Talk:Genocidal rape/Archive 1

Archive 1

Revert, why

I reverted the recent edits not for just one factual mistake but several, changing cited content such as "Instances of mass rape during wartime which have been defined as genocidal rape" to "For examples of genocidal rape," is flat out ridiculous, those particular instances have been defined as examples of genocidal rape. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Consistency and simplicity require that the article refer to as 'genocidal rape' events that fit its definition of same; if the cited works use the same definition, then either the article's definition should change to match them, or the mention of the works should be moved to a section of its own.

If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Beverly Allen?

I see that almost the entire section dealing with Yugoslav wars is based on an author named Beverly Allen. May I ask who is she and what is her relation and knolledge about warfare and sociopolitics in Balkans? Is she the Beverly Allen author of "Bridal Bouquet Shop"? FkpCascais (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

She is the author of Rape Warfare: The Hidden Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia University of Minnesota Press Darkness Shines (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but what is she, a historian? What else did she published related to it? FkpCascais (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Beverly Allen is a distinguished professor in the humanities at Syracuse University and a member of the "Chancellor’s Initiative on Atrocities, Holocaust and Genocide, Syracuse University".[1] She is inarguably a RS. The fact that you were condoning left-wing extremist and propagandist sources here but on the rebound is now questioning editors that base their contributions on reliable scholarly sources points to WP:WIKIHOUNDING and WP:GAMING. Just make sure you do not turn the community against you which will undoubtedly put you in an uneasy position in the event of an AN/I process. Evidence is piling up. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I had already provided a link, I guess FkpCascais had missed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Mass rape of German girls and women relating to world war two

Before, during and after the second world war there were occurrences of mass rape of German women by Poles, Czechs, Jews and Allied combatants. Wouldn't that be the prime example of genocidal rape and should henceforth be mentioned in the article? --165.165.88.208 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source that considers it as such? And here I mean a source that specifically mentions post WW2 Germans as victims of genocide and the well documented and well known cases of systematic rape of German women by Allied soldiers as a case of genocidal rape? Otherwise it would be OR and not includable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Import from Rape during the Bosnian War

The following text, the "Rape as genocide" section of that article, belongs more in this one :

According to Amnesty International, the use of rape during times of war is not a by-product of conflicts, but a pre-planned and deliberate military strategy. The Rape of Nanking has been described by Adam Jones as "one of the most savage instances of genocidal rape". The violence saw tens of thousands of women gang raped and killed. In the last quarter of a century, the majority of conflicts have shifted from wars between nation states to communal and intrastate civil wars. During these conflicts the use of rape as a weapon against the civilian population by state and non-state actors has become more frequent. Journalists and human rights organizations have documented campaigns of genocidal rape during the conflicts in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Liberia, Sudan, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. John Y. Lee argues that a similar tribunal to the ICTY be formed to prosecute the Japanese armed forces for their use of "comfort women" during World War II. The strategic aims of these mass rapes are twofold. The first is to instill terror in the civilian population, with the intent to forcibly dislocate them from their property. The second is to reduce the likelihood of return and reconstitution by inflicting humiliation and shame on the targeted population. These effects are strategically important for non-state actors, as it is necessary for them to remove the targeted population from the land. The use of mass rape is well suited for campaigns which involve ethnic cleansing and genocide, as the objective is to destroy or forcefully remove the target population, and ensure they do not return.

