say about rapes that "the rapes were extensive during and immediately after the week of fighting and gradually subsided during next several weeks." With regards to murders, since we have no quantitative data, I have no idea how can we talk about their rate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the following quote may be helpful. Chris Bellamy in his "Absolute war" (page 670) writes about Berzarin, a first commander of the fallen city) as follows:
 * "Even before the fighting stopped in Berlin on 2 May Berzarin took measures to start restoring essential services. The Red Army brough up its soop kitchens to feed the shell-shocked Berliners. The looting and rape gradually subsided, and the Russians appointed 'reluable' Germans to head each city block, and organize the cleaning-up. The Berliners loved Berzarin, and when he was killed in a motorbike accident sme weeks later it was rumored that he had been removed by NKVD.".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding pillage, rape and murder, this is from Grossman's book where all this described as a result of poor discipline. The book's review though says it's not a scholarly study. What about According to an estimation by Helke Sander and Barbara Johr based on unverifiable data,[1] and repeated in other sources, Soviet troops raped about 100,000 women. The high crime rate and poor discipline persisted for several weeks[3]? --MathFacts (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Grathwol (not Grossman) book is more popular than scholarly. With regards to "several weeks", it directly contradicts to both Bellamy and Grossman (quoted above by me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, my bad. Grossmann cites another source, she does not make any research just as Beevor does. We already discussed it above and Lt.Specht promised to quote here the reference. --MathFacts (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What about this variant: According to an estimation by Helke Sander and Barbara Johr based on unverifiable data,[1] and repeated in other sources, Soviet troops raped about 100,000 women. The high crime rate and poor discipline persisted for several days[3]?--MathFacts (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know an Irish woman who wanted to send her child to a Catholic school, however to do so she had to go to confession and ask a priest to sign an approval form.Iit had been more than a decade and a half since she last went to confession so she started her confession with: "Forgive me Father it is many days since my last confession. ..." now that was not a lie but it was a deliberate curved ball!
 * I don't think your proposed wording is acceptable. What does unverifiable data mean? To me it implies that there are good grounds for doubting the estimate, yet there are no primary source that contradicts the estimate and a host of supporting primary sources that support the proposition that mass rape was very wide spread. What does several days mean to you? To an English speaker it implies about 4 days any more than that would be about a week. Again the secondary sources imply that the rapes went on for long enough for women to develop coping strategies, by trying to keep out of sight at certain times of day and for some by trying to find a Soviet protector. That indicates that it was more than a few days. -- PBS (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources (Grossman or Sander) mention the period of "mass rapes, from April 24 to May 5, 1945", during which the most rapes took place, and this is in accordance with Bellamy's statement that after that rapes (and looting) "gradually subsided", so I don't see why do we need to invent anything new. Can we write that:
 * "The rapes were most intense during the period from April 24 to May 5, 1945, after which both rapes and looting gradually subsided. Although no verifiable statistics on rapes are available, many sources agree that totally about 100,000 rapes took place in Berlin."?
 * Let me also point out that to speak about this sentence taken out of a context is senseless. I propose to discuss the para as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, Grossman does not cite anyone (even if she did associating both together in the article, without a source, would be original research). What she states is: A conservative estimate might be about 110,000 women raped, many more than once, of whom up to 10,000 died in the aftermath; others suggest that perhaps one out of every three of about 1.5 million women in Berlin (500,000) fell victim to Soviet rapes. As her book is from 2009, it is newer research than Beevor's book in 2002, and I've found no mention in other related sources that indicates it being unverifiable. - Should also add that Grossman does not specifically mention the period of mass rapes being from April 24 to May 5, 1945, what she states is: Sexual violence was an intergral of the final bitter battle for Berlin from April 24 to May 8, 1945. Coincidentally she states on p.51 that the notorious days of mass rape were from April 24 to May 8, not that most took place then: For women huddled in "cellar tribes" as the Battle of Berlin raged around them during the notorious days of mass rape from April 24 to May 8, Goebbels's fevered prophecies about the threat from the Asiatic hordes seemed to be fulfilled. Lt.Specht (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not "later research". This is exactly what Beevor said. I already saw this sentence in Google Books and she indeed references to someone but the reference itself is not available on Google Books. You promised to quote it. I think different sources all citing the same original analysis of Johr should not be described as "many sources".--MathFacts (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I found the Grossmann's reference on Google Books. She explicitly references Barbara Johr in her book. It's reference number 7 in her book. If you wish, I can attach a screenshot.--MathFacts (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To PBS, Paul already cited Nicky Bird who calls Beevor's data unverifiale.--MathFacts (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What data is unverifiable? -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That 90 per cent of rape victims had abortions, that all children with Russian father were result of rape for example.--MathFacts (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As that data is not mentioned in the sentence, and is not mentioned in the source used to back up the sentence, I do not see any need for the sentence to be changed to include mention of unverifiable. -- PBS (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This data is used in the source (the Johr's book).--MathFacts (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

section break
The complete procedure according to which the number of 100,000 was obtained is presented below: BERLIN POPULATION STATISTICS5 1. Official statistics for the period between September 1945 and August 1946 show a total of 23,124 births (both live and stillborn). Of these, approximately 5% were "Russian children": 1,156 children. 2. Some 10% of the pregnant women had abortions, of which 90% were successful. Therefore, ten times as many women had actually been impregnated: 11,560. 3. About 20% of the raped women became pregnant. Therefore, among those of childbearing age, five times as many were raped: 57,800. 4. In 1945, 600,000 women of childbearing age (18 to 45 years) lived in Berlin. 57,800 of them were raped. That represents 9.5% of this age group. 5. In 1945, 800,000 girls between the ages of 14 and 18 and women over 45 lived in Berlin. If one assumes that 9.5% of those in this age group were raped, that would mean that 73,300 of those younger and older women were affected. (If a 4.75% figure is used, then the number is 36,650.) 6. Conclusions: Of the 1.4 million women and girls in Berlin, between 94,450 and 131,100-an average of more than 110,000-were raped between early summer and fall of 1945.
 * ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBERS OF RAPES BASED ON
 * Source: BarbaraJohr, "Die Ereignisse in Zahlen," in Sander and Johr, BeFreier und Befreite, p . 54.

According to Sander, these results were obtained based on Dr. Reichling's work and his tables. So,  if  Dr. Reichling's data are valid,  if  the assumption is valid that in 90% cases the pregnancies were terminated,  if  the assumption is valid that the probability of pregnancy after rape was 0.2,  if  the assumption is valid that for a woman of fertile age, a girl or older woman the probability to be raped was the same, then the results may be valid. The problem is, however, that noone demonstrated that these "ifs" are reasonable. For instance, it is natural to expect that older women were less attractive for young soldiers, so the probability for older women to be raped was lower. (The witnesses' testimonies meant just that even old woman were raped more or less frequently, however, that does not mean that the real frequency was the same). With regards to girls, according to memoirs, mothers took special efforts to hide them, so it is also natural to expect that the probability for young girl to be raped was lower. In other words, the above table is plagued with absolutely unjustified assumption and based on non-verifiable data. In addition, the way Johr presents the data (the number ofsignificant figures: e.g., "approximately 5%" of 23,124 is 1,000, or, 1,200, but in no way can it be 1,156) demonstrates her poor mathematical background. Fortunately, this is not my conclusion: below is the quote that criticises these assumptions (formally, it tells about Beevor, however, since he used mostly Johr data the same criticism is applicable to Johr):
 * "Perhaps 2 million German women were raped, Ioo,ooo in greater Berlin. Beevor estimates that I0,000 died, some murdered, most from suicide. The mortality rates for the 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia were probably much higher. Statistics proliferate, and are unverifiable. Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor - how can we possibly know that 90 per cent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 per cent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 per cent of children born in 1946 had Russian fathers? (Nicky Bird International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 78, No. 4. (Oct., 2002), pp. 914-916). BTW, I already presented it here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. BTW, among the other data used to construct their assumption, the Sander's work used the fact that up to 1,000,000 children born in Belorussia during the war had German fathers:
 * "One million children: the number at first sounds greatly exaggerated, but it is surely not inflated, although we cannot at this time prove it. However, after taking note of the problem, I talked with White Russian friends about it; to my surprise all knew of some German children or were directly acquainted with some."(Helke Sander and Stuart Liebman. Remembering/Forgetting. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 15-26. Published by: The MIT Press)

Inerestingly, Sander does not use the word rape in this case, preferring to use other wording ("After months of searching, Barbara Johr had the aforementioned document in her hands, in which (in September 1942) it is asserted that one and a half million Russian women may have experienced consequences from their relations with German soldier s."(ibid.)) Note, I do not insist that all these Russian children were a result of rapes, because it is highly likely that some romantic relation between German solders and Russian woman took place (although they were strongly discouraged by German authorities for racial reasons), or that that was "sex for food" or other forms non-coercive sex. In connection to that, one more Sander's and Johr's implicit assumption sounds somewhat weird, namely, that all children with Russian fathers born in Berlin were a result of rapes. In other words, whereas Sander admits that sexual relations (including one or another form of commercial sex) between German soldiers and Russian women were generally non-coercive, even a very possibility of non-coercive sex between German women and Soviet soldiers is ruled out by her...--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the mention of "raped an estimated 100,000 women" is justified as it is mentioned in several secondary sources, and people seem to want to publish a number. As I said above all the primary sources I seen indicate that rape was widespread and probably the rule rather than the exception, and that as widespread rape is mentioned in many secondary sources. It is also notable -- because it is mentioned in many sources -- that the Soviet soldiers at the first wave of the assault were not responsible. -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I do not propose to remove the figure of 100,000. However, since the fact obtained by unreliable way remains unreliable independent of how many times it has been reproduced, the notion about unveriviability of these figures should also be added. BTW, that notion may equally mean that the actual number of rapes was higher, because many pregnancies could be a result of multiple rapes, and, in addition, the Johr's procedure does not take into account those victims who dies as a result of rapes. One way or the another, taking into account Sander's data on Russian pregnancies (as well as German behaviour in Eastern front as whole), I don't think we have to devote so much time to the issue of Berlin rapes.
