Talk:Wartime sexual violence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mass rape merger tag removed

I removed the tag. The tag was placed when both the mass rape and war rape article were stubs. the war rape article has now significantly moved on. Also, mass rape is situation neutral (may occur in war or not), hence it should maybe have its own extensive article, but should not be merged with war rape. regarding the mass rape article: I deleted the content there was (very little and unreferenced). Mass rape is probably closest to gang rape (at least as per the short definition contained in the original article i.e. rape of one victim by multiple people). The rest of the article was on war rape, which now has its own very extensive article.

There was no discussion on the merger before I swung into action, but I think the case is rather clear. Hope thats ok.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Datner" :
  • "55 Dni Wehrmachtu w Polsce" [[Szymon Datner]] Warsaw 1967 page 67 "Zanotowano szereg faktów gwałcenia kobiet i dziewcząt żydowskich"(Numerous facts of cases of rapes made upon Jewish women and girls were reported)
  • "55 Dni Wehrmachtu w Polsce" [[Szymon Datner]] Warsaw 1967 page 67

DumZiBoT (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. I created a multiple link reference using the description with more info. This bot is great. It created many multiple link references. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Useful Sources

• [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SasiSasi (talk • contribs) 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Rape of the Sabine Women" is improper for the "War Rape" article

I just wanted to see what everyone thought of this. I didn't want to remove it without some kind of consensus.

It might seem that the painting "The Rape of the Sabine Women" would be perfect for this article. However, one can see that it is improperly used simply by reading the Wikipedia article on "The Rape of the Sabine Women". First of all, it wasn't a rape in the literal definition. It was a kidnapping. Second, I'm pretty sure Rome wasn't even at war with the Sabines when the "rape" took place.

It seems perfect for this article, but upon closer inspection, it just doesn't fit. It may even perpetuate the misconception that "The Rape of the Sabine women" (the event itself) was an actual mass rape/war rape.

i agree189.27.100.254 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Images - Maps

Hi Timeshifter, I have removed the images (the maps) because they break up the structure of the article (especially at the end and the section the images relate to, there is very little text for a lot of map) and add no value to the article. Apart from the Congo map (which locates a village were war rape occurred), the maps are not even relevant to the text! The images should be relevant to the article (see the Konstantin Makovsky. The Bulgarian martyresses. image).

You say articles are boring without pictures.... but lets face it, this is an article about war rape (and international law), you wont find many entertaining pictures to add to the article (or pictures that are very pleasant for that matter).... but at least we could make an effort and find relevant pictures. I am really in favour of taking the maps out in favour of other images. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a picture book or the sun newspaper... lets improve the content of the article to prevent collective boredom. --SasiSasi (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people are only into text, some are into mainly images, and some like both. I did not say we needed entertaining images. But images definitely help articles. I have over 5000 edits on the Commons, and have seen how images have helped many articles. Plus since I started this article I think I deserve a little slack, no? :)

I did some preliminary clarifications and will be back to improve it more. I am busy right this moment. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

is this some sort of mine is bigger than yours ("I have over 5000 edits on the Commons"), also, nobody has ownership of an article (this is Wikipedia after all).... lets focus on this article. I will take out the Darfur maps as no relevance to the text, apart from that it is Darfur (I will move the two images to the Darfur article, I think they are more helpful there). The Congo maps could be nice, but needs sizing down (we have three maps now!).--SasiSasi (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Neither of us own the article. I only mentioned the number or edits on the Commons to illustrate that I am not making things up about images being used in articles. I agree that the 3 maps in the Congo section were not all necessary for locating the South Kivu Province and the Congo for the reader. So I removed the infobox. There was an image sizing bug or problem with the infobox anyway, and the infobox is in the Bukavu article.

Only one of the Darfur maps helps identify the Darfur region for the reader, so I moved one map to the War in Darfur article. The refugee camp map helps the War in Darfur article more than it helps this article. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved the painting-picture in the international law pre-world war II section. Breaks up the text and until we have more text on pre-world war II history, it appears to be better placed in the international law section.

Could we have a map for Yugoslavia (showing the location of the Bosnian and Kosovo war?) in the history -Former Yugoslavia section. I will also write a major section on Rwanda for the history section, a map relating to the Rwanda genocide could be helpful. Not sure were we would get them from??

Also, can we fix the formatting of the Congo maps so that the text wraps around it? (in the moment the maps break up the text) I am not very good with map formatting....--SasiSasi (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will see what I can do when I get some more time. I moved the maps to the right side. It could use a few more sentences in there to fill out the section some more. See commons:Category:Maps for more maps. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I am planning to add said Rwanda section, and add some additional research to the Congo and Dafur section (in the moment both section are based on only one source, there must be more). --SasiSasi (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) About the more recent removal of the maps. I know that some photos have been added, but maps are still very helpful. More and more articles have small images in almost every section of the article. Maps greatly help geography-illiterate readers.

Plus it was not easy for me to find suitable maps for this article. So other readers may have a hard time locating these maps also. Most people don't have time to look around for maps on Wikipedia. So it helps to put the maps here directly. It really brings the article alive too when there are more photos and maps.