• Smith-Spark, Laura (8 December 2004). "How did rape become a weapon of war?". British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 29 December 2013.
• Jones, Adam (2006). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-35384-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Lee, John Y. (2000). "Japanese War Criminals on the U.S. Justice Departments "Watchlist" of 3 December 1996: The Legal and Political Background". In Stetz, Margaret D.; Oh, Bonnie B. C. (eds.). Legacies of the Comfort Women of World War II. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 152–170. ISBN 978-0-7656-0544-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Leaning, Jennifer; Bartels, Susan; Mowafi, Hani (2009). "Sexual Violence during War and Forced Migration". In Susan Forbes Martin, John Tirman (ed.). Women, Migration, and Conflict: Breaking a Deadly Cycle. Springer. pp. 173–199. ISBN 978-90-481-2824-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--Jerome Potts (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent addition

Appears to have need copypasted from other articles without attribution, and so far as I see none of the New content calls the additions genocidal rape, the formatting of the references should also follow the current harv referencing format. I will revert the New additions, and why use newspaper sources? These atrocities are surely discussed in academic literature? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I added the following sections to the article- Occupied Germany (Mass rape of German women by Soviet, US, British and French soldiers, most prominently the Soviet soldiers during the later stages of World War II) Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army Nanking Massacre (Mass rape against Chinese women in Nanjing (Nanking), then the capital of the Republic of China during the Second Sino-Japanese War by the Imperial Japanese Army) Here's the link to my version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809773938#World_War_II which have been reverted by Darkness Shines in a copyright dispute.

Now the question is that whether copying contents from other Wikipedia articles constitute a copyright violation or not. If not, what is the copyright dispute here. One of my sections - "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" was based on contents from some other Wikipedia articles. About my section "Occupied Germany", I don't know why can it be removed. About newspaper references, for references to mass killings, atrocities, genocidal rapes, the news are first published by newspapers and academic publications cite newspaper references in their publications for these reports. I have not only provided newspaper references, but various other references. If there's any content dispute, be specific and let us know. About my section "Nanking Massacre", it was based on a Report by "China News Digest" - "Grey, Rob; 'Nanjing Massacre-Chpt.X: Widespread Incidents of Rape' http://museums.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm". But I did not copy and paste their report. I have rewritten it myself.

So I request other Wikipedia users to have my 3 new sections - "Occupied Germany", "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" and "Nanking Massacre" reviewed. In my opinion, the details I posted are important for people to understand the atrocities of these genocidal rapes. So I would like to know if all of my 3 sections need to be completely removed. If partial correction is required, you can suggest that. And not all the 3 sections may need to be completely removed. Idel800 (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nanking is already in the article, but you need sources which described the instances you added as genicidal rape. I did mention that above Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Idel800, what you think is irrelevant, none of the sources describe the mass rapes towards the end of WW11 as genocidal rape, see WO:OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Not an edit war. You reverted my post regarding "Mass rape in occupied Germany during later stages of World War II": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809967114 Your comment for reverting my post was, "Mass rape is not genocidal rape, already explained on talk."

But there is nothing I mentioned in talk page regarding mass rape or genocidal rape. Anyway, I disagree that mass rape in occupied Germany was not not Genocidal. Women were raped to death. 240,000 died as a consequences of rape. An estimated 2 million women were raped. The troops forcibly impregnated German women and fathered 400,000 war child. And do not make blocking threats on personal talk page like you did on my talk page, which constitutes an uncivility.

You mention as none of the references identify mass rape in occupied Germany by Soviet Red Army Soldiers and additionally by American, British, French soldiers during later stages of World War II as genocidal rape. But the references don't necessarily to mention the term "genocidal rape" at all. The current Genocidal rape identifies rape in Democratic Republic of Congo, rape during 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh, War in Darfur, rape during Battle of Nanking, rape during Rwandan genocide, rape during Bosnian war, rape during Partition of India as genocidal rape. Now if you review the references for these cases, you will find that none of the references described these cases with the term genocidal rape. So, the term genocidal rape doesn't necessarily to be present in the information sources.

Mass rape in occupied Germany during later stages of World War II is largest mass rape case in human history. The troops raped 2 million women, including little girls to old women. They raped 8 to 80. Some were raped 60-70 times. Many women were raped to death. As many as 240,000 women died as a consequences of rape. The troops forcibly impregnated German women and fathered at least 400,000 war babies. No wonder it was a genocidal rape to terrorize German nation.