 * Re: "... that the Soviet soldiers at the first wave of the assault were not responsible." Ignoramus et ignorabimus Bellamy cites Vasily Grossman who testified that even they committed rapes. However, that proves nothing because some rapes were inevitable. Withness' testimonies are useless because they prove obvious things (that rapes occurred) and give no useful information (no more or less reliable figures).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this text "...The Red Army made a major effort to feed the residents of the city. According to several historians, most Germans were grateful to receive food issued at Red Army soup kitchens which began to feed them on General Berzarin's orders. Beevor 2002, p. 392. In many areas of the city, Soviet troops (often said to be rear echelon units) murdered civilians, engaged in looting and raped an estimated 100,000 women (see Soviet war crimes). The number of rapes (100,000) is reproduced by many sources. These sources agree that number was only an estimation and some of these sources agree the estimation was made by extrapolation." It's a start. I should point out that as far as time-Beevor cites on page 413 (2002 edition) that on August 3, Zhukov had to "...issue even tougher regulations to control 'robbery', 'physical violence', and 'scandalous events' ". Kierzek (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would have to be something like "...These sources agree that number was only an estimation. Journalist Nicky Bird argues that estimation was made by extrapolation.", since Bird is the only source which says so, unless there are more. Lt.Specht (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not, because, firstly, for every mathematically educated person the procedure used by Jorh (see above) is a complete nonsense, secondly, journalists do not publish their reviews in scientific journals, so Bird is not a journalist but a scholar, thirdly, the Russian source cited by MathFacts seems to be in agreement with that. In actuality we have (i) Sander's and Johr's estimations, that have been quoted by other scholars (although with reservations, see, e.g. Grossman); the Sander's and Johr's work meet reliable source criteria so we can use it in the article; (ii) the Beevor's book where some conclusions are drawn, mostly based no Sander's and Johr's findings; this is also a reliable source; and (iii) the Bird's review that states that the rape statistics is unverifiable; this is also a reliable source. Note, we have no sources that either question this Bird's conclusion or state that the Sander's and Johr's data are verifiable. Therefore, we have only minimal freedom of manoeuvre, and any manipulations with these sources would be a synthesis. We have to state that Sander and Johr made estimations that have been quoted by some other authors, although statistics are unverifiable.
 * "These sources agree that number was only an estimation." This is a complete nonsense, because Johr herself presented these figures as an estimation. The question is how reliable and verifiable they are. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The source cited before is a website, is in a foreign language, and is the work of a revisionist author - A new book by a Russian historian claims Estonia's recollection of the 1941 forced deportations to Siberia is too harsh. In The Myth About Genocide, revisionist historian Alexander Dyukov paints a picture of Soviet repressions as little worse than a family picnic... (Deportations were like a family picnic - claim). It is not a reliable source. Per WP:RSUE, non-English sources should not be used when there are English sources of equal quality that contains the relevant material (as is the case here). Lt.Specht (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And how did you conclude that Dyukov is revisionist? I'd more likely call Johr a revisionist. Anyway firstly, the Russian source is not by Dyukov, and thanks to Paul we have reliable English sources so we do not have to refer to Russian ones.--MathFacts (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "  'These sources agree that number was only an estimation.' This is a complete nonsense.  " First, Paul, one has to agree these numbers being tossed about are all "estimations". Further, Paul, I have to laugh for you just called a sentence of your own hand "complete nonsense". See your post above: Paul Siebert (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC). I used that suggested sentence in my attempt to compose something for all to use as a base to tweak into something acceptable so we can all move on and get this done. To just keep going 'round and 'round on this without composition is a continued waste of time. I suggest what I wrote as to Beevor's book above as a starting point with an addition of Sander's. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me quote my own words in full. I wrote: " "These sources agree that number was only an estimation." This is a complete nonsense, because Johr herself presented these figures as an estimation. " I admit that, since my English is not perfect I was probably unable to transmit my thought correctly, so I explain again: the nonsense is not the statement that the number was only an estimation, but the attempt to use the sources other than Johr to make such a conclusion, because the authors of this estimation themselves presented the number as estimation ab initio. What we can write is that "other scholars and journalists quote these figures although this statistics are unverifiable according to the others".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To Lt.Specht. Although I myself treat writings of those modern Russian scholars who are trying to understate the scale of Stalin's repressions with cautions, the arguments presented by you (Estonia) is your own interpretation of the source and, therefore, cannot serve as a ground for the edits in Wikipedia. In addition, the fact that the source is wrong about Estonia (and it seems to be wrong) does not necessarily mean it is wrong about Berlin and Germany. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't interpret the source at all. It states that Dyukov is a revisionist historian quite clearly, and is a English source from a reliable independent newspaper. However, its not relevant anyway, as I mistook Dyukov for the author of the Russian source (a colleague of his is), and the fact that we have English sources, the Russian source isn't needed. Kierzek is also right, all the sources which contain figures state they are estimations. And to reiterate, the only source which states the statistics are unverifiable is Bird, so having unverifiable according to the others would be incorrect. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This not an independent, but Estonian source. Most Estonian sources are biased regarding the USSR and WWII. And they have very special understanding of what is 'revisionist' (i'd say their understanding is reverse compared to the rest of the world).--MathFacts (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a storm in a teacup. The current wording says that the 100,000 is an estimate and it is backed up by an adequate reliable source.. I would suggest that if anyone wants to include more details it is handled through a "group=nb" footnote using Battle of Berlin and Battle of Berlin as templates. Get that done first, agree the wording (put it in to the article as a footnote, others can edit it in the usual way) and then lets look at the body of the text. That will split the issues of adequate citation and the text of the article into two separate steps and should make it easier to reach agreement. -- PBS (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "The current wording says that the 100,000 is an estimate and it is backed up by an adequate reliable source." ... and another reliable source says both the data and the procedure according to which this estimate was made are unverifiable. To avoid accusations in any nationalism, let me remind you that, as I already noted, this estimate may equally be too low and too high. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The point that it can be higher or lower show that the number is not unreasonable. As I have said already the point is notable, but adding text about the historiography behind the figures about mass rapes in the aftermath section of the battle is not appropriate as it will overemphasise the issue. If editors want to mention the original source for the numbers and the queries about their validity I suggest it is placed in a group=nb. I do not think putting in a range into the aftermath section is a good idea because they are estimates and the numbers could be higher or lower than the estimated range and a range tends to imply highest and lowest and that the estimation lies between the figures. I would be equally happy to remove the estimated 100,000 and relegate all of the numbers to footnotes, but some editors like to see numbers in the text. -- PBS (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be OK either with putting the "100,000" number in the footnote along with mentioning the original source or including the original source in the text proper. But the number must be accompanied with the mention of the original authors. It would be also good if we mentioned other popular sources which directly or indirectly cite Johr so to avoid other editors later adding them as if they were independent. --MathFacts (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, although the Johr's number of 100,000 is quoted in the Grossman's article, this study is characterised as "pseudostatistical":
 * "Therefore, beyond arguments about the veracity of women's reports or pseudostatistical investigations (although I do think that much conventional historical research remains to be done), I am interested in "de-essentializing" and historicizing the rapes Sander addresses in her film." (Atina Grossmann. A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers. October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 42-63).
 * Grossman also quote Naimark who also questions a very possibility to come to any reliable figures:
 * "''"It is highly unlikely that historians will ever know how many German women were raped by Soviet soldiers in the months before and years after the capitulation." (ibid)
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably why all the sources which contain figures note they are estimations (including Grossman herself), in Grossman's book from 2009, (Grossmann, Atina (2009), Jews, Germans, and Allies: Close Encounters in Occupied Germany, Princeton University Press, p. 49, ISBN 069114317X), she states: A conservative estimate might be about 110,000 women raped, many more than once, of whom up to 10,000 died in the aftermath; others suggest that perhaps one out of every three of about 1.5 million women in Berlin (500,000) fell victim to Soviet rapes. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As soon as we turned to Grossman, let me remind you that this author is not very interested in establishing the exact number of rapes. The Grossman's point is different:
 * "In this particular case, then, on the most mundane (and melodramatic) level, the problem is that this is not (yet another) "universal" story of women being raped by men, as Helke Sander would have it, but of German women being abused and violated by an army that fought Nazi Germany and liberated death camps. Mass rapes of civilian women also signaled the defeat of Nazi Germany-a historical event I learned to call Befreiung (liberation) but which Germans usually described as Zusammenbruch (collapse). Therefore, beyond arguments about the veracity of women's reports or pseudostatistical investigations (although I do think that much conventional historical research remains to be done), I am interested in "de-essentializing" and historicizing the rapes Sander addresses in her film; these events cannot, I think, be usefully understood by quick comparison to Kuwait or Yugoslavia, nor can they gain macabre comic relief by editing in clips of U.S. Army anti-venereal disease films." (ibid.)