I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration and Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. I also help out at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. More and more editors are learning to appreciate many more images in articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Map request

Hi, could we have a medium sized map of central/east Africa, with Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Darfur/Sudan and Chad coloured in and labelled? These are African countries in which war rape has been reported on a large scale in recent years. All these instances are covered in the article (Chad is still missing) and this overall map would replace the three separate maps we have. The main point of the map would be to illustrate to the reader in which African countries war rape has occurred/is occurring, so it would be a relatively simple map.--SasiSasi (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be difficult to find one map to rule them all. :)

But people might try looking in Category:Maps and the larger inventory of maps at commons:Category:Maps . See also commons:Commons:Map resources, and the section there listing places to request new or improved maps. One can ask also on the talk pages of the many WikiProjects for each area, continent, and country. For example; Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa. See many more at Category:Regional WikiProjects

This template at the top of this talk page is interesting:

There is no problem having multiple maps in the article. Some of the regions are widely separated. Some subregions are small such as South Kivu Province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. So one map may not have the resolution necessary to see smaller areas.

Better and better maps can be found and used in the article. They can replace maps of lesser quality. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing fragment

"Polish soldiers (under Soviet control of army) raped German women in retaliation for war rape of Polish women by Soviet soldiers."

Polish soldiers raped german women for the mass brutal rapes in Poland commited by the German Nazis for example in Concentration Camps. it wa sbig fragment about that before and backed up by books but someone removed that. Polish soldiers raped german women for what Germans did in Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.133.206 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In-text Citation

I was really thrown off by the reference to Kelly Dawn Askin in the opening paragraphs. I've never seen such a case of referring to an author in the article before, and it seems as though her book should be referenced with a real citation. She is not a well enough known figure as to be quoted in such a way. It really detracts from the article and needs review. Saskii (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No nazi rapes?

It seems a little odd to say the least that no nazi rapes are mentioned...and I've been reading about the Goumiers story...it should definitly be included here, but I think that the part about WWII in Europe is incredibly misintentioned, since it's mainly phocused on allied athrocities mainly those commited by Indians and Africans, Red Army, and Poles. I'm not even suggesting that any of these should be taken out...but the fact that theres nothing on any of the countries occupied by Germany....it's just offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.75.3 (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are using words "rapes" and "atrocities" as they were synonyms. What if Nazies just killed women civilians without raping them, no "atrocity"? AFAIK nazies indeed did commit many civilian massacres without commiting mass rapes, which is quite rare in world history. The reason has probably something to do with Hitler being paranoid about mixing "Aryan" blood with inferior races and laws like Blood Protection Law which criminalized sexual relations between Aryans and Non-Aryans. I do not deny that the lack of Nazi mass rape stories is surprising but it is not that they are lacking in Wikipedia and well documented somewhere else. Warbola (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A little known fact is that the Wehrmacht ran brothels with female concentration camp inmates. -Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.102.63 (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they ran brothels doesn't always mean rape. In subsequent interviews of Auschwitz detainees, the detainees stated that they requested to be in the comfort houses, although there are several well refernced cases of Nazi rape. Specifically in Occupied France as a method to punish the FFI soldiers. KwaggaDan (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for War rape

An article that you have been involved in editing, War rape , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. andyzweb (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

12 year old iraqi rape link reference is a broken link

and has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.175.128 (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In medieval Europe, women were considered as an inferior gender by law.???

Yes, of course they were considered inferior in general mentality and that this was mostly due to the Catholic Church. But is the author of this "glorious" statement so kind as to provide us with the text of an actual LAW that says that "women are inferior to men" word for word? Can we please return to primary sources here? This is laughable! No law whatsoever in the middleages stated that women are inferior to men. They were treated as inferior, but that had other reasons. And in Catholic Europe vis-a-vis te Muslim world women were never regarded as property, their fathers, brothers, husbands etc. being initially concieved as protectors. So yes, the result is that women were being trated as inferiors and this was the general mentality but there was no law regulating this it was just something that society instilled in everyone through eucation.... the person who wrote this seriously misundertands medieval people, medieval warfare and medieval realities for that matter. War between the cities of Italy was a totally different kettle of fish compared to war between say... France and England. Some primary sources should do the trick here and some proof that the source cited is actually a secondary source that gives citations and not a third source i.e. an essay that might contain unverified information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.35.173 (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

more to the point, regardless of whether they were considered inferior or superior, what does it have to do with attitudes or laws about war rape? It was a recognized problem, and some efforts were done to combat it. E.g. see Truce of God article about Church efforts to protect women. Also, the chivalrous knight was, ideally, considered to be a protector of women (how that worked in practice is another matter). 76.24.104.52 (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gender/Age Bias?

Hi,

Based on the references given, this article has lead to a natural bias towards women. While it's likely that women are the primary targets in war rape, there is a growing body of literature addressing male and child rape. Could a section be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.196.159 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of citations for Sri Lanka Civil War Rapes

3 out of the 2 citations given for rapes in the Sri Lankan Civil War are from Tamilnet which is a website directly supporting the LTTE which opposed the Sri Lankan army in this war. Such sources are not reliable, and are biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.235.3 (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Every body knows in the world how the journalists in Sri Lanka are treated. Tamilnet could be biased but that doesn't mean whatever they are writing, are totally wrong. Sri Lankan Government even did not allow any International media to witness the War in the last phase. Before coming out with false and targeted allegation on Tamilnet, Sri Lankan Government should be tried for its media freedom.HudsonBreeze (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the removal of this material, at least for now. If there were credible claims of rapes during the Sri Lankan civil war, independent and non-biased sources such as (for example) Human Rights Watch, the UN and other NGOs will have material on this topic which can be used as more neutral references than a pro-Tamil website. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple independent and non-biased sources with neutral references are cited.HudsonBreeze (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Those reports says maybe there was sexual abuse not rape. No proof at all is there to say there was rape. They talk mostly about extra-judical execution. BlueLotusLK (talk)

There are citation on sexual abuse, rape and systematic rape.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Find another reliable source here on Systematic Rape.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

YOur sources are not valid. They are only reporting that there's allegations of rape floating out there. BlueLotusLK (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Read more properly.HudsonBreeze (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just protected this article from editing for 24 hours to stop this edit war. Please note that you're both likely to be blocked if it restarts when the protection is lifted. Please discuss the sources being used here politely. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

All the following raped victims and the massacres associated with the rape incidents are enough to keep a section of "War Rape" on Sri Lanka.

