Talk:Lyudmila Pavlichenko/Archive 1

Movie
Sorry, edit it if bad youtu * be/fuPX8mjeb-E (delete spaces, change star to point - wikipedia filter are working...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by APh (talk • contribs) 09:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Education
In the introduction to this article it says she completed her masters degree in history in 1937, but later in the article it says she was in her fourth year of university studies in 1941 when the Nazi's invaded the Soviet Union. The implication is that she was still working on an undergrad degree. Then, later in the article, it says she finished her degree after the war and became a historian. That would imply she was still working on her undergrad degree in 1945. And it says at that same time she was a research assistant for the Soviet Navy. That sort of seems incompatible with taking a full load of college classes, doesn't it? This all seems very muddled. Hopefully someone can track down the actual timeline. Jimindc (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
Text was taken from a "Wikiverse" article wioth it's contents released under the GFDL

March 8 edits
First of all, let me thank the author of the article a lot on such an important and interesting topic.

I've cleaned the text a bit. Changed first name and patronymic according to Ukrainian language. Despite further career, Bila Tserkva and Kyiv were predominantly Ukrainian-speaking in1930s-1940s. Last name is spelled the same in both.

Authors of the article, please clarify the birth date 1916-07-12: was it a July 12, or December 7? Correct if needed. You know, I study English since my 7, but still can't get used to year-month-date. If the author is ex-Soviet, he may not either.

Removed excessive details

Somebody please check the links, categories and "see also" section - I'm no expert in sniping.

BTW:
 * could somebody present this article for some selected anniversaries (as she was the greatest female sniper)?
 * did anybody dig the issue of the "female mercenary snipers" in Chechen war? It is one of the favourite concepts of Russian propaganda there - but nobody seems to have seen any such sniperess (dead or captured).

Best wishes, AlexPU

Revert to russain
Dear Ukrainians, Pavlichenko was russian nationality, according to many sources from official WW2 Soviet's hero lists (like "Герои Советского Союза: Краткий биографический словарь в двух томах. - М.: Воениздат, 1987-1988", to enscript on her tomb stone.

193.169.122.99 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Update
I added a picture and moved the article. Lyudmila Pavlichenko recived more hits on Google than the other name, which would indicate that the current name is the correct one. :) --Kross 00:05, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
Looks suspiciously like http://www.soviet-awards.com/digest/pavlichenko/pavlichenko1.htm where it is attributed to Henry Sakaida... JidGom June 29, 2005 12:18 (UTC)

As long as the wording is not exactly the same, the article should not be a copyright violation. The facts are in the public domain many of which were obtained from original Soviet publications and documents in the case of both articles.

