Talk:Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)

infiltration

i infiltrated (urban exploration) a part of the memorial (under the "flags"). i've taken photos...it is pretty interesting, i think it is mostly just for maintenance of the memorial, though. if this might be of any use to the article, post in reply here and ill set up a way to see the photos...

Names of the two memorials

I've moved the monument to its own article (Soviet War Memorial, Berlin) and expanded it, but this now raises the question of what we should call the yet-unwritten article about the Tiergarten monument. I've provisionally added links to Soviet Memorial, Berlin-Tiergarten, but realize that this pairing might not be ideal. There seems to be little consistency on the use of names of either, so we might want to move them both to Soviet War Memorial, Berlin-Treptow and Soviet War Memorial, Berlin-Tiergarten or a similar parallel formulation.

The Memorial to Polish Soldiers and German Anti-Fascists, Berlin might also want a less verbose title, but I have to finish writing it first.

 ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 11:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

in de.wp the articles are named de:Sowjetisches Ehrenmal (Tiergarten), de:Sowjetisches Ehrenmal (Treptower Park) and (not yet existing) de:Sowjetisches Ehrenmal (Schönholzer Heide) (but there is already an image: commons:Image:Berlin Ehrenmal Schoenholz.JPG). In Commons there is also a gallery for the Tiergarten memorial: commons:Sowjetisches Ehrenmal (Tiergarten). greetings. --BLueFiSH ✉ 18:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we might want to follow this precedent, although perhaps retaining the "Berlin" in the title as well. I think "Berlin-Schönholz" might do just as well without the "Heide", that's how I've heard it described, and an article about it would be good (I walked past it an hour ago, I should have taken pictures) though the other two I mentioned are more pressing. I might write the Polish memorial article tonight, as I took some pictures a couple of days ago.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomb of the unknown rapist

---

Women of the (East) German wartime generation still refer to it as the "tomb of the unknown rapist" due to the mass rapes by Red Army soldiers in the years following 1945.

---

Now obviously the text is referenced, see for example the end of this article

Therefore I'm a bit alarmed to see a number of IP addresses deleting that information using various motives such as: "It doesn't matter how someone calls a monument to a child savior. Place this info elsewhere"

Now to this latest deletion by Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs), after my request for an explanation at talk. The edit summary was: [1] "You may have problems. It was discussed and explained long before". I have two issues with this. 1. Please be civil. 2. I can not see the issue discussed anywhere, except as the edit summary of the anonymous included above. It is fairly WP:Notability that a monument is called "Tomb of the unknown rapist. To want to remove that information you have to do more than simply delete with some vague referal to "discussed and explained long before". Discussed where?--Stor stark7 ^Talk 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You probably don't get a point why this monument stands in the Treptower Park. It is dedicated exactly to soldiers who managed to keep humanity instead of revenge for what German Nazis did in the Soviet Union . Look, the soldier holds a child who he just saved. Placing such an info disgraces the memory, I dare to say, of these holy people. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Beatle. This is outrageous. Please go Washington Monument article and add its characterization as a "patently phallic structure" referenced to The Economist (see [2]). Then please let us know how it went. And note that that is the monument to a politician, no doubt a positive figure, but still politicians are routinely mocked. This here is a monument of a different kind. All German people I met, and I met many, understand the difference. I hope Wikipedia editors would draw some conclusions. Thanks, --Irpen 08:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously an emotional subject for some. You would have done better by challenging the source, which is the only possible weak point in the inclusion of the sentence, and not some emotional appeal to saintly soldiers.

May I humbly request that we ask for a third opinion, preferably from someone not connected to editing central or Eastern Europe topics?

For the sake of clarity I would like to also answer your post, Irpen. There is a huge difference between a newspaper giving a national monument a derogatory name, and having the entire female population of an occupied nation giving a derogatory name to a monument erected by conquerors and occupiers. So, we have here an alleged "child-saver" monument erected to give tribute to the Russian army. To explain why the population who have to live with this document gave it a derogatory name is easy to understand:

[3]Sadly, it was the weak and defenseless, the villagers and townspeople of Eastern Germany, who first felt the impact of the Soviet army. Pumped up with Zhukov's rhetoric, Soviet soldiers unleashed a campaign of terror in the Eastern German lands of Pomerania, Silesia, and East Prussia that was barbaric even by the standards of an already ghastly war. Not only were Germans abused, terrorized, and driven off their land, but they were murdered in large numbers, and women in particular were made into targets of abuse. German women were raped in unimaginable numbers, then often killed or left to die from their wounds. Some women's bodies were found raped, mutilated, and nailed to barn doors. Hundreds of thousands of women have given testimony to the rapes they endured at the hands of the Russians; historian Norman Naimark has estimated that as many as 2 million may have been sexually assaulted. Worse, most women were victims of repeated rapings; some were raped as many as sixty to seventy times.