 * In connection to that, I propose to write that "according to some rough and unverifiable estimations, 100,000 woman had been raped in Berlin, mostly over a ten-day period, between April 24 and May 3" Such a statement is a summary of what Sander & Johr, Grossman, Beevor and Bird say. And after that let pass to more important things, namely, that, as Grossman writes, the rape story cannot be taken out of historical context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No mention in the text of "unverifiable estimation". "estimation" is sufficient as it is accepted as an estimate in several secondary sources. To put in "unverifiable" implies that Wikipedia editors do not think that the number is in any way valid (as there are equally reliable sources or methods that contradict the figure). This is not the case as the 100,000 lies in the middle of the estimates or may be way to low as Lt.Specht highlights. I would ask you to read Richard J. Evans's comments about Irving in Historical revisionism (negationism) and ask if this figure of 100,000 falls foul of these techniques? If not then using the term "unverifiable" in the passive narrative voice of the article is unwarranted. -- PBS (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that First a "group-nb" footnote is placed immediately after the Beevor citation at the end of the rape sentence with the additional citations and information that MathFacts has been pressing for. We fettle (knock of the rough edges) that footnote until we are happy with it and then we can address what if anything should be added or taken away from the current rape sentence. As Mathfacts is the initiator of this I suggest that (s)he starts off with adding the footnote modelling in on Battle of Berlin -- PBS (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with the footnote is that majority of readers do not read footnotes, therefore by reproducing the number of 100,000 without needed reservations we will contribute into creation of the myth that the number is more or less known. To say "estimate" is insufficient because for many readers it would mean "100,000±10,000", or even "100,000±100" (btw, that is how Johr was trying to present her results), although in actuality it is "100,000±???????". In connection to that I propose the following:
 * "according to some estimations, 100,000 woman had been raped in Berlin,(Sander&Johr) mostly over a ten-day period, between April 24 and May 3,(Grossman) although is highly unlikely that the actual number will ever be established(Naimark/Grossman, Bird)"
 * The quote from Evans is really useful. It starts with the notion that:
 * "Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly."
 * I propose to follow this advise, and not to quote the sources selectively. Yes, many sources quote the number of 100,000 obtained by Johr&Sander, however, many of them (e.g. Grossman) point out that number per se is not too important, and the issue of rapes should not be taken out of the historic context. I already provided the quotes and I can provide more. In connection to that I support the idea to stop this storm in teacup and again propose to pass to more important things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The allegation that there was extraordinary, widespread mass rape is simply disputed. See Mendkovich's challengeof the claims.

As I said above: I would suggest that if anyone wants to include more details it is handled through a "group=nb" footnote using Battle of Berlin and Battle of Berlin as templates. Get that done first, agree the wording (put it in to the article as a footnote, others can edit it in the usual way) and then lets look at the body of the text. -- PBS (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rapes continued until...
The words
 * "Rapes continued until the winter of 1947–48, when the Soviet occupation authorities finally eliminated the problem by confining the Soviet troops to strictly guarded posts and camps." have been attributed to Naimark, although I am not sure that is what this author means. Although it is natural to suppose that some cases of coerced sex between German women and Soviet soldiers took place during the whole period of Soviet occupation, I doubt if the scale remained on the same level. Other authors (Bellamy, Grossmann, etc) noted that the rapes and looting were intense during first few weeks of occupation and then gradually subsided, and as far as I know, Naimark meant the same. In my opinion, the sentence should be modified (or removed) as misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A mention of Goebbels propaganda
The recent addition:
 * "By contrast, in other areas the Soviets acted more like friends.[113] The looting and rapes were most notorious from April 24 to May 8, Goebbels's fearful foretelling about the threat from the Soviets seemed to be fulfilled"

seems to be hardly acceptable. If we mention the Goebbels' propaganda, we have to reflect other Grossmann's points, as well as the arguments of Heinemann, Bos and other scholars, namely, that it is quite unacceptable to describe the Soviet troops as "barbaric Asiatic hordes", to victimize German women and to forget that at least a part of collective responsibility for Nazi crimes rests on them. Since such a discussion would be too lengthy and too general, it is relevant to more specialised article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing
Paul, the phrasing in this form is unaccteptable:

In many areas of the city, Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in looting, raped an estimated 100,000 women


 * First it states that the Sovit troops raped the women, this does not follow from Johr's estimates
 * Second, while we cannot attribute the rapes to the military, even more so, we cannot attribute them to particular units (rear echelon). Otherwise it sounds like if it was knows which exactly units raped 100000 wonmen.
 * Third, as you yourself mentioned, most readers do not read footnotes, the mention that the estimation is disputed should be in the text
 * Guardian citation is unacceptable, Beevor in his articles distorts even his own data.