Krishanti Kumaraswamy, Ida Carmelitta, Ilayathambi Tharsini, Murugesapillai Koneswary, Premini Thanuskodi, Sarathambal, Thambipillai Thanalakshmi, Kumarapuram massacre and Vankalai massacre

There are hundreds/thousands of unreported incidents on rape and massacres after rape.HudsonBreeze (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OKay, You can put it in neutral terms. Those cases are good but not the Channel 4 ones. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Individual cases of rape is prevalent in any war, that said we should list all wars fought since time immemorial. The sources list here have not been established as reliable sources and all refer to alleged cases. Until multiple RS stating the war rape was used as a weapon or was commonplace in the Sri Lankan Civil War is added then we should removed this section. Cossde (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You want to say, "Individual cases of rape is prevalent in any war" and then you want to highlight the Sri Lankan Government Minister's Statement that there were no rapes. How is the that logically correct?HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Simple, I am not the said minister, then again how can you say "Sri Lankan State's Military which consists of 99.9 majority Sinhalese" ? Did you gather the statistics you self ? Cossde (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

How many individual cases of rape charges against Sri Lankan Military were investigated and the culprits were punished? Failing on due investigation is an implied acceptance of the Sri Lankan State's Military which consists of 99.9 majority Sinhalese, on the rapes and murders of the Tamil girls and women.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is tricky, but Nick-D already made a good explanation. Also, we really can't rely on this type of media in this case. We need official reports from reliable sources. Until then, disputing each source separately won't make any progress. As an example, reliable credible sources (and reports) determine if it was mass individual militant actions, or military organized actions. Similarly, we can't add the U.S. army here, just because there were cases of rape in Iraq. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone be polite enough to stop the edit-war! ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to the lack of reliable sources I suggest that this section be removed immediately.Cossde (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It should also cool down the warring. I'll give a notice on the involved editors' talkpage to suggest sources on talkpage first :). Help me out if I missed anyone. I actually added Libya on purpose, to show an example of reliability. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this section has caused multiple edit wars and the users adding the information do not seem to have a neutral stance here.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I better put a notice on your page too, jkjk. I just hope that this push helps cool-down the other Sri Lanka articles too. Any suggestions are welcome. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity that the net result of all this edit warring is that the section on Sri Lanka has been completely removed from this article. Rapes committed by the Sri Lankan security forces during the civil war have long been documented by reliable sources such as the UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. A recent report by a UN expert panel noted that "there are many indirect accounts reported by women of sexual violence and rape by members of Government forces and their Tamil-surrogate forces, during and in the aftermath of the final phases of the armed conflict" (paragraph 152). Here are some more reliable sources: UN [2], [3] [4]; AI [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]; HRW [11] [12] [13]; State Dept [14] [15]; AHRC [16]. Those who would hide the crimes committed by the Sri Lankan security forces have done a terrific job here by arguing that there aren't any reliable sources. Well done.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no-such-thing that a section was removed because of an edit-war. Did the edit-warring get my attention? yes; did it resulted of the removal of content, no! If you simply read my, and others', concerns above, you'll notice that we were concerned about the lack of reliable sources. The huge-list-of-sources were inappropriate with the content. Instead of removing the sources and tagging it with "cn", I removed the whole content until someone, like you, brings sources.

Is your sources reliable? yes; can the section be added? yes (but re-written according to the new sources).

The last two sentences are inappropriate, IMO. I'd highly suggest that you scratch them out, if you were assuming good faith. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've taken offence but my comments weren't aimed at you. As for the other editors involved, I know them well enough not to assume good faith when it comes to a subject like this. They are very good at using Wikipedia guidelines, policies and other technicalities to censor material they do not approve of.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted :). I wasn't involved here to judge, but people can't really sense your aims. What's unreliable is unreliable, and Wiki is not interested in having content that's not properly sourced. I'm the one who removed the content, which that disputed my explained judgement here. Anyways, it's kool. I'll add the section myself today (with your sources), then watch the page for a couple days. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I am saddened to see that the sections in argument have been re added based on two sources from AI and HRW. Can some one please explain why such a controversial item can be based on just two reports that lists isolated incidents. At the same time can we take both AI and HRW as RS ? Cossde (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't expect the ghosts of murdered raped victims or the alive raped victims to come and give statements in persons to meet the WP:RS.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? Please tell me it's a joke!!!

Now I know what obi2canibe meant. Their reliability is unquestioned. If you dispute, goto WP:RSN for expert opinion, but I've gave the answer already. Why didn't you dispute the Libyan section I added, which only have one news channel? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you meant by "Now I know what obi2canibe meant" ?