BobW

Nina numbers?
This article claims that Pavlichenko had 309 kills, Nina's article claims the same number.... both claim that each one was the gratest fimale sniper ever... this is a contradiction between articles. Sitenl 00:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've removed that phrase as it sounds suspisciously PoV. 68.39.174.238 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pav-1976-stamp.jpg
Image:Pav-1976-stamp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This her?
Found it on 4chan, I don't know where image credit goes --Pewpewlazers 20:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. The rifle is not of her favorite type. Kulikovsky 05:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree it doesn't look like her, Pavlichenko was definitely not light-haired, and she was never awarded an Order of Glory - so whoever that sniper is, it's definitely not Pavlichenko. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, the same image currently appears as (allegedly?) being Roza Shanina, which would at least fit with the medal she's wearing. So that settles that. :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A song by Woody Guthrie
Woody had a song called "Miss Pavlichenko". If it is worth mentioning, the fact may be added to the article. CopperKettle (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly an important tribute to her, and an important song for solidarity between the U.S and Soviet Union when it was written. Please mention it in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.179.200 (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a few other popular culture references with sources and put them all into a new "Popular culture" section. I also added a few new references. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I replaced the list with a prose paragraph and gave the section a more accurate title. I also removed an unsourced trivia assertion about romanization from the section. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should explain: the romanization is trivial because Pavlichenko's name is Russian/Ukrainian and the Souo Pavlichenko anime is originally in Japanese. It's trivial how their names happen to be transliterated into English. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Material on Pavlichenko
Two anonymous readers have now twice removed a sourced reference to a Japanese popularly-written encyclopedia that describes Lyudmila Pavlichenko. I have reverted both these deletions. The first reader said the source was "creepy" -- an opinion that is simply irrelevant. The second reader said that the source was not "notable," which is also irrelevant. No assertions in the article itself are based on this Japanese source, which does nothing more than prove -- irrefutably, I think -- that Pavlichenko's war record has received some popular notice in Japan. This section concerns international recognition of her war record, and the source is exactly what is needed. It makes no difference whatever if we like like such sources or hate them; our opinions on that issue are irrelevant. The source itself strikes me -- this is only my own opinion and will not enter the article -- as having been written for young readers, adolescents perhaps. That too does not matter, rather as if a book written for adolescents in the United States mentioned her. What does matter is that the source exists and proves that her reputation as a warrior has reached Japan, like it or not. Please do not remove this material again. Timothy Perper (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What does the text say about her? As it stands (I know no Japanese and it looks like the text is entirely in that language) this just sounds like a random name-drop. It does not (on the face of it, again without having seen the text in question) seem to satisfy WP:SOURCES for reliability. NoldorFarce (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It makes very little difference what the text says about her. The text is not being cited in this article for anything it says, but for its mere existence as a Japanese-language book with two pages about Lyudmila Pavlichenko. It might be intriguing to know more about the text, but it won't matter much -- no matter what it says, the existence of this book proves that her fame as a warrior reached Japan. That's all we need. Therefore reliability is not relevant. Now, if this article were citing this book as a source for a specific assertion about her -- for example, something about her military career -- then yes, we would be very concerned about reliability. But the text sentence does not use this source for anything like that, but merely to exhibit a book in Japanese about Pavlichenko, written, as I said, apparently for young people. As a result we no longer need worry about the "reliability" of the book, no more than we need to worry about the "reliability" of whatever Woodie Guthrie may have said about her in his songs. Instead, we need sources showing that this book in Japanese exists, and that Guthrie's songs exist. And the article does not go beyond that level. I personally do not feel that it should go further than that. So it make no difference if the book is "reliable" -- I do not care if what it actually says is trustworthy or not, because that is NOT why it's being cited. Instead, the book proves, as I said, irrefutably, that her reputation has reached Japan. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would still say that it makes a difference what the text says about her, especially for subjective concepts like a cultural presence. ("...any material challenged or likely to be challenged" is the operative phrase.) That said, if the text really does devote two pages to her, I'd be inclined to consider that sufficiently reliable for determining said cultural presence. I'd still remove the in-line mention of MMWME, leaving it to be mentioned as part of the last citation instead. (It's not nearly the icon that Woodie Guthrie was - that comparison's between apples and oranges.) NoldorFarce (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of getting rid of the title of the book in the text -- it's a red herring. So I will remove it. Actually, the issue of Pavlichenko's reputation in Japan is more complex than it seems. One of major sources of information about her in English is work by Henry Sakaida, who is Japanese. My guess is that Pavlichenko fills a role in Japanese culture for the brave warrior woman (the bishojo senshi). But this article is not about warrior women in Japan, and this isn't the place to deal with the question. I will also fix up a misspelling of Sakaida's name I just noticed. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot -- there's another Pavlichenko in Japanese pop culch -- Souo Pavlichenko, mentioned in a preceding comment. I'm not sure what you mean by a "cultural presence" being subjective. The book we're discussing isn't anyone's imagination -- it's very real, solid, and concrete. And it talks about Lyudmila Pavlichenko. That's not my "subjective" opinion, but a fact. Much of popular culture is equally concrete -- not that it's a major issue here, but I don't think I understand your point. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a minor change, adding the word "popular" to a sentence that now reads "She also achieved popular recognition in Japan as a heroine of World War II." I'm not sure the change is perfect, but the idea was to make it clear that we're talking about popularly-written and distributed books, not scholarly works written in Japanese by experts in the history of World War II. If anyone has a better suggestion, great! Timothy Perper (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Somebpdy else, also anonymously, removed the Japanese reference. Just vandalism... I put it back. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They did it again, from 72.160.233.101. I reverted it again, and will continue to revert all such vandalism. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've requested semi-protection for this page. If the people making these changes are new to Wikipedia, you may not know that what you're doing is seriously frowned on. It's called "vandalism" and is not acceptable behavior. If you want to make changes, discuss them here first. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the source is reliable. I don't know how you can determine if it is a valid reference, if you do not know what it is, nor what it says. As far as I can tell, it's some kind of moe dictionary (Google indicates "Moe moe Valkyrie Dictionary") - does that really assert she's popular in Japan? I don't think we can make that assumption.  Chzz  ► 16:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I can answer. The Wikipedia Pavlichenko article does not claim that she is "popular" in Japan, but says instead that she has entered Japanese popular culture. For that purpose, the encyclopedia cited -- which was written for young people -- is an excellent source. I have the book, and know what it is about and says. It's a collection of biographical essays about women who were warriors throughout the world and throughout history. Its mere existence proves that Pavlichenko is part of Japanese pop culch. You are perhaps thinking about something else, that this reference is being used to support certain claims about Pavlichenko's war record, but that's not why it's being cited. Instead, its existence shows that Pavlichenko is known in Japan.