Furthermore, your dispute was on my post "The Nanking Massacre: Mass rape, sexual mutilation and murder of Chinese women in Nanking, then the capital of China during Second Sino-Japanese War by Imperial Japanese Army" only. Because your revert note states, "At least one copyvio, http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm" Well, I did not completely copy pasted the article from the source. I wrote most of it my own. But yes, the instances I am talking about are same as the instances mentioned in the document. But the phrasing and expression are different. I am not sure whether it will still cause any copyright violation. Maybe others writers can check and let me know.

But most seriously, you not only reverted my "The Nanking Massacre" post, you also reverted all my other posts those don't fall under your dispute. For example, you reverted my "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" post, "Occupied Germany" post (rape during occupation of Germany) and even my earlier minor edits on "1971 genocidal rape during [[Liberation War of Bangladesh]]". There is no reason you can revert all my edits. I will revert those back except my "The Nanking Massacre" post. I will wait other user's comments on whether my post "The Nanking Massacre" constitute a partial copyright violation or no violation. Idel800 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Mass rape is not genocidal rape,if you revert again you will likely be blocked for your 3RR violation Darkness Shines (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The references in the article most certainly do have mention of genocidal rape, for every instance you mention. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio

There are blatant copyvios in the content being added, I searched and the first instance came from here Stop restoring it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Could you check please, I have googled excerpts from the content added and have found the exact wording for two different parts added on separate websites Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) Overlapping content from the Huffington Post article has been present in Comfort women since at least 2011. The HuffPost article is dated May 2017, so they copied from us rather than the other way around. (2) I was unable to find the content from http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm in any Wikipedia article so it looks like that content is a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Huffpo article were excerpts from a book, I'll check that to see if this is circular referencing, thanks Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I will not be watchlisting this page, so please ping if you need me further. :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Redundancy in the opening paragraphs

As it stands the second paragraph in the header section partially duplicates the first paragraph, but I can't figure out how to fix the problem. Does anyone else want to take a crack at it? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, no idea how that happened Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"Occupied Germany" section and "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" section

I have added 2 sections - "Occupied Germany" section and "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" section [2] in the article. The section "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" is mostly copied from the Wikipedia article Comfort women, but I also provided attribution in my edit note for that. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit [3] where he mentioned the reason in edit note as "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb". No idea where did he discover this article, however, I don't recognize any such article from "Huffington Post" and I did not copy any content from "Huffington Post". No "Huffington Post" article link is used as reference in my edit. And if you check the references used in the main article Comfort women you will find no reference to "Huffington post" either. Anyway, I reverted Darkness Shines's action afterwords [4] mentioning in the edit note that his copyright violation claim is false and that I copied the contents for "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" section from the Wikipedia article Comfort women. However, despite my clear edit note, Darkness Shines again reverted my edit [5] without mentioning any reason in the edit note.

About the rape of German women in occupied Germany, an estimated 2 million German women were raped by Soviet Red Army soldiers in occupied Germany during the later stages of World War II. Women from 8 to 80 were raped, and some were raped 60-70 times. 240,000 women died as a consequences of rape. The women were impregnated by rape and the occupying soldiers fathered at least 400,000 war children.

About the "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army", more than 400,000 women were abducted from occupied countries by Imperial Japanese Army during World War II and were held as sex slaves in military brothels of Japanese army. Approximately three quarters of comfort women died, and most survivors were left infertile due to sexual trauma or sexually transmitted diseases. Beatings and physical torture were said to be common. The women who were not prostitutes prior to joining the "comfort women corps", especially those taken in by force, were normally "broken in" by being raped.