--MathFacts (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath
Being bold, I rewrote the Aftermath section. Firstly, I made an emphasis on the fact that according to many authors (e.g. Naimark), the behaviour of the Soviets towards Berlin population was mixed. Secondly, the issue of war time rapes was overemphasized in the previous version, that, according to some scholars, reflects the feminist revisionist vision and is ahistoric. In addition, this discussion is more relevant to the mass rape of German women in general, not to the battle of Berlin (so I added the link to the mass rapes article). Thirdly, the discussion of the discipline issues in the Soviet Army is also too general, so it has only tangential relation to this article. And, finally, the last sentence also discusses the issue in general, so it belongs to the daughter article. Since the section is supposed to discuss the aftermath of battle of Berlin, not the of the soviet occupation in general, I removed all tangentially related materials.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The link to the Guardian newspaper is unacceptable. Beevor in his articles distorts even the numbers and data which he presents in his book. So I am removing the link to the newspaper. Feel free to re-add a reference to the book.
 * The phrase engaged in looting, raped an estimated 100,000 women presents Johr's estimation as a fact, this is contrary to the Wikiperia's rules as we have reliable sources which dispute the data. Besides this, Johr's data does not support that the rapes were by the military.--MathFacts (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This phrase does not present the Johr's estimation as a fact, it clearly characterizes that as "estimation" (and the footnote specifies that these estimations were unverifiable).
 * Re: "The link to the Guardian newspaper is unacceptable" If you will replace the Guardian article with the Beevor's words from his book, I will support that.
 * Please, note that I removed all redundant details that overemphasize the rape and murder issue and are ahistorical. Therefore, your attempts to re-insert Johr's criticism may lead to restoration of these tangentially related materials by other editors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is the Guardian article unacceptable? -- PBS (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Calories, POV, etc.
The sentence:
 * "In June 1945, one month after the surrender, when the Americans arrived in their sector of Berlin they found that average calorie intake of Berliners was low as they were getting only 64 percent of a 1,240-calorie daily ration."

should be re-worded, because it creates an impression that after the Americans came the situation improved. In actuality, according to Naimark, the situation was completely reverse, namely, that the Soviet zone population was fed better than that in the American zone.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree as to any need for rewording. You want to remove reinserted properly cited sentences of a NPOV nature that were in the article by prior consensus. However, I did add the word "noted" and put at the end your inserted sentence, Paul, (that has no consensus at this time) by the single historian, Norman Naimark. I find his contention vague, to say the least; it is suspect along with his other sentence that: "By contrast, in other areas the Soviets acted more like friends." I know of no other historian that would or has gone that far. It seems to be POV and obtuse, but I will wait and see what others here have to say. Kierzek (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, explain what informational load the words:
 * "when the Americans arrived in their sector of Berlin they noted that"
 * are supposed to carry? Do you mean that upon American arrival the situation improved, or that the situation in the American occupation zone was better?
 * Re: "I know of no other historian that would or has gone that far..." Grossmann and Biddiscombe note that Soviet military were very unhomogeneous: barbaric "Asiatic" Russians and well educated, polite and noble "European" Russians.
 * "Even here, however, there was evidence of voluntary fraternization, particularly because Soviet military police (like their French counterparts) turned a blind eye to the formal nonfraternization rules supposed to govern the behavior of Red Army troops." (Perry Biddiscombe. Dangerous Liaisons: The Anti-Fraternization Movement in the U.S. Occupation Zones of Germany and Austria, 1945-1948. Journal of Social History, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Spring, 2001), pp. 611-647)
 * "The Russian was split into good and bad on many levels. Inevitably, there was the drunken, primitive Mongol who demanded watches, bicycles, and women and did not even know that a flush toilet was not a sink. He was generally counterposed, however, to the cultivated officer who spoke German, had memorized Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, deplored the excesses of his comrades, and could be relied on for protection even as he sought to educate his captives about German war crimes. (Incidentally, such "cultivated" status was rarely achieved by American occupiers, who were persistently categorized as primitive and vulgar, even if not so dangerous, since they could supposedly achieve their conquests with nylons and chocolate rather than by rape. As Durand-Wever recalled, there were those who quipped, "The difference is that the American and the British ask the girls to dinner and then go to bed with them, while the Russians do it the other way round.") " (Atina Grossmann. A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers October, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 42-63 )
 * Btw, the latter quote is in agreement with some memoirs of some Russian veterans, who admitted that they raped German women, but always fed them after that.
 * Per WP:BURDEN, "acted more like friends" should stay, because it reflects what the source say: there were two extremes in the behaviour of Soviet occupiers, so just "more friendly" is simply misleading. I am also waiting for your comments on "when the Americans arrived in their sector of Berlin they noted that".