[4]In any case, just as each rape survivor carried the effects of the crime with ther until the end of her life, so was the collective anguish nearly unbearable. The social psychology of women and men in the soviet zone of occupation was marked by the crime of rape from the first days of occupation, through the founding of the GDR in the fall of 1949, until - one could argue - the present. The German women's fear of russians and the association of Soviet troops with rape and looting became the central [East] German argument against closer ties with the Soviet Union.

Based on that I see very clearly why a Soviet monument giving tribute to Soviet troops would have acquired a widely used derogatory nickname. I think the German nickname of the monument placed in Germany is notable enough to be included, despite the risk of offending the sensibilities of some people living in a country far away from the monument. However, I don't intend to risk getting sucked into an edit cold-war with "anonymous" editors and others, so I suggest we ask for a balanced review from hopefully neutral, non central/eastern Europe related, sources.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 13:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that something being "referenced" does not warrant the automatic inclusion left and right. Material should not just be referenced, but covered properly. Proper coverage means, among other things, correct choice of articles and avoidance of forking. This has nothing to do with "offending sensibilities" but with maintaining the articles encyclopedic.

I don't see why you brought up the refs above from elsewhere. Soviet atrocities are covered in various article of wikipedia. Some users you know well inject the material indiscriminately in articles left and right. There are bunch of "Soviet occupation", "Soviet repression", etc. forks where the same material gets repeatedly pasted by users into existing articles where it is off-topic or through creation of new fork-articles under POVed titles. Your references to Soviet atrocities above may be related to the articles on such topics. What did you want to prove by using them at the talk page of this article? That Soviets did bad things? We know that and this is not the subject of this discussion. We are talking here about the propriety of adding some questionable stuff into an article about the monument.

I gave you an example of the material being referenced but deemed unsuited for the inclusion in the particular article about an architectulal subject. Phallic references to the Washington monument are very common. We do not include them into there. This here is the exact same situation.

I always welcome asking for more feedback but please avoid some general remarks that are easy to perceive as dismissive to the group of editors because of their ethnic and cultural background. Before this discussion gets an infusion of some users who follow me around, let's resolve this amicably and use some common sense. --Irpen 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should resolve this amicably. Let me respond to you topic by topic.

1. Why did I include the quotes and references to the Soviet troops behavior here at the talk page? Mainly due to the editor who received your support. In particular due to his motivation that "Placing such an info disgraces the memory, I dare to say, of these holy people.". I felt it was necessary to point out that that opinion rimes badly with what scholars think of the those people. Maybe there were some that did nothing bad, and even did good. But the monument symbolizes the whole group, and on average the group did extremely despicable things.
2. Yes, I've gotten to know the certain people you refer to very well, and perhaps I overdid it a bit with the quotes here on the talk page. I've actually started contemplating whether their behavior might not actually have started rubbing off on me, and others, which is a very scary thought. They really should have been permanently blocked a long time ago.
3. I don't see that the comparison you make to the apparent phallic symbolism of the Washington monument is relevant. It is so obvious from the shape that it would add very little value to the reader to know that others have made the connection. To be able to look up which monument the locals in Berlin are referring to when they mention the "tomb of the unknown rapist", on the other hand, is very encyclopedic in my opinion.
4. I did a little digging, after my remark on the weakness of the references, and I believe you are right that it should not be included in this article. But not for the reasons you state. The reason is simply that I've come to the conclusion that for now the sources can only with certainty be used to include the name in relation to the much smaller monument with its tombs, in the center of Berlin: Soviet War Memorial (Tiergarten). see these references: [5], [6]. Apparently Beevor, who is the source for the second link, also refers to the monument in the center of the city, i.e Tiergarten.
5. I hope as you say we can resolve this amicably before the "traveling circus" that seems to be following both of use around , in my case only one since two years or so and in the last few months frequently closely assisted by a second more eloquent one, arrives here. I propose that the alternative name be reinstated in the Tiergarten article, and dropped as not reliably enough referenced in this article. I hope that solution should also be good enough for "Beatle Fab Four" since the Tiergarten monument seems unrelated to any child-savers. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the discussion is a bit old now, but are there any reliable German sources for this alternative name? Yaan (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that this "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" debate is again rearing it's ugly head again. Another page for my watch list. The inclusion of "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" has to be dealt with as per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I find a total of 1 scholar result for that term, and 4 book results (2 of which look like self-published books), and 2 news results. I would remind people that there is enforcement in place due to this Arbcom on subjects such as this, and I won't hesitate to report any user who re-inserts said information, first without discussion, and having some damned solid sources for the inclusion of said material. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE? Certainly not, scholarly cited criticism of a notable monument by local people is certainly notable on its own too. As for WP:UNDUE, you might be concerned about placing this tidbit to a too prominent position. I could offer a compromise -- moving it away from the section on layout, to a section of criticism. How about that? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tomb of the Unknown Rapist, part 2