As per the reason why I am wondering if AI and HRW are RS it is because in this section no one who has established that they are RS. Which is the responsibly of editor who is adding said RS. I say this based on the two other wiki articles I came across Criticism of Amnesty International and Criticism of Human Rights Watch. Some of the items described have been inked to Sri Lankan Civil War both directly and indirectly.

Reason why I didn't question the refs on Libya, quit simply they refer to a statement made by the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor. Cossde (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

nm. The reliability usage of an organization is based on its recognition (notability) and authority (credibility). There's criticism on anything in the world, but UN human right and noble prizes is enough to note its credebility. Likewise, the International Criminal Court is also criticized by the United States and Israel, while Israel refused all claims on its military actions. That definitely doesn't affect its credibility.

There's many assumptions, from reliable sources, that accuse the Sri Lanka government to be behind these actions. I've avoided those statement and strictly focused on the individual activities that were convicted, while using it as Al's claims (not facts).

As I said, if you question their reliability, you can ask WP:RSN for addition opinions. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I could see there are no mention of convictions in the articles of AI and HRW only accusations . However, in the context of Sri Lanka AI and HRW reporting and actions have bein questioned as per neutrality (eg: [17]). Due to these kinds of activities what grantees are there about the quality of information. Besides if sources are added it is your responsibility to prove em as RS. Therefore I question the validity of AI and HRW, please give this forum reason to believe at it is a valid RS ! Cossde (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything that is serious to consider in the article to doubt the neutrality of the AI and HRW, even if that so, why those two reputed Human Rights organizations should differ on the context of Sri Lanka?HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

AdvertAdam, please have a look at this article [18], you would understand a different perspective to the argument. Cossde (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Professor Laksiri Fernando - University of Colomb is a Sinhalese and he said at one point in the article[19], "What Amnesty should do in countries like Sri Lanka is to constructively engage with the governments and the civil society sectors without trying to shame, demand or dictate."

Who is he to suggest an Independent Human Rights organisation like AI to work with Sri Lankan Government?HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I see this discussion going no-where. I have tons of sources that Libyan organization disputed it's charges of rape, Israeli and American organization disputing war-related cases...etc. Neutrality of the section was made based on the list of reliable sources above (UN and non-UN official organizations). If you dispute the available sources, WP:RSN is the place to go. If you want to add another view to the section, please provide reliable sources from other official respected organizations, not a apologist view (the publisher). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• AdvertAdam, could you please tell me where you found this list of reliable sources in wikipedia or was it based on your opinion  ? As per the second link provided for you, it was mealy a example of how the these organizations are regarded in some parts of the world. HudsonBreeze has proven a dimension of this situation, who are using such questionable or vague reports to create allegations and prove then to be facts, in the mean time cutting down critics as extremist or racist. Cossde (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is based on my opinion, so can you please keep your comment strict on the content. I'm only came when the edit-war was heated, and will leave as soon as this issue resolves. It's not our duty to investigate what's wrong and right, as we only follow reliable sources. If you dispute the sources, then I told you where to go. The second source does explain the situation in Sri Lanka, which is why it's used.

I still can't get what are you debating about exactly. If you think the section is talking about one side of the story, then bring a reliable source that says otherwise. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My question is simple, what is the basis we are using to establish AI and HRW as RS? Pls explain. Cossde (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If Special Rapporteur's report can be added as RS, why couldn't Professor Laksiri Fernando's article be considered as RS for the impartiality of AI in particular and other HR orgs in general in a Sri Lankan context ? Or is HudsonBreeze argument working one way here, as the Professor is Sinhalese and the Special Rapporteur is Tamil and shows two agendas or information at hand for both? Cossde (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As to your question to if this is a one sided story, [20] is a report on the general situation in the country. It is similar in ways to the reports listed in the article regarding HR issues, however in the case of sexual assault, rape it gives the general situation in the country. Therefore isolated incidents are being used by certain people manumitted this section to create a fauls situation which we must try to avoid. Cossde (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• We're using AI, HRW, in addition to the UN, because they're simply the largest notable organizations that watch human right violations. I really have nothing else to say, if you haven't got the point yet. The RSN is your only place, for the forth time.
• I sign with my signature, which represents my view (only). I only listen to reliable sources. Can't you find better sources than that? Fernando is typically just attacking AI (so what about the UN & HRW report). Also, isn't it published by a Siri Lankan organization, trying to fix their reputation o.O? If it's a full long article, he might get mentioned but he's irrelevant here, according to WP:DUE.
• Sir, your source is a 2010 report on the fake accusations of the 2009 incidents. There's no need to add an incident than say it's fake. The section is now talking about the 1990s only.
• I don't like your "isolated incidence" addition, as it overrides "cases" and "isolated" refers to many means. There was cases in the sources, so it's the proper diction. Please correct it and avoid making alterations to the meaning. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I mealy use the Prof. Fernando article as an example as to how sources considered credible by you are questioned by me as vis vasa. In same case UN report can be questioned as it is by single individual, But I do agree with you on one fact we are not getting any where here. As per the last edit the best I could do is correct incidence with cases. In regard to "isolated" there has been no type of connection formulated in sources provided. They just list "alleged" cases. Furthermore "confirming" refers to many means, including judicial judgment which they are not mandated to provide, only report ! Cossde (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I told you where to go, but you refuse to listen. Let me put an overview to clarify the whole debate.

Wikipedia is not censored, which means that we only follow the sources we have in hand. You can NOT change a phrasing of a sentence and dispute a source just because you think it's false.