 * This encyclopedia is not the only time a Japanese writer has discussed Pavlichenko. The Japanese historian Henry Sakaida has two articles about her (http://soviet-awards.com/digest/pavlichenko/pavlichenko1.htm).


 * The next point is something for this discussion here, and is not for inclusion in the article itself. It's background instead. Unlike the United States, both Russia and Japan have popular traditions of women warriors. I don't know how much you know about Japanese manga and anime, but both have a large number of women warriors -- Motoko Kusanagi is an example, from Ghost in the Shell, if you're familiar with it. So do Russian traditions, especially those from World War II. I (personally) don't know why Russia and Japan share this view of women -- that they are ferocious warriors and soldiers -- but they do. However, this article is not about "women at war" but is about a Soviet woman sniper, and we can't deal (IMO) with the general issue here. Well, that's OK -- but it's important, I think, for us to understand that Pavlichenko is known in Japan. As proof, the article cites a Japanese encyclopedia discussing her.


 * Many Americans do not believe that girls and women "go to war," and (this I know from my own experience talking to people) many Americans will simply say "I simply CANNOT believe that girls can kill men!" But they can and do -- Sakaida, for example, has written about Soviet women fighter plane and bomber pilots during World War II.


 * So even if Americans doubt that women are ferocious in war, this article should not (IMO) ignore the fact that Japan -- one of the few other nations in the world with a tradition of women warriors -- knows about Lyudmila Pavlichenko also. It's not a major point, but it deserves a sentence.


 * By the way, the Google translation you gave of the title is incorrect. The transliterated title is "Moe Moe Sen Otome Jiten." Moe Moe is the series name, and "jiten" means "encyclopedia." "Sen Otome" means literally "war maiden" -- it does NOT mean "Valkyrie." The Valkyrie, from Norse legend, were not warriors, but the women in this book are.