Women of the (East) German wartime generation still refer to it as the "tomb of the unknown rapist" due to the mass rapes by Red Army soldiers in the years following 1945.[1] [2][3]” is a FACT cited with multiple reliable sources. Because it is only given a single sentence, it is not given an "undue weight." Furthermore, this FACT reflects the attitude of the locals who live with this monument in response to a significant historical event in the aftermath of the Second World War (mass rape of German civilians). It is pretty clear that the only reason why this FACT is labeled "unencyclopedic" and thus removed is because certain editors take this FACT as a personal insult from other editors (the only other reason I can think of is that certain editors are deliberately trying to cover up factual information, but I prefer to assume good faith). It is an objectively stated FACT that gives readers more information of how this monument in German territory is seen by Germans. Perhaps other attitudes Germans have towards the monument can be included, but there is no justifiable reason to continually delete this FACT. --24.240.181.122 (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking for a counterargument I can only offer you this. The material you want to include is hate speech, however sourced it is. There is no limit to the amount of well sourced hate speech from Eastern Europe that is available. It is my view, that we should reject all of it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for being so blunt, but your judgment regarding hate speech has been found rather bad before. I wouldn't rely on said judgment if I was you. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Facts which are uncomplimentary are not hate speech. PetersV       TALK 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Hate speech"? "KGB Internet Troll Squad"? I assume this is satire. Either way, I lol'd. --24.240.181.122 (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course you lol'd, because you are using this article as a WP:BATTLEground. To show your sincerity, please add to Vietnam veteran that they are also known as baby killers, because the results show that this is a term used to describe this group, more than the term tomb of the unknown rapist is used to describe this war memorial...615 book results, 233 scholar results, 1,260 news results, 28,800 web results. Now compare that to tomb of the unknown rapist; 1 scholar result, 4 book results, 2 news results and 132 web results. Once you finish lol'ing, and insert baby killers into Vietnam veteran, then we can discuss inserting a WP:FRINGE term used via an absolute minority of people to describe this monument, which needs to be dealt with as per WP:UNDUE. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the news article referenced, is not on this monument, but is a review of the book which is being used as a reference. So it can't be used as per WP:V. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) I think it's more than fair to mention that while the Red Army reached Berlin first, what was done to its civilian population was reputably documented to be more pillage and rape than to liberate. The Germans didn't erect the monument after all. Perhaps if the Red Army hadn't raped countless thousands of women while making the world safe from Nazism, the nickname might not exist. Let's not whitewash what happened during the liberation of Berlin.
   The challenge is to include the additional content in a manner that the reason for the moniker is quantified and qualified (for example, 5 raped = undue, I have seen estimates of 80,000 to well over 100,000 raped just in Berlin = not undue), and done in a manner which does not denigrate those of the Red Army who made the ultimate sacrifice being an honest soldier defending their homeland. This news article on a book regarding such war crimes presents a NPOV account which concludes with the pejorative in question, note, used by women of the era.
   Arguing against including the dark parts of the Soviet legacy is nothing but whitewashing. That this dark legacy doggedly follows the Red Army is the fault of none but the Red Army and the consequence of nothing but its actions.
   Enter "monument" (denkmal) and "rapist" (vergewaltiger) in German into Google and the very first match is an article about a study regarding the hundreds of thousands of German women raped by the Allies—and we know who got there first. (Google translation here). PetersV       TALK 17:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please reproduce here exactly where it calls this a "tomb of the unknown rapist" or anything remotely similar, because I do believe you have just engaged in a little WP:OR/WP:SYN. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article I referenced. I am providing additional information that should be part of the narrative so that the moniker is placed into context. Explanatory narrative is not original research or synthesis, it is good article writing. PetersV       TALK 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is basically a review of the book which is used as a reference. It's not independent reporting by the DailyTel. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) Further investigation shows tomb/monument/statue/memorial + unknown rapist/rapist Russian/looter in wider use in Germany referring to Soviet era statues the Soviets built to honor themselves, the key word being "rapist." So this is not a phenomenon we can simply delete as hate speech, as pejorative, as denigrating, etc. What makes this instance particularly notable is that it refers to something the Soviets built in the German capital.
   As for the "not independent reporting" it's then simple enough to reference the book not the article. PetersV       TALK 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Living in Berlin, I have not come across the term "tomb of the unknown rapist" or something like that related to this memorial in particular. But I have come across this term in connection with right-wing polemics. And I have come across it in relation with any Soviet war memorial in Berlin, Tallinn and elsewhere. They are apparently also called "Tomb of the Unknown Looter". While they have a ring of truth to them, they seem not to be wildly used in Berlin or elsewhere, at least not today. --Dodo19 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Bitte! I was hoping for some local perspective. The source quoted states the nickname was used most by women of the WWII generation. "Used by women of that generation" and "used in right-wing polemics today" or "kept alive in right-wing polemics today" would appear to be where we might be heading in terms of usage, appropriately sourced. I've seen both "looter" and "rapist" used (and updated my comment above to include looter). Given the historical circumstances, however, I don't see that the nickname can be editorially eliminated as WP:UNDUE. PetersV       TALK 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Let's get constructive