Now can Darkness Shines explain why did he revert both of the 2 sections? If he has any problem with any section (though he did not mention anything in the edit note while making the last revert), why does he remove all the 2 sections? Idel800 (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Comfort women, not genocidal rape, mass rapes following WW11 also not genocidal rape, non if the sources you provide are about genocidal rape. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It is highly unnecessary to ping a user more than once. You have a habit of doing this, and I don't know why. We know who Darkness Shines is, no need to repeat it again and again. Plus, this must seriously annoy and frustrate them when they receive constant notifications. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• If reliable sources do not describe these as "genocidal rape", then it would be original research to include them here. I would also consider that the level of detail in the reverted edit is excessive for inclusion here; though appropriate for the main articles on these topics. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no universal definition of genocidal rape. Some scholars say as mass rape itself is genocidal rape. Some say repeated rape is still a rape, but forced impregnation is something more, as it can be used as a weapon of ethnic destruction and it's a genocidal rape. This is to be noted that a genocide doesn't necessarily to be mass killings. There can be other forms of genocide than killings. Some scholars say as rape is not a genocide. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_rape#Genocide_debate

However, according to the last theory (if rape is not a genocide at all), there is no such thing as "genocidal rape" whatsoever. But concluding whether mass rape is genocide or not is not the business of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should just represent such mass rape cases in the article and will also mention that according to some scholars, these mass rapes are genocide and according to some scholars, these are not.

As in occupied Germany, women were not only raped, they were forcibly impregnated and many women died as a consequence of rape. So by definition, it can fall under "genocidal rape" as it includes both forced impregnation and murders along with rape. Also in the "military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army", three quarter of the women died as a consequence of rape. Japanese Army is responsible for murders of a mass of the women in the occupied countries apart from raping them, which is a destruction for a community. So it can also fall under "genocidal rape".

If you consider the third definition as the standard definition of genocide, which states as rape is not genocide at all, then the entire "genocidal rape" article needs to be deleted.

Here are the criteria for "genocide" as stated in the footnotes of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_rape#Footnotes) -

"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2"

As highlighted above, mass rape meets the above definition of genocide.

Furthermore, the footnotes of the article also states as,

"It is also rape unto death, rape as massacre, rape to kill and to make the victims wish they were dead. It is rape as an instrument of forced exile, rape to make you leave your home and never want to go back. It is rape to be seen and heard and watched and told to others: rape as spectacle. It is rape to drive a wedge through a community, to shatter a society, to destroy a people. It is rape as genocide"

As highlighted above, the above quote further supports that mass rape is genocidal.

The current article "genocidal rape" lists rape during partition of India as a genocidal rape. However, women were abducted and raped during partition of India and were not murdered. But still, it is listed there as "genocidal rape".

The "genocidal rape" article also talks about rapes in Democratic republic of Congo, "In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) it is estimated that in 2011 alone there were 400,000 rapes. In the DRC the genocidal rape is focused on the destruction of family and communities. An interview with a survivor gave an account of gang rape, forced cannibalism of a fetus taken from an eviscerated woman and child murder."

But this is to the noted that the rape being discussed here is internal conflict related rapes in DR Congo and not rapes in occupied country by foreign soldiers, nor rapes during civil war. But due to large number of rapes in DR Congo, it's still listed there as "genocidal rape".

So, if rape during partition of India can be listed as genocidal rape, then mass rape of German women in occupied Germany by Soviet soldiers can be listed as genocidal rape too, as well as mass rapes of women from occupied countries in military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army. In German rape cases, women were forcibly impregnated and in both of the cases many women died as a consequence of rape. In the Japanese military brothels, three quarter of the women died as a consequence of rape. So, the cases meet the definition of genocidal rape.