 * I hope that's clearer.
 * Timothy Perper (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The existence of one non-scholarly book (with a small distribution-run) that mentions the person is not evidence that the person is popular in japan.
 * Henry Sakiada is not Japanese; he is American.
 * Therefore, do you mind if we remove that sentence and reference?  Chzz  ► 11:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object. Here's some background on Sakaida -- he's Japanese-American (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/people/authors/sakaida/index.html). He's also an expert on Japanese military history.
 * You still have not read the article or the material I posted above. The issue is not whether Pavlichenko is "popular" in Japan -- it is whether or not knowledge of her exploits is known in Japan to a popular readership. And the answer is Yes. How many people? I have no idea. How many Americans have ever heard of her? I do not know. Yet Woody Guthrie wrote a song about her, so she too belongs to US popular culture even if you have never heard of her or if most Americans have never heard an (obscure) song Woody Guthrie wrote some 60-70 years ago.
 * My basic reason for insisting on this issue is that the section of the article we're talking about deals with "international" recognition of Pavlichenko's World War II record. "International" does not mean merely the United States, but also includes other nations, like Japan. I have looked for material about her in France and elsewhere, so far without success, but that probably means I haven't looked hard enough. But she IS known in Japan.
 * We are not allowed to remove or delete that fact. Your opinion about the size of the print run of the book cited is not relevant. I don't care how many people have read it. The book exists. The same is true for the Guthrie song -- I don't care how many people have heard it. It was written, and we're not allowed to ignore that either.
 * So leave it be.
 * Timothy Perper (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This comment is useful -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22In_popular_culture%22_content. Although it refers to sections of articles that are explicitly labeled "popular culture," the general principles hold here too. The material we're discussing about Pavlichenko and Japan meets all the criteria mentioned in this comment. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sorry if I sound grumpy about this, but I've been de-vandalizing this page for (it feels like) years. Anonymous people show up, delete stuff, I replace it, they delete it, and the cycle repeats. Now we seem to have a non-issue about whether or not Pavlichenko is known in Japan -- where "known" means there's a popularly written encyclopedia about "war maidens" that includes TWO pages about her -- not a "mention," Chzz, but two pages including a drawing of her. The answer is Yeah, she's known in Japan. How well known? I don't know. I don't know how well known she is in the US. But she's known. So what's the big deal? It's a fact that deserves a sentence in the "international recognition" section, which is where it is. So let's just leave it be, OK? Timothy Perper (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I still maintain that it is not appropriate to say She also achieved popular recognition in Japan as a heroine just because she's mentioned in one single publication. The publication is not an adequate reference for that claim - any more than, for example, one single American book saying that Osama bin Laden was a hero could be used to say he was "popular in America". As for "We are not allowed to remove or delete that fact" - arses to that; this is a wiki, and we can do anything we agree through consensus. If we can't agree, that's fine, we can discuss it, get more opinions, or whatever. But don't claim we cannot remove it, just 'coz it has a reference!  Chzz  ► 14:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, regarding I've been de-vandalizing this page for (it feels like) years. Anonymous people show up, delete stuff, I replace it, they delete it, and the cycle repeats - YES - it's called edit-warring! Instead of just removing it, you should discuss it, and see if others agree/disagree. Removal of content is not necessarily vandalism. The users removing it may have valid points - and if you try talking to them, instead of treating it as vandalism, then a longer-term solution might be possible. If there were an established consensus, with good reasoning, about whether or not we should include that sentence - then you'd be able to point to it, and remove it with good reason. But simply reverting them is not going to solve anything.  Chzz  ► 15:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to discuss this for some time. Look up at the top of this section of the talk page for some examples.