It's not constructive to hold lengthy warm and fuzzy talks without ever reaching a decision. Let's collect different ways to resolve this issue, and then discuss -- and perhaps poll -- on the specific resolutions.

It seems to me that so far, there are three main approaches recommended:

1. we could delete the whole sentence;

2. we could keep the sentence where it is;

3. we could move the sentence to a section of criticism.

Are there any other viable resolutions that should be considered? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Vecrumba seems offers a fourth viable resolution below:

4. move the sentence to a separate article, say Critical views of Soviet war memorials in Germany, and leave only a link to that article -- and perhaps a brief summary -- here.

Are there any other options? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What it boils down to is:

a. Do we mention in the article that Germans consider the Red Army to have been rapists? Makes "occupiers" bland by comparison, or...

b. Do we delete all mention of Germans considering the Red Army rapists because the Germans ostensibly deserved what they got?

as the two camps here appear to be boiling this down to...

a. = Rapists

b. = Liberators

and never the twain shall meet.

   Personally, I believe the most NPOV course here is to record the German appellation in the context of the wider phenomenon. It's not that this particular Soviet monument in Germany was for a rapist and others are considered being for liberators, they all appear to be considered to have been built to honor rapists. PetersV       TALK 23:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that Tomb of the Unknown Rapist can then in fact be included on ALL Soviet war memorial articles? --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am stating that while "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" applies to the Treptower Park memorial, the article narrative should

• provide historical context at least in order of magnitude numbers of women raped, numbers in particular for Berlin if reputably sourced; and
• indicate that this case of "rapist" appellation is not unique among Germans and exists for other Soviet war memorials in Germany.

Rather than something so obscure that mere mention is WP:UNDUE, the pejorative name here is indicative of a far deeper resentment and animosity stemming from countless thousands of acts of rape (which act has since been classified to be a war crime). PetersV       TALK 05:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I should mention before I get denounced for Baltic Russophobia that I didn't come into this discussion with an opinion either way. However, the results of doing a bit of searching in German made it clear that the pejorative Russavia et al. argue against is not WP:UNDUE but is, in point of fact, the proverbial tip of the iceberg. PetersV       TALK 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is WP:SYN. You have taken "Fact1" (fringe view) and mixed it with "Fact2" to reach "Fact3" which doesn't place "Fact1" in the non-WP:FRINGE view category. It's original research in order to get around WP:UNDUE. It's that simple really. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) I'm sorry, Russavia, but your "fringe" is my real phenomenon of German resentment; your "synthesis" is my writing informative narrative--unless you are advocating that it's a German fringe theory that hundreds of thousands of German women were raped by the Red Army. Your Google search limited to the English language which you use to attach "WP:FRINGE" to the pejorative name proves nothing. You appear to want to delete anything indicting the Red Army raped anyone--there are accounts of individual women being raped 60, 70, or 80 times, and, as I said, estimates on the order of 100,000 women raped in Berlin alone, the setting of the monument. Sweeping something like this under the carpet is not an editorial option, to do so would be editorially and, indeed, morally reprehensible. PetersV       TALK 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To the original question, I support moving the pejorative, appropriately referenced, to a criticism section (#3). As to whether there needs to be a more general article on this German phenomenon is a separate discussion. PetersV       TALK 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A good news article on book on the fall of Berlin, 'They raped every German female from eight to 80'. Fringe? Undue? Absolutely not. PetersV       TALK 18:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It is undue because this is an article for the Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park), not Rape of all German women between 8 and 80 by Soviet troops, or other such article. It is an article for the War Memorial. It's undue. Unless more sources can be found which state that it is known as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist, the pejorative is undue as per all the reliable sources out there which discuss this monument, which again is the subject of the article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And this, from RFE/RL:

Beevor says an examination of Soviet archives confirms Gesse's [Soviet WWII war correspondent] allegations. He describes where he got his source material.