The reliability of a source is mostly based on the publisher. The UN source that you said is written by one author, is published by the UN (which means it holds the credibility of the United Nations). The source you're trying to push here is published by a Siri Lankan organization. When three judges says you're guilty, can we accept a statement from a lawyer/judge (who is your brother) that you're not guilty? That's what you're trying to do.

Please stop editing the paragraph without sources. Everything will stay the way it was, until you bring a reliable source that says otherwise. You're making Wikipedia look like a newsletter.

That's how Wikipedia works, so please accept my apologies if you're not satisfied. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Even though I question the accuracy of that sources, I haven't removed them. My intention was to link the statements to the sources. Furthermore you may find these sources regarding AI activity in SL [21] [22] Cossde (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to add on the sources. I've said before that the recent accusations has been disputed, that's why I avoided to even mention them. What's mentioned is related to the 1990s, so you don't have the credibility to dispute them until you bring a proper source, period. We're just immature editors who follow whatever sources we have in-hand. If Al is lying, what about HW and the UN. There's no argument here. I'm reverting to multiple, as you're making it look like a newschannel. I don't need to add a forth link to stop you, as I already added the third to make it multiple. We never know who else accused them. Thanks for your understanding. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Im Sry, about you uncompromising stand. Then again naive actions of people like you who are playing the role of dump beat cops or at least tring to be when people like HudsonBreeze and obi2canibe who are using wiki among other media in the internet and forums to further their own agendas. The cost of it is neither for two, but the people in the receiving end, just like the people who are getting killed in Libya by both NATO bombs and Gaddfi's shells. In that sense these people may want that in Sri Lanka too. Once again we will be dodging bombs, nt suicide bombers from the LTTE but from UN. As a person who has first hand experience of the former, I know the later wont be nice. Cossde (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re tamilnet and similar sources, I agree with previous posters that it's necessary to use alternative sources, albeit with considerable care, when a nation's news reporting is so obviously controlled by a government that was itself a combatant. Also, please see the "Adding some of the notable cases ..." section below re some additional sources from Amnesty International. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding Some of the notable cases of murdered raped victims and the massacres associated with the rape incidents

Krishanti Kumaraswamy, Ida Carmelitta, Ilayathambi Tharsini, Murugesapillai Koneswary, Premini Thanuskodi, Sarathambal, Thambipillai Thanalakshmi, Kumarapuram massacre and Vankalai massacre

Above incidents are not alleged, but the Sinhala dominated Sri Lankan Governments / Sri Lankan Military and the Sinhalese Presidents didn't take enough actions over the decades.HudsonBreeze (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you used one of the used sources? Please clarify, otherwise, it needs to be removed. I think there's many mentioned incidents around the three sources on the article. Please provide them here and don't add anything without reliable sources. I don't need a list, like before. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've posted to AdvertAdam's and Cossde's talk pages about this already, but I'll just repeat it here: The articles that are wikilinked in this section ALL ( at the present moment ) contain Amnesty International cites that directly support their assertions. Those articles thus all meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY. There's probably a policy somewhere or other that says so, but we don't normally require cites present in target Wikipedia articles to be reproduced in the articles that contain wikilinks to them. It'd be ridiculous if we were required to cross-post all an article's relevant cites every time we wanted to link to it or make a straightforward and immediately-verifiable assertion about it. I've restored the section.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also restored our article on Arumaithurai Tharmaletchumi, btw, which was simply redirected back in 2007, and have commented about that restoration on its talk page. That article will need more "eyes on" since I'm on a wikibreak and this isn't my topic area anyway. Finally, I've added Amnesty International cites to that article and its talk page that may also be relevant to this article. Happy editing, everyone: Please try very hard in this controversial topic area to put keep your commitment to Wikipedia and to its five pillars above any desire to champion a partisan interest. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fair to me. It's not my interest either, but I just jumped in when I saw the warring. They should be cooler now, and I have that article on my watchlist, too. Happy WikiBrake :p ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 23:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I have to say trouble finds me even if I want to keep out of these articles. People have tried to remove information about rape in some of the articles, for example Vankalai massacre, even without giving a day or two to find citations which are already in the articles. I will be adding more citations as well. Yes. Ohiostandard enjoy your summer break and Adam thanks keeping an eye on these articles. Kanatonian (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, you're stuck here man :p. At least you can restore the removal with a "cn" tag or "cn & debate" if you get in a fight (as long as it's not such a harsh crazy claim). Gosh, after 8 days of debate here, I just figured out that Sri Lanka isn't in Africa!!! Hehe, any good sources would be nice :). Tnx ~ AdvertAdam ^talk

10,000,000

"Rapes were also committed by German forces on Eastern Front, where they were largely unpunished (as opposed to rapes committed in Western Europe); the overall number of rapes is difficult to establish due to lack prosecution of the crime by German courts, some estimates speak of up to 10,000,000 victims in Soviet Russia alone."