I think you're drawing some false conclusions about the whole question. Bin Laden certainly is part of "popular culture" in the US, but he is not what anyone in their right mind would call "popular." Beyonce is "popular" -- not Bin Laden. But Bin Laden has been the subject of MAJOR US media and political concern. "Popular culture" means "culture known to the masses" or "culture of the people" or some other synonym; it does NOT mean someone would win a popularity contest. Bin Laden fits. Well, with a book like the encyclopedia cited here, I'd guess that more Japanese have now heard of Lyudmila Pavlichenko than Americans have ever heard of her -- the encyclopedia series it's a part of has more than 40 volumes published. So, even if it startles us, Pavlichenko is more part of Japanese pop culch than she is of US pop culch (nobody remembers the Guthrie song anymore). So if we have a section on the international recognition of Pavlichenko, we have to include this (surprising?) fact about Japan. Let me try to say this differently. Given the existence of the encyclopedia cited, could you truthfully say thatNo one in Japan has ever heard of her? I think the answer is No. Please remember -- we're not discussing "popularity" as in how "popular" a movie star is. We're talking about a popularly written book in Japanese that gave her two pages. You can delete that fact all you want, but only at the cost of eliminating a genuine fact about the international recognition of Pavlichenko's war exploits. I do not think we can or should do that. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, trying to get around some edit conflicts here. People who arrive out of nowhere anonymously and delete stuff without explanation aren't editing -- that's vandalism by definition. I, like a good many experienced Wiki editors, immediately restore the deleted material unless its removal has been justified by comments on the talk page. It's not my job to say "Maybe they have a good point." We all have to protect the integrity of the text, and I won't apologize for doing so. However, you have NOT explained why you think that this material about Japan is irrelevant to the article. By contrast, I am trying to defend the inclusion of material that is (I think obviously) directly relevant to a section of the article. Why should it be deleted? IMO, your speculations about circulation in Japan of the source don't dispose of the issue: Here's a Japanese book, popularly written in a series of 40+ volumes, that gave Pavlichenko two pages. The other entries are also mostly two pages long. What else or what more do you want? Why do we need more? Timothy Perper (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, my example regarding Bin Laden was not the best comparison. Instead, let's take a hypothetical example of some lesser-known person from the Western world; say, a small-time serial-killer called 'Fred'; and imagine that over in Japan, there was only one single book that happened to have 2 pages about Fred, portraying him as being wonderful. I hope you'll agree that that would not be acceptable to declare Fred was "popular in Japan".
 * No, I would not say No one in Japan has ever heard of her. I've never claimed that.
 * You've now said, above, that this is a "popularly written book in Japanese". What evidence do you have that this book is popular? If it is, great - we can write an article about it.
 * Anons deleting stuff without explanation is absolutely not vandalism by definition. You really need to understand that. Reverting their edits with no attempt to ask them why they did it is WP:BITE; I think you should (re)-read Vandalism and WP:AGF. "Maybe they have a good point" is exactly what you should have in-mind, when looking at edits by new users. I can understand you re-inserting it once, but not repeatedly, and not without trying to find out the underlying problem. Otherwise this issue will never go away, and I'm quite sure you don't want to be reverting it forever-more.
 * I'm sorry if you don't think I've explained why I think it should be removed; I thought I had, but I'll try to say it once more;
 * I have investigated the claim as best I can, and it seems to me that it is an inadequate reference to say she achieved popular recognition in Japan as a heroine. I believe the sentence should be removed.
 * Timothy Perper, please note, I quite understand that you disagree with that - and that's fine; it's no problem that we disagree. I don't think we'll find any compromise, so the best we can do here is, get some other opinions on the matter. I've asked for some outside opinions, on WikiProject Japan - hopefully people will comment here soon. But, there's no big rush. Best,  Chzz  ► 16:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you suggest some alternatives? So far, the only thing you've said is NO, NO, NO but that isn't constructive at all. You seem much more interested in edit-warring with me, and in creating Major Disputes where there are none -- but you have still not answered the questions "What else or more do you want?" Tell me and everyone else, and working together we might be able to find it. That's especially the case if someone from the WikiProejct Japan can search Google in Japanese for Lyudmila Pavlichenko. I myself am not so familiar with Japanese that I'd try the task (though I might try). You have also confused two separate issues: one is to find better or more complete references, and the other is to delete the sentence completely. Under the rubric of criticizing the reference, you seem to want the entire subtopic to be erased. Why? Is there some agenda here I'm not familiar with? Timothy Perper (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I already tried the searching Google in Japanese thing. I didn't come up with anything from Google Books, assuming the spelling of her name used on Japanese Wikipedia is correct. I'm not surprised that Google doesn't index the Sen-otome Jiten though. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, looking through the web results, nearly all of them seem to be based on the Japanese Wikipedia article. Maybe the Sen-otome Jiten authors used Wikipedia as a source as well? It's a shame I don't have a copy, otherwise I could probably tell you. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary of dispute
(In the interests of WP:TL;DR)

Regarding the sentence, She also achieved popular recognition in Japan as a heroine of World War II. with the reference Moe Moe War Maiden Encyclopedia (萌え萌え戦乙女事典). Tokyo: Eagle Publishing, 2008. pp. 104-105. ISBN 978-4-86146-139-2.

Chzz does not think that reference is adequate for that claim.

Timothy Perper does.