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I got no explanations, so I remove the words about the Americans (as well as the comparison with the American occupation zone).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a trial attorney and have a busy practice. This is the first chance to reply, Paul.
 * "Please, explain what informational load the words." Paul, "load of words" is vague and ambiguous; I don't know what you are trying to convey.
 * "when the Americans arrived in their sector of Berlin they noted that." They noted the poor conditions and circumstances that existed at the time in Berlin.
 * "are supposed to carry? Do you mean that upon American arrival the situation improved, or that the situation in the American occupation zone was better?" You are reading more into it then what the sentence states. It speaks for itself. Again, they noted the conditions that were present, notwithstanding the efforts of the Soviets at that time.
 * Historian A. Stephen Hamilton notes: The US Army found at the beginning of May: no organization to speak of...discipline in the 'garrison' sense of the word was absent...They did note the Polish troops fighting with the Red Army were well-dressed, well-disciplined and their convoys well-organized...
 * Now what is noted about the Germans in early May? Well...the German population seemed desperately 'cowed and frightened'. Most would not talk to the US troops but for a few who stated 'we came too late'. The US troops did say they were well treated by the Russian troops encountered but of course they were not German.
 * What does Beevor note: German Communists who flew into Berlin were even appalled for the most part. Markus Wolf, later the chief of East German intelligence noted that...'all women (were) raped'. Further, "over a million people in the city (with no regard to sector, Paul) had any home at all". Now, lets look at a moment at these other areas Naimark is said to be quoting. Beevor goes are to explain that as bad as the Berliners had it they were "incomparably" better off than their fellow countrymen in East Prussia. For several years "...the land was left devastated...all livestock slaughtered...most women and girls were sent back to the Soviet Union for forced labor for 15 to 16 hours a day. A little over half died over the following two years." I guess that was not one of the happy zones of Naimark's, it is safe to say. I will say that Beevor does state that in Pomerania the Germans were are quite "friendly terms" with the Russians. That is why I had used that term before in the article and one could argue it comes close to Naimark's quote but it is still not the same degree of conveyance of the meaning. Kierzek (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Footnote - Paul, since you removed your one quote by Naimark as to his opinion of the Soviet occupation zone, I agree to your edit as to the "Americans". Kierzek (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "since you removed..." Initially I didn't plan to add this Naimark's quote.
 * Re: "You are reading more into it then what the sentence states." I don't think so. That is how I myself interpreted these words, and, I believe, almost every average reader will do the same. It was a big surprise for me to learn that in actuality the conditions in Wetser occupation zones were not better.
 * Re: "For several years "...the land was left devastated, all livestock slaughtered, most women and girls were sent back to the Soviet Union for forced labor for 15 to 16 hours a day." You should look at that in a historical context. It would be another Stalin's crime if he provided better conditions for the Berliners than for Soviet peoples in Kiev, Minsk, etc.
 * Re: "A little over half died over the following two years."" Does Overmans say something on that account?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "with no regard to sector, Paul" I agree. I am also unsatisfied with current wording, because "in other areas" could be understood "in other sectors". That is not what the sources say: different examples of treatment of the local population were not spatially separated. Please, try to propose your version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul I made some minor sentence changes to address "the other areas" quote. I still believe that "quite friendly terms" is more akin to the actual situation but since no other editors seem to care, "I will let sleeping dogs lie". See what you think. I also moved around a few sentences to try and obtain better reading flow. Further, I added a sentence to show the housing (and problems) affected Germans throughout whole city (not just any one sector). Kierzek (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Looks quite reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not impressed with the development of this section in recent days. Much better that the official position is put first. That the Soviets fed the population and made efforts to re-establish vital services (they could have chosen to do neither). Then the reports of the unofficial actions, rape pillage. But the sentence "In contrast, other Soviets in the city acted more like friends" is nauseating, and should be dropped. Friends do not place other friends under military law! The Germans did not exactly welcome their conqueror with open arms and cups of tea. Any one who has spent any time in a military town will know that there is always tension between the military and the local population, and that is when they are allies or fellow nationals. At the start of the troubles the Catholics did welcome the British army with cups of tea. One of the most interesting reports from early in the troubles in NI was that the British soldiers were told to fraternise with the locals, British young men (soldiers) with more money than the local young men were attractive to local girls, with whom they were very willing to fraternise. Net results were that many of the rioters in the coming months were pissed off young Irish men who resented fraternisation by the British army! So in 1969 were the British acting more like friends then enemies? I guess it depends on ones point of view. -- PBS (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "Much better that the official position is put first." To further separate the official position of the Soviet occupation authorities and the individual actions of Soviet military personnel is a good idea. Obviously, it would be better to tell about the official position first.