I want this either removed, or changed. My grandfather was not a rapist, and I will not allow such vicious propaganda to slander him and other Germans. There were only 3.9 million soldiers in the Wehrmacht involved in the war in the eastern front (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), so this claim is utterly ridiculous, even more, it is a hate crime to spread such defamation. We can resolve this peacefully, or I will get my friends and you can have a edit war (with the help of proxies if I get blocked). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.148.169 (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not real excited about the sourcing for that statement either. It's simply a PDF file for a publication in German. If Google Translate is accurate, it seems to claim that there were one million Soviet children produced by German rape, and since one tenth of sexual intercourse results in pregnancy, that means ten million women were raped. So two or three rapes per German soldier?! That does seem sketchy. Wknight94 ^talk 02:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

ya those numbers seem extremely unlikely, and I highly doubt the source it came from was accurate also.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I had reverted the change because it was not explained and there was a source, but After looking into it a little more I agree with you, that does seem sketchy. We at least need a much better source. --McSly (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the claim. Just too bold a claim for such a dubious source Wknight94 ^talk 02:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WW2 explained

The big reason Nazi Germany was not pursued much for rape in Nurenberg was simple. The russians were such rapists their crimes stood 100x higher. Especially in the second part of the WW2, when military age white man slavic population ran low due to huge 1941-42 wartime losses, the soviet army was filled by ranks of asians from the central asian soviet republics, guys who weren't any different from the hordes of Dzinghis Khan 700 years beforehand.

They raped all and any women in sight throughout the Baltics, Hungary, etc. The Axis war effort in 1944-45 was mighty reinforced by the population's desire to keep their womenfolk safe from soviet members, even if that meant fighting till Gotterdammerung. Of course they failed eventually and were overrun by the Red Army. In June 1945 the only thing Hungary requested from the USA was syphillis medicine supplies. In August 1945 abortion was legalized in Hungary, the first ever occasion in the country's history.

If the Allies seriously tried to bring up the topic of rape at Nurenberg, the nazis being tried could have summoned several hundred thousand victims of russo-rape in their defence. Thus, the topic had to be swept under the rug. (Say in the russians' defence, that they did summary execute their own soldiers if caught in rape, but the practice was so widespread, that really didn't matter.) 91.82.242.155 (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed "Russian" to "Soviet", where appropriate.

I changed words "Russian" to "Soviet" where appropriate because these words are not synonyms. In the time of WWII not only ethnic Russians took part in the Red Army but also all other ethnic groups of the former Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostja1975 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Protect Our Defenders a RS?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-parrish/rape-in-the-military_b_1434539.html

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a RS: it's an opinion article authored by a member of an advocacy group. As it's not war-specific, material sourced to news reports, scholarly research etc on this topic would probably best belong in the Sexual assault in the United States military article. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion

During the Boxer Rebellion, Chinese Boxers regularly killed and mutilated foreigners, including women and children, but did not rape any foreigner.[67][68]

Western forces of the Eight-Nation Alliance went on a killing, looting, and raping rampage against Chinese civilians. All of the foreign troops, including the American, British, and Japanese, raped women.[69] It was reported that Japanese troops were astonished by the western troops engaging in raping.[70] Thousands of women were raped by the western forces on a massive scale.[71] The Japanese officers had brought along Japanese prostitutes to stop their troops from raping Chinese civilians. A western Journalist, George Lynch, said "there are things that I must not write, and that may not be printed in England, which would seem to show that this Western civilization of ours is merely a veneer over savagery."[72] All of the nationalities engaged in looting. The Russians and French behavior was particularly appalling. Chinese women and girls committed suicide to avoid being raped. The French commander dismissed the rapes, attributing them to "gallantry of the French soldier".[73] American troops also engaged in looting of shops.[74] ==

This entire section of the article needs to be rewritten. It would benefit particularly from the removal of the text that I've highlighted here in bold. Firstly, in an article about war rape I would think that the least important information to include at all would be who didn't rape who during any point in time. Why is that first sentence there at all? Perhaps I should also add in that, incidentally, Bing Crosby also did not rape anyone during the Boxer Rebellion. For that matter, neither did I. Why let a silly thing like complete irrelevance get in the way?

Secondly, why include information on what people of which nationality were looting during an armed conflict? I was under the impression given by the title of this article that it was about war rape and not a laundry list of wrongs committed by people of various nationalities. Unless I'm horribly mistaken and the word "looting" translates at some point to "raping" in English, then this information shouldn't be here at all. It looks to me like someone got a little overzealous with that Diana Preston book cited in this section. For instance, at no point was it stated in that material that women and girls committed suicide in an attempt to avoid rape; the suicides were portrayed as an effect brought on by the general atrocities of war, not specifically caused by an imminent danger of being raped.

Lastly, this section reads like a he-said she-said argument between preschoolers, and any information conveyed here gets lost among the jumbled up presentation and people making edits in an attempt to prove that "this nationality of peoples were raping way worse than that nationality of peoples." This is a Wikipedia article on war rape. Here are a few things that it is not:

• A contest to make any group of people appear like worse rapists than the others.
• A receptacle for information about who didn't commit rape between 1898 and 1901.
• A list of nationalities that looted during the Boxer Rebellion.