A certain amount from the archives of the Ministry of Defense, a large amount from the Central State Archive -- and this is very significant because one has reports from the NKVD chiefs of the army groups of the front advancing on Germany and into Germany reporting back to [NKVD chief Lavrentii] Beria, and these reports are then passed to Stalin stating that Germans interrogated by the NKVD say that virtually every woman left behind in East German territory is being raped by Red Army troops. There is no indication, there is no comment on this. There is nothing to say that this is slander or a lie or anything like that. This is presented as fact."

Evidence from the Soviet archives should be enough to erase doubts about the significance of historical events or the pejorative nickname for the monument.

  (post-edit conflict) To contend including the pejorative is WP:UNDUE is totally unsupported. "Undue as per all the reliable sources out there"? Something which briefly mentions the article isn't going to say everything there is to say about it. Absence of something from a number of sources proves neither non-existance nor insignificance. To contend it does is using syllogisms to advance your editorial viewpoint. PetersV       TALK 18:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Request

Digwuren, what's the page number for the Beevor ref? Or at least the chapter? Once I've verified that this checks out, I don't see a problem with a brief mention of the controversy surrounding the monument. These sorts of monuments often are controversial, and the fact that Beevor has bothered to mention it shows that there remains some sort of local feeling (not surprising, given the vast quantity of women who got raped at the time). One sentence not in the lead is hardly WP:UNDUE, given that your average western reader is more likely to have heard of the monument through Beevor's massively popular book than through any other means. Moreschi (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the book at hand, sorry. Perhaps you could ask Pẽters? 62.65.238.142 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And you are basing "more likely to have heard of the monument" on what exactly? Apart from your own conjecture. So it is highly unlikley that the average "western reader" that they would have heard of the memorial from any of this, or this, or this? And I do recall that Germany is also in the "western world", and it has not been demonstrated that the war memorial is known as the "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist" in German language sources anything past fringe views. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, note, I have pointed out on several avenues that Baby killers is a well-known and widely used term for Vietnam veterans, but not a single editor is game enough to add that to the article, even sources more than demonstrate that it was a widely used term. Why don't we add the sentence..."Vietnam veterans are called baby killers by those opposed to the war", and leave it at that, and see how long it stays there for. Would you support the inclusion of that into that article? Would you insert it yourself? Or do we find a couple of sources (of which there will be some), and put in the articles of Vietnam War memorials that they are known as "Baby killers memorials"? Because this could then be justified by putting the fact that were called baby killers together with a couple of sources which mention the term in relation to memorials, and to hell with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, because the sources imply all but as such anyway. This has nothing to do with whitewashing or anything of the like, but realising that we are discussing an article on the war memorial, not on the war itself. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• In reply to your request, I made a quick check. One source tells: "into the 1950s in East Germany the memorials to Red Army troops were known as the 'Tomb of the Unknown Looter' or the 'Tomb of the Unknown Rapist'" [7]. There are other multiple sources telling the same: [8] [9] [10]. This is notable, because it describes the attitude of "liberated" towards their "liberators". If there are any US memorials in Vietnam, one could include similar materials about the Vietnamese. Yes, this should be included.Biophys (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

President Vladimir Putin laying a wreath to the monument to the Soviet liberator soldier in Treptow Park

I see the article is now apparently fully protected. Can we please have this image added in the gallery on the right below the coins? Thank you. PetersV       TALK 04:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant?

Why this is irrelevant? This is obviously about the Memorial.Biophys (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest protection

I was disappointed to see protection when I wanted to add the excellent picture above. Regarding the issue of contention, I believe a separate "Criticism" or "Controversy" section would be sufficient, with several sentences, to

1. make note of the pejorative nickname
2. make note of its historical basis
3. make note of such pejorative nicknames being applied to other Sovuet monuments in Germany by Germans

To argue that any mention of the nickname is WP:UNDUE is, sadly, not the editorially NPOV option here. Unfortunately, Beatle Fab Four's "holy people" raped nearly every woman in what became East Germany on their way to Berlin, including 100,000 or so just in Berlin. In Germany, calling Soviet monuments "monuments to rapists" is not unique to this monument. If this disgraces the liberation of the planet from Nazism, then so be it, even Soviet records confirm the rapes. History has proven it's possible to liberate territory without raping all its women. That the Red Army failed to do so--and engaged in rape (which has since been declared a war crime) on an unimaginable scale--is their own disgracing of their liberation of Europe. No one here is "disgracing" anything. PetersV       TALK 05:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia is any mention of the dark side of the Great Patriotic War denounced as editors inserting hate speech to demonize holy people. I'm sorry, but that's appropriate for a blog, not an encyclopedia. PetersV       TALK 05:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for cites from 3 sources

3 sources have been added to the article in order to back up the statement regarding the "Unknown Rapist". The sources which have been added are:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=i9F3W2au3IMC
• http://books.google.com/books?id=ZoA6nO6jVkMC&dq=%22Child+of+Madness%22&ei=ZSLLSemtC4L8lQTxtLD4Cg
• http://eur.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/5

In scholarly circles making statements of fact based upon a "snippet" Google search would be so frowned upon, I doubt there would be anyone silly enough to try it in a scholarly setting.