Outside input is very welcome.  Chzz  ► 16:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You haven't explained your reasoning, but maybe that's no longer the issue. This feels like edit-warring with a editor (Chzz) who wants to delete material that has been properly referenced. He hasn't told me what else he wants, so there's nothing I can do about this argument. The reference probably should be to the book, not to amazon.co.jp, but the reference as stated is sufficient to locate the pages in question. I really wish Chzz would answer my questions above. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Timothy, Chzz - I don't have access to the actual book, but I've read the book's description on Amazon.jp, plus some samples from the publisher, and I would say that your assessments of the source are correct. It's a quasi-educational book aimed at younger readers - the "otaku" market. It looks like a non-fiction work, and not necessarily unreliable, but I don't imagine there is very rigorous fact-checking happening, and I certainly wouldn't call it a scholarly work. On this point, you both seem to agree. I think the argument falls down when you look at the specific statement that this reference is supposed to back up. The statement is "She also achieved popular recognition in Japan as a heroine of World War II", but I doubt that this specific claim is made in the source (correct me if I'm wrong). It's not enough for it just to be published in a Japanese book aimed at the popular market - the source must actually claim that she is recognized in Japan, and must also be a reliable source for these kind of statements. If either of these things is not true, then the statement in the article becomes original research, and not permissible in Wikipedia. My personal view is that even if the source did claim that she is recognized in Japan, we should seek confirmation from a more scholarly source before including it in the article. Regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you agree with my assessments of the source. So far as the second point is concerned, we have a tricky little riddle. Here's my solution to the riddle. For readers outside of Japan, like us, the book itself indicates that Lyudmila Pavlichenko has achieved at least some recognition as a war heroine in Japan. The existence of the book itself proves that. Consider the following: if I found a book in English written for teenagers that mentions Lady Murasaki Shikibu and summarizes the story of The Tale of Genji, we can conclude with absolute certainty that The Tale of Genji has at least some recognition in the US. The book itself does NOT have make that claim -- its existence proves the point. It is then a different question to ask how well known The Tale of Genji is in the US. It might be well known; it might not. But it is known, at least to some people. Notice that we could draw the same conclusion if the book were a manga edition of The Tale of Genji translated into English. My own solution to this riddle was to say that this article is about Lyudmila Pavlichenko, not about Japan and Japanese knowledge of Russian World War II soldiers. A comic book in Italian would be enough to prove that Lyudmila Pavlichenko had entered Italian popular culture, at least to some degree. And so on. My sense is that we don't need much more for the point we want to make in this section of the article: that Pavlichenko's wartime exploits have not gone unnoticed in Japan! I don't think we need more than that. I hope that's clearer. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you might be entirely right that the appearance of Lyudmila Pavlichenko in this work means that it has entered Japanese popular culture. The problem is that when you say this in the article without a source that claims as much, that is you doing research - hence me calling it original research. That's not a bad thing by any means, but doing original research is not compatible with Wikipedia, I'm afraid. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not OR. It's just looking up a book. That book mentions Pavlichenko -- and that's all we need to say. If you'd like to change the wording, please do. But I repeat that I do not believe we can simply ignore the fact that she has entered Japanese popular culture. I just Googled Lyudmila Pavlichenko in Japanese -- it's リュドミラ・パヴリチェンコ. I got 2920 hits. You can also search for her in Japanese using Google Images, but there are good many false leads. So, like I said, she isn't unknown in Japan. Maybe one of the Japan experts can help refine this search. But it's not OR -- it's simply searching the web. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read all the material in this thread up above, you'll discover that the sentence in question was a compromise between User:NoldorFarce and myself. If more people want to try their hand at revising the sentence, please do! That's Wiki! But we can't ignore the fact that Pavlichenko is known to at least some otaku and other people in Japan. That fact belongs in this article, not as its main point, but just a mention.Timothy Perper (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, I have other things to do with my life, so I'm outta here. I'll take this page off my watch-list and let it end up wherever it wants to go. THIS discussion isn't going anywhere except into more wiki-arguing. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading this entire discussion, I have to agree with Chzz and Mr. Stradivarius. That Pavlichenko is mentioned in the book is certainly not in dispute, and if a sentence was included stating she had been discussed in that book, that would be fine. However, if the entry in that book does not claim that she has entered the popular culture of Japan, then including a statement in this article stating that is absolutely original research. Therefore, the statement should be removed until such time as at least one reliable source can be found which states this. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 04:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So the women described in the book "achieved popular recognition in Japan"? Nadezhda Durova, Lydia Litvyak, Ama Adhe, Calamity Jane, Boudica, Artemisia II of Caria and so on. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of Lyudmila Pavlichenko, the book, and the publisher. 76,322 books were newly published in 2008 in Japan and the book is not in the 2008 bestseller list. I don't think she is widely known in Japan. It's a fact that Pavlichenko was mentioned in the book, but that does not mean she is notable in Japan. It's OR. Thinking about the number of the books published in 2008, it's also a trivia. I agree with Chzz and other editors and I remove the information. Oda Mari (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Name inconsistency
The lede gives the Ukrainian name transcribed into Latin characters, followed by the Russian name in Cyrillic (but lacking accent marking). The infobox gives the same Ukrainian transcription (modulo Lyud- vs. Liud-) and gives the Ukrainian name in Cyrillic. I feel like it should be consistent between body and box, and that the transcription should match the Cyrillic. Coreydragon (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian Language Page
The Russian version of her page seems to have some (reverse?) bias. I don't think the USA and (non-axis)Europe considered her a 'murderer'. Nostep (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)