While I have to say that raping rampage is a colorful alliteration, so is irritatingly irrelevant information. --Nombies (talk) 09:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

your analogy with bing crosby does not follow, because there is NO RELIABLE SOURCE which says that he didn't rape anyone in the boxer rebellion. The explicit absence of rape commited by a certain side during a war, especially mentioned in reliable sources, is significant and does deserve mention in the article. Its not intended to say " these were the good guys because they didnt't rape anyone"- its notable and encyclopedic. i'm going to restore it.Traquiyon (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion

Section: "Western forces of the Eight-Nation Alliance went on a killing, looting, and raping rampage against Chinese civilians. All of the foreign troops, except the Japanese, raped women.[62] It was reported that Japanese troops were astonished by the western troops engaging in raping.[63] Thousands of women were raped by the western forces on a massive scale.[64] The Japanese officers had brought along Japanese prostitutes to stop their troops from raping Chinese civilians. A western Journalist, George Lynch, said "there are things that I must not write, and that may not be printed in England, which would seem to show that this Western civilization of ours is merely a veneer over savagery."[65] All of the nationalities engaged in looting. The Russians and French behavior was particularly appalling. Chinese women and girls committed suicide to avoid being raped. The French commander dismissed the rapes, attributing them to "gallantry of the French soldier".[66] American troops also engaged in looting of shops.[67]"

Seems to be pointing fingers at certain nations, possible biases, controversial citations 65-67 are pulled form the same article. Could probably use a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideshowmel0329 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

noting a statement a French officer made is not " pointing fingers", and neither is noting the fact that american soldiers looted or the behavour of certain nations is apalling. The first two things i mentioned are undisputed facts noted in the book. The third is the opinion of the oxford educated historian who wrote the book, and it should be rewritten to say "historian Diana Preston states that the russian and french...", but i agree that looting is not relevant to the article, but everything else i mentioned is.Traquiyon (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew (later Jewish) Halacha

There is a reference in the Deuteronomy (21:10) about treating captured women (if beautiful) Albeit the argument was to protect the women - it still shows understanding to the concept: 10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. Later in the Talmud, it was referred to as a bad practice, that was tolerated only to avoid worse consequences. (Hebrew readers way refer to http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%AA_%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A8). Sceasary (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

References

This article is poorly written and poorly documented with no discussion of the theories set forth and if they represent scholarly consensus. Starting with WWII, the article is confused and the appears to be "a game of one upsmanship" in describing the misdeeds of each of the combatant. This is particularly sad given there is no attempt to separate armies that encouraged, or actually had a policy of rape, from crimes committed by soldiers acting individually, which were punished under military or civilian authority. Worse, there is no attempt to compare incidents of rape in occupied territory, by combatants and non-combatants, or with the host nation. Rape is a heinous crime, but there is a huge difference between the crimes of the individual, and crimes encouraged or organized by armies.

Much of the material that I initially added to the article was copied from other wikipedia articles. So, I can't vouch for the accuracy of all the info and references. I haven't taken the time yet to check all of the info against the sourcing. Feel free to do so. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about the "Berlin: the Downfall" citation stating 3.7% of children born in Germany in 1945-46 had Russian fathers. According to an article in the Guardian about the book, it was 3.7% for Berlin. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/23/germany.kateconnolly KingOfAfrica (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.234.145 (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

What about the US Solider in Vietnam?

What about the NVA, and South Vietnamese army too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.234.145 (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This page makes no mention of this. I know from working with our own female soliders that many of them were subjected to rape by there own fellow soliders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.10.250 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also confused by the lack of references to korea/vietnam. Perhaps we should do some homework? 60.240.41.159 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) WookMuff (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

American Whitewashing?

"Despite being told by the Japanese military that they would suffer rape, torture and murder at the hands of the Americans, Okinawans "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy."[58][59] According to Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned."[60]" I find this paragraph to be completely offensive and out of place. What is the point of defending American aggression in an article about War Rape? Besides, according to source 54, the source used to categorically state that Australian soldiers commited rape against japanese women (as opposed to the sentence following it, "It has been claimed that some U.S. soldiers raped Okinawan women during the Battle of Okinawa in 1945.") "Many GIs held the Okinawans in open contempt. Initially such disdain reflected the savage fighting that had taken place in the archipelago in the closing months of the war. Rape became so commonplace in the wake of battle that the Army decreed the death penalty for offenders in an attempt to curb its incidence." So yeah, that happened. WookMuff (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

do you know the difference between "America" and "Australia", comrade? 76.24.104.52 (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You can also start a complete section describing the Imperial Japanese army rape in China, the Philippines, Korea, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.234.145 (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Structure - Women casualties of war

I have moved this section on top. War rape usually refers to women victims (and in some cases children), it appears to me that this should be explained at the beginning of the article (I really have not come across any documented cases of largescale war rape on men…) Also, the way war rape is perceived and punished links to the justification of war, the level or protection awarded to women in peacetime, and notions of how "civilians" should be treated. On top of that war rape may also be used as deliberate military tactic in more recent times. Hence we have to somehow find a structure that manages to capture this dynamic….--SasiSasi (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this piece, war rape is just as frequently committed against men, and in some instances more often than against women (noted in several East African conflicts). The added stigma of an unwanted homosexual experience makes under-reporting even more of a problem than it is for war rape committed by men against women. The article also notes that, for political reasons, an intense focus on war rape committed by men against women often means that male victims of war rape are denied medical and psychological aid. I believe this article should be updated to reflect that male war rape is just as much of an epidemic as it is against women.--MaRoWi (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As a general critique the structure of the "history of ware rape" section is a little off. American attrocites are discussed under two seperate headings for instance. It should be structured according to nation and not regions in the war. KwaggaDan (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's important to point out that 'War Rape' has a significant impact on women, however I don't see how quotes like "Men who rape are ordinary Joes, made unordinary by entry into the most exclusive male-only club in the world" and "War provides men with the perfect psychological backdrop to give vent to their contempt for women" are really necessary. Especially since the quotes are from a feminist explaining the motivations of men in war, something she couldn't possibly have any knowledge of. If you are going to use broad-sweeping generalizations ascertaining to an entire gender and apply them to rape in war, at least put a little effort into showing some research suggested these quotes have any weight to them at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeJuices (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

War rape

I was wondering if anyone would like to work on this article? In about a month, when the semester ends, I can work on this (and I have plenty of resources) but would like some help in sorting it out for WP.Lihaas (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of image

A depiction of Ottoman soldiers raping a woman, 1909.