With the first link, page 70 is not available to preview. The second link, there is no preview available. The third link, there is also no preview available.

In order to ascertain that these sources verify the statement, I am requesting that the entire paragraph containing those claims be provided here, so that we can determine that they aren't taken out of context or the like; otherwise they will be removed, as a mere Google snippet view is not verification. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly setting. This link provides sufficient information for verification. How does one take a quote like "Each and every time I talked to Berlin women they referred to Treptow Park as "The Tomb of the Unknown Rapist."" out of context? Martintg (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me mention Problem No. 2 first. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZoA6nO6jVkMC&dq=%22Child+of+Madness%22&ei=ZSLLSemtC4L8lQTxtLD4Cg is a self-published book by someone who is not an expert. Her book is published by Bascom Hill Publishing Group - a company which prints self-published books; this means that Marion Jacobs Kahn's claims is no better than a blog as she doesn't have an expectation of fact-checking. Now back to Problem No. 1, and this also includes her. Unless you have actually sighted the sources personally, how can you cite it in an encyclopaedia? You can't. You have no idea what is mentioned before and after this sentence, and what is before and after could very well indeed change what one is trying to claim in this article. Particularly as one reference is contained in a book entitled "Jokes from the Soviet Period". In fact, all of them could be referencing Beevor. You just don't know, and without providing full quotes as requested, we have no idea what is in these sources, and it is not the way to build an encyclopaedia. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I concede your second point and removed that reference. But regarding your first point, if we apply your standard then 99% of Wikipedia would need to be removed. I don't have personal copies of these books, but someone else may have, so best to tag the references with a {{check}} template. Martintg (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 99% of WP would not need to be removed, as [11] for example is available in its entireity, and hence any assertions from that article which are inserted into WP are able to be checked for verification purposes, and also to ensure that the material is being quoted in context. It is not the case with what you have inserted; what you have inserted was done by yourself without actually checking the veracity and the context of what was included. As 1 of the 5 book sources which reference this alleged slur for the monument is a JOKE BOOK, you don't add materials based upon a small snippet view, and then go and add "check" tags to the material, because that is in effect acknowledging that you have engaged in original research and are adding material to WP which you yourself have not verified before adding to WP. Hence, why I have asked for the entire paragraph to be provided, so that it can be verified firstly that it is in fact this monument that is having that slur attached to it, and secondly so that we can check that it isn't being quote here out of context, given the existence of the joke book, which predates 3 of the 4 other sources, and the other source doesn't indicate it is named by the women. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Russavia, please respect work of other editors and assume good faith. Someone already looked in these sources and included pages. Nothing else is required. If you want to disprove this, you should look at the sources yourself. If find, that citation was a forgery, please state it here. Otherwise, we keep the sources.

I will give editors a week to come up with the requested cites. If not provided in that time I will remove them, and reword the sentence to attribute it accordingly, as mentioned above. WP:SYN on the basis of a snippet view is not verification. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks is more reasonable if anyone is going to go to a library to research. Say, by Monday April 13, that gives people a couple of weekends. BTW, there was a lot of Soviet era dark humor about death in the GULAG, that doesn't mean people didn't die there, doesn't mean what "jokes" said about it wasn't absolutely true. PetersV       TALK 21:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And to the point above, Russavia, just because YOU only see a Google snippet does not mean that everyone else is in the same boat. If someone says they have verified the source, you have to assume good faith. Books still do exist and people still do read them. PetersV       TALK 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am the only one who sees a snippet view, then it shouldn't be too hard to provide the full information here. This is NOT a reliable source, hence why I am calling the bluff of people who claim they have indeed cited the material, so one week should be enough for them to type out the entire paragraph, or provide a scan/screenshot of the page in question in order to demonstrate they have actually cited the source; either online or offline, and not engaged in original research based upon a Google snippet view. Hence why one week is more than enough time to provide the required information. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Biophys makes a good point, the page number has been provided, so there really is nothing more for us to do. I'm satisfied that the snippet view is sufficient for verification, if Russavia disagrees, it is really up to him to look up the source himself and provide the full paragraph for context to prove the snippet view is insufficient. Martintg (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