 * Re: "Friends do not place other friends under military law!" Correct. Let me point out, however, that the Germans were placed under military law as a result of the very fact of occupation. That was required by Hague convention. By contrast, both rapes and friendly behaviour were not a part of the official policy, but a behaviour of concrete persons. Soviet authorities placed Germans under military law, but individual Soviet soldiers and officers demonstrated unofficial behaviour that was either extremely barbaric and brutal or polite and kind. I don't think to reproduce what the source says may be nauseating.
 * Re: "The Germans did not exactly welcome their conqueror with open arms and cups of tea." Sure. However, we are speaking about Soviet behaviour towards Germans, so the German attitude towards the Soviets is hardly relevant here.
 * One way or the another, if you proposed your own version it would be easier to see what concretely do you mean.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the non-free Reichstag photo permissible in the infobox? take 2
The RfC ended in a stalemate with a straw poll outcome of 5 keep and 6 remove and the image was simply replaced into the article by User:Philip Baird Shearer. I don't think anyone has a problem with it remaining in the article in general since commentary certainly can be made about it, but is it really that important that it be in the infobox? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "The image passes NFCC#8. If you want to discuss other issues, do that in t" - User:Paul Siebert . First could you finish your sentence? And second, could you tell me how it "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding" of the Battle of Berlin and how "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DEMOCRACY I would refrain from paying too much attention to the straw poll results. Not the number of votes but a strength of the arguments matter here.
 * Re: "First could you finish your sentence? " Sorry. I forgot that the length of the comments is limited, so I found that the comment has been truncated only after pressing the "Save" button. I meant, the discussion should be moved to the talk page (what you have already made).
 * Re: "could you tell me how it "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding" of the Battle of Berlin and how "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"?" In my opinion, all of that have already been demonstrated (with sources) on that talk page. Please, re-read the discussion and explain me what is wrong with the arguments already presented there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not paying much attention to the straw poll numbers, just pointing out that the conversation petered out with two opposing points of view and (as far as I can tell), neither side convincing the other and no compromise being made. As you pointed out, the discussion was primarily focused on NFCC#1 (replaceability), not NFCC#8 (significance). What arguments I saw that addressed it's significance near the end of the RfC, were not about the battle as a whole (which should be depicted in the infobox), but about a portion of the article (say the "Battle for the Reichstag" section). VernoWhitney (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The photo is "iconic" as a presentation of not just the "Battle for the (burned out) Reichstag" but as a representation of the end battle as a whole. The end of the war on the Ostfront with the fall of Berlin. Although, I would suggest one should consider further reading on the battle to understand fully the weight of the photo in context. Kierzek (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After a long and detailed RfC where all the issues were discussed there was no consensus to remove it so it should stay until such time as the consensus changes. Given the length and detail of the discussion VernoWhitney do you have anything to add to the points raised that might get other editors to change their opinion? -- PBS (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would first point out that the burden of proof is on you to keep it in, not on others to keep it out. See the last line of WP:NFCC, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created", and note that there was no consensus either way. Continuing, I agree that the picture is iconic, but after having read the article I don't see that this is made clear in the context of the entire battle, and not just the single portion of it, and if further reading is required to understand the weight of the photo, then I believe it's use fails WP:NFCC as it is currently written. I believe that it could be rewritten to show that it is important to the entire battle (there were some sources mentioned in the RfC, but as it stands there's just no explanation of the photograph outside of that single section of the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. For the beginning, I expanded the picture's caption to explain enormous symbolic importance of the event depicted on the photo. BTW, Bellamy clearly calls this photo one of "the most famous of the entire war". --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added part as to iconic flag photo with cites even though I believe the article spoke for itself. The expanded info with cite to the info. box, Paul, was good and hopefully will make this old subject moot. Kierzek (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I believe there are no issues remaining as the additional text and cite now make it clear why it is so significant. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"I would first point out that the burden of proof is on you to keep it in, not on others to keep it out". The proof that it is an Iconic image for the battle was presented from reliable sources in the RfC. This article makes clear what the Battle of Berlin was and there are dozens of sources for it and the sources in the RfC make it clear that this was an iconic image for that battle. Indeed it could be argued it is the iconic image for the whole of the Great Patriotic War, but we do not need to show that. There is no need for additional discussion of the picture as it is an iconic image of the battle and this is not an article on that image. But again this was discussed in the RfC so I am not sure why it has to be repeated.

There is no "you" in "burden of proof is on you to keep it in" there is no consensus to remove it and the reasons for and against removing it were thoroughly discussed in the RfC. You have yet to introduce any additional criteria to make me reconsider my opinion (and I doubt you have for anyone else). VernoWhitney do you have anything to add to the points raised in the RfC that might get other editors to change their opinion? -- PBS (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created"
 * A rationale has been provided. Who decides if it is valid? ( Hohum  @ ) 23:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)