There was an image of a gang rape that's been added, removed, added again and removed again and I'd like to have a discussion about it before someone adds it again.

Undoubtedly, war rape is terribly brutal crime. But I think this is a pornographic image (image of penetration) that was created in a political atmosphere to depict the depravity of "the enemy" while at the same time being graphic enough for a viewer to be stimulated by the image. The depiction/description of sexual crimes of those one opposes as form of voyeur pornography was common in the 19th century. For example, in the U.S., there was a whole genre of anti-Catholic fictional literature detailing sexual crimes of the clergy that was primarily a form of pornography for a Protestant audience.

I'm all for images that portray the violence of war rape but I think works of art (like the second image) are more appropriate. But there are individuals who have rape fantasies and I think this article, which focuses on the crime, should stay away from images that could be seen as titillating to individuals who find rape exciting. Newjerseyliz (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree - this image does seem to have been created for the purposes of titillation. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Granted its VERY dirty, but its hardly titilating. It seems to pertain to the era of it.

But then again, per below, Im probably just immune to it at the moment.(Lihaas (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)).

Forced Prostitution and Sexual Slavery in War

JJ it looks comprehensive. I think 'survival sex' should be really referred to. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiepring (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

--- I did consider including it, but 'war rape' as defined by the beginning of the article refers specifically to acts of rape committed by combatants, so it doesn't really fit. I've added a reference to the 'survival sex' article aboutyoung Syrian refugee girls who are being sold for short 'marriages' in Lebanon though! Jeremyrobertjones (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Great Job, JJ! Maybe consider putting "women and men" v. "men and women"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masumi_Patzel (talk • contribs) 12:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

--- Hi Masumi, thanks for the advice, but could you elaborate for me? What exactly do you mean? Jeremyrobertjones (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good JJ, just one thing: Do you have a reference for the 20'000 women number in the Bosnian case? Also, in that section the distinctive use of prostitution as a form of war rape is less clear than in your other examples (maybe change the wording a little and use the specific term?). Best, Laura. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracur (talk • contribs) 20:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

--- Thanks Laura. The reference for that entire section comes from the one paper cited at the end, but maybe I'll edit it to make that clearer.

An image might be a good idea? :) Masumi_Patzel (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

--- Good call, I'll have a look around for one!Jeremyrobertjones (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Rape in Contemporary Peacekeping Operations

Hello! What do you think about my contribution on War Rape re: Rape in Contemporary Peacekeeping Operations?

Kindly help me to find journal articles that talk about the motivations for rape as well as the last part on the punitive measures (factors for the difficulty in reporting, judicial and administrative punishment to offenders etc). Most of what I found are from news articles and special reports. So any of your academic resources would greatly help!

Looking forward to hearing from you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiepring (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Jamie, great job in this section! Are you sure the UN peacekeepers are most frequently identified as the perpetrators of rape in peace-keeping missions? What about Private Security Corporations (PSCs) or are they one in the same since they are often employed by the UN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masumi_Patzel (talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Masumi! Yeah usually private security companies are hired by the UN, as we saw in the Whistleblower. Although, your comment is relevant in the punitive measures part: since military's governments are direct members of the UN, there is much more room for the UN to make sure that these offending peacekeepers are punished. This is not the case with the private companies. Even if they are employed by the UN, the private company can just repatriate them and that's it. I might as well substantiate this and put this in my section. Thanks for bringing this up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiepring (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC) .

Hi Jamie, aah, ok! It is very insightful :) Masumi_Patzel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC) .

Jamie, I really like this section, but maybe you should change the title to specifically refer to UN Peacekeeping Operations? Alternatively you could maybe add cases relating to non-EU forces, eg. AU peacekeepers or NATO troops?Jeremyrobertjones (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you JJ! I'll try to dig up some NATO stuff and possibly some EU (because most that I've covered are by peacekeepers from outside of Europe). Maybe NATO forces are more disciplined or are good with hiding their data? Any help would be appreciated. If I don't get to find non-UN links, I'll go ahead with the title change. Thank you! Jamiepring (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the general title is fine, but maybe the sub-title of "Cases of Rape and Sexual Abuses" might be changed to something UN-related since it only refers to UN Peacekeepers. - Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.242.13 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jan for your comment, I have changed the title accordingly because I concentrated only on UN peacekeepers. Thus, Masumi and my previous conversation on private companies won't be included. Too bad there aren't much data out there for these private companies. Kudos to the UN though for having too much data (and critics! haha)! Thank you all for helping me improve my article! Jamiepring (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Rape of Men

Hey Jan! Great job on your contribution! Just a thought: is there a way you can divide your section into parts? Rape on men is relatively underdiscussed so exploit this opportunity Jannyboy! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiepring (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Jan, this is Laura, and also the "hello" above, you have a paragraph on stigmatization, that totally relates to my psychosocial effects section. I didn't mention men there because you covered it, how about having it linked to the part? Maybe a "see also" reference or so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracur (talk • contribs) 20:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. @Jamie: What suggestions do you have in this regard? Division by country? or one part on the phenomenon itself, one on the stigmatization? @