One cannot request full texts here. One can merely request standard references. Nowhere does WP:V say that any material should be immediately verifiable by every clueless passerby via the internet. If somebody doesn't even bother to find a book, he cannot claim that the information in question is not verifiable. See Wikipedia:RS#Overview: It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet. Any information should be merely verifiable, not verified by everybody, remember. Also mind WP:AGF. As to the other grievances, local perception of the monument is certainly on-topic. Colchicum (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Colchicum on this one (in spirit, not in choice of words). If one doubts any particular referenced section, one should first try to verify it by looking at the book, and then question the validity (based on the results of the verification). It's not that hard to get pretty much any book via an interlibrary loan, and one to two weeks, at least in my experience, is usually more than enough time to do that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:45, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

However, in this instance, the editors are not referencing the materials, they are referencing a Google search of what Google says in those materials. But Google search is not a reliable source, or is it? Snippets of Google searches are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination. i.e. a Google search could return the snippet "XYZ is a moron", but it doesn't show the part before that which says "there is no truth to the accusations that...XYZ is a moron". Could we include into an article on XYZ that he/she is a moron based upon that snippet view?

Let's rip these sources apart using the search that was obviously done: [12]

• The art of truth-telling about authoritarian rule‎ - Page 70 - the only thing that shows is "Locals refer to it as: The Tomb of the Unknown Rapist. Source: Anders Thorsell" -- what locals? what city? This is not verification for this or any other article. For all we know it is referencing an American Vietnam War memorial. The inclusion of this reference is pure WP:OR and I will dispute it being included, as to include it is a gross violation of WP:V and WP:OR.
• The rise and fall of the German Democratic Republic, 1945-1990‎ - Page 10 - states "[ ] East Berlin's Treptow Park, painful memories were reflected in references to it as the 'Tomb of the Unknown Rapist'.12" - what is *12 referencing? What is before the beginning? i.e. [ ]. For all we know it is referencing "Jokes from the Soviet Period‎ - Page 42" - jokes are inappropriate encyclopaedia references
• Making Up Meanings in a Capital City: Power, Memory and Monuments in Berlin (from [13]) - states "... heavy weapons, has historically received rather more attention from the local population, attracting the epithet ‘tomb of the unknown rapist’ or ‘tomb of ..." -- one can assume (i.e. engage in original research) that this is referring to a monument in Berlin, and even if one was to assume correctly it was talking about a monument in Berlin, there are THREE Soviet war memorials in Berlin, and as there are also other War Memorials in Berlin (US, UK, etc), it is original research to link it to this memorial and as per the first ref above, I will continue to dispute it's inclusion in this article, again as a violation of WP:OR.

Again, as this is obviously a fringe term, evident by the non-existence of sources, one of which is a joke book, and also because one of those sources claims that a Soviet war memorial in the British sector also has this "nickname" (this of course being Soviet War Memorial (Tiergarten), as it is in the former British sector of Berlin), there is enough concern as to editors using Google searches as a means of adding unverified information into articles, that it is in the best interests of this article to remove those sources. Remember, the WP:BURDEN is on editors inserting material into articles to verify information, and as clearly laid out above, it is impossible that the editors have verified it before inserting into the article; otherwise the requested cites would have been forthcoming. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your logic, but I disagreed with your position for a different reason. The point is that we cannot prove that the editors who used the sources showing in google books search results only saw and used the snippet view. If we are to assume good faith here, we should believe they did actually see the full texts, cited them, and provided the links to google books as the best available online target (it's better to have a link to a snippet view rathen than to nothing at all, wouldn't you agree?). However, this does not mean you or anyone else cannot ever question the validity of these cites—what it does mean is that to be able to question them you'll have to have something better than logically-enhanced mind wanderings (such as one above). Which brings me back to my original recommendation—find the books, read them, and if they indeed are not acceptable as references, remove the sentences in question. If, in turn, anyone questions the results of your analysis, well, they'll have to get their own copy of the books on their own, after which you can go through the pleasure of discussing both sides' interpretations of the sources on the article's talk page, instead of accusing the other party of what may or may not have been the case of OR/SYN/plain negligence to do a proper research...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:31, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

Ezhiki, actually we can demonstrate they used google book search results only. As Martintg himself has written "This link provides sufficient information for verification.". Additionally, requests for cites from those books have not been forthcoming as requested. I don't know how Martintg could have cited these books, when from what I can tell some of them are not even available within the library system. Additionally, they have used a news source to cite Beevor, which states:

The rape of Germany left a bitter legacy. It contributed to the unpopularity of the East German communist regime and its consequent reliance on the Stasi secret police. The victims themselves were permanently traumatised: women of the wartime generation still refer to the Red Army war memorial in Berlin as "the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist".