About lengthy sections, the "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" section I posted was lengthy. But I think the current "genocidal rape" article is too short in length and adding more details on the cases is appropriate for quality purposes. But if required, I can limit the length of "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" section by removing the quotes of the victims I included in the section. Idel800 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read our core policy on original research; particularly the section on synthesis. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean any original research. I meant that there's no universal definition of genocidal rape. According to some scholars, mass rape of women in a community is genocidal rape. Some scholars say as repeated rape is still rape, but forced impregnation is something more (genocidal). Some scholars say as rape is not genocide. However, according to the last theory, no wartime rape can be genocidal, as it states as rape is not genocide. In that case, the entire "genocidal rape" article needs to be deleted. But the "genocidal rape" article already lists cases such as rape during partition of India where women were abducted and raped, but were not murdered. If these cases can be listed as genocidal rape in this article, no wonder mass rape of German women during the later stages of World War II should be listed in the article as well. At least 2 million German women were raped by Soviet Red Army soldiers and 190,000 women were raped by US soldiers. Many women were forcibly impregnated, many died as a consequence of rape. It's the largest mass rape case on record. So, if mass rape of women during partition of India (but not murder) is listed in this article as genocidal, there is no reason the largest mass rape case in history should not be listed in this article. Similarly, in the military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army, women from occupied countries were mass raped and three quarter of them died as a result, some were murdered. So these cases are eligible to be listed in this article. Furthermore, Wikipedia's job will be listing all mass rape cases in the article and then mentioning that according to come scholars, mass rape is genocidal rape, where according to some scholars rape is not genocide. Making a conclusion that "Mass rape is not genocide" is not Wikipedia's business, as it will be an original research of the writer. - Idel800 (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Mass immigration from Middle East and Africa to Europe

WP:NOTCOMPLAINTDEPARTMENT GMGtalk 16:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mostly pregnant women and unaccompanied males, some disguised as unaccompanied minors. For target societies to bear the cost of upbringing. 64.47.214.68 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC) What's that got to do with this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust irrelevant to the topic: according to the source, rape of Jews was discouraged, not encouraged

The lead section mentions the Holocaust as having involved genocidal rape. However, the source for that claim explicitly mentions that at the time, culturally, for a German man to have sex with a Jewish woman was thought to constitute “racial defilement” (Rassenschande) for the German himself, and was thus seen as undesirable. The source gives no mention of the government actively promoting rape, either; as such, the Holocaust should be removed from the list. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Imprecise

First we learn that genocidal rape is part of a genocidal campaign, but then One objective of genocidal rape is forced pregnancy, so that the aggressing actor not only invades the targeted population's land, but their bloodlines and families as well. Well, forced pregnancies technically increase the targeted population, so I guess this requires some explanation -- how certain cultures will shun or even blame the "disgraced" mother, or disavow her child if the father is a foreigner, or how the child will be taunted for their descent etc. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brittbaron.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

Wouldn't it be preferable to simply rely on articles on genocides and ones on rape than to combine them? The article seemingly makes no claim as to why rape would be genocidal. In the case that the aim is to genetically assimilate one group into another, such a claim would be justified, but otherwise it would simply be a case of genocide and rape happening concurrently, similarly to how other aspects of war and life more generally often happen in similar circumstances to one another.

RS distinguish it as a unique phenomenon of genocide campaigns... why wouldn't it exist as an article? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: Uighur genocide

Are there better sources for the inclusion of the Uighur genocide? The first link makes exactly zero references to "rape" or "sexual abuse" bar an acknowledgement that the genocide exists and the latter source mentions it once, and even then reading in-context there is a laundry list of potential offenses that have no degree of elaboration. Neither source supports the definition given in the lead. For those reasons, I recommend we remove both sources and replace them with appropriate ones. I'd also like to note that "[committed on an] enemy during wartime" is an essential part of the definition of genocidal rape per an earlier source. In that case, I say the Uighur genocide does not actually fulfill that definition. If we are to keep it in the list of examples, we are going to have to patch up a lot of the lead. Augend (drop a line) 04:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Missing info in "Rape as genocide" section

Hi Wikipedians, the first paragraph in the "Rape as genocide" is truncated. Tried to fix but couldn't find in "history" when happened. Can anyone please help fix it? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)