This does not even mention WHICH memorial. Beatle Fab Four is correct to remove it as SYN from the article. There is only ONE source which specifically mentions Treptower, and that is a selfpub book. If anyone should re-insert any of this into the article, there is evidence that they have blatantly falsified references. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not taking care of this sooner, but thanks to Russavia's bringing up the topic, that reminded me that I had located a source about the monuments in Berlin which did specifically ascribe "tomb of the unknown rapist" and "tomb of the unknown plunderer" with the slightly smaller memorial in the Tiergarten. I've updated Soviet War Memorial (Tiergarten) accordingly. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  18:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

the misunderstanding of OR

It would be OR if somebody claimed that the statue looks like Lord Flashheart doing pelvic thrusts to him. Citing knowledgeable historians can't be OR in any reasonable sense. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed

I’ll present facts in a very simple manner.

1) There are no references in Beevor’s book on any Soviet war memorial in Berlin.

2) Cochrane, Allan (2006). Making up meanings in a capital city: power, memory and monuments in Berlin. European Urban and Regional Studies, 13(1), pp. 5–24.

http://oro.open.ac.uk/2879/1/Berlinmeaningsfinal.pdf

Citation: “One condition of the departure of Soviet troops from Berlin was that the Soviet war memorials would be maintained, and the Soviet War Memorial in Treptower Park, with its massive Stalinist structures it remains there inviolate, visited by the occasional tourist. A second memorial, on a slightly smaller scale, is more centrally located in the Tiergarten, incorporating tanks and other heavy weapons, has historically received rather more attention from the local population, attracting the epithet ‘tomb of the unknown rapist’ or ‘tomb of the unknown plunderer’.

Hence, by definition Soviet War Memorial in Treptower Park can’t be nicknamed ‘tomb of whatever’.

Case closed.

Other than that, such gossip nicknames represent blatant mockery and must be banned in Wikipedia. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is evidence that Martintg has grossly violated our verifiability and original research policies. He claimed to have read these sources and presented them as written, and given the ambiguity with the news link which doesn't name this memorial by name, 3 out of 5 sources have now failed verification. Additionally, this source which was used seems to have it as a caption, and is in a section on jokes. And it is not even known which memorial it is "joking" about. The other source only has "tomb of the unknown rapist" visible. Given this, there is no reason why we should be assuming good faith with Martintg's sourcing for this material, and it has been removed as a violation of our verifiability and original research policies. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack. Thank you! Martintg (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the evidence, it is not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. Offliner (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

All I said was: "I'm satisfied that the snippet view is sufficient for verification, if Russavia disagrees, it is really up to him to look up the source himself and provide the full paragraph for context to prove the snippet view is insufficient". Russavia's claim that I claimed I read the source beyond what is available in the snippet view is a plain and simple lie. So yes, it was a personal attack. Martintg (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tomb of the Unkown Rapist

Why is this not in the article?2601:806:4301:C100:D42:87C3:A4ED:7808 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024143727/http://www.kunstguss.de/referenzen.php to http://www.kunstguss.de/referenzen.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Refurbishment of the main statue

In the bit about the renovation, it says that the main statue was sent to a Rügen workshop in 2003 for refurbishment, and "It was replaced on May 4, 2004". I suspect replaced should be reinstated (after some polishing), right? 83.254.137.82 (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Protagonist

Protagonist name of this monument is sgt. Nikolay Masalov who saved german 3-old girl in 30 April 1945 under machine's gun fire. Link to russian wiki: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.69.65.198 (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Tomb of the unknow rapist, redux

As the last discussion about inclusion of that "nickname" has happened over 10 years ago, I think a new discussion is due. I agree that there are sources, especially the BBC one; looking at hte BBC source, it mainly gets its in information from a single diary which is cited in the BBC article again and again. I also looked at the geman article and the dicussion about the inclusion of the moniker as "Grab des unbekannten Vergewaltigers" which ended in non-inclusion of said moniker. Despite what has been said above, I would tend to see the continued inclusion as somewhat WP:UNDUE. A mention at Rape during the occupation of Germany might be in order, though. I have removed the "nickname" for the time being; let's do a WP:BRD. Lectonar (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Visual arts, WikiProject Soviet Union, and WikiProject Sculpture have been notified of this discussion. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 15:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: @Lectonar, you may want to make this a formal RfC. I have no horse in this race, it is just half the time when people remove this information from the article, they break references. I just see that there has been multiple discussions about this issue before, there seems to be a few more sources to review in those conversations. If it can be shown through reliable sources that at one point the nicknames were popularly used, then it should be included. However, whether or not it deserves to be in the lede or just in the criticism section is another aspect of this discussion. To this end, I have notified the associated WikiProjects on this talk page. I hope that can get a serious discussion going. Hope this helps! -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 15:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems like undue weight to me, it doesn't seem to be a very well known nickname.★Trekker (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the existing sources, it's definitely not lede-worthy. Alaexis_¿question? 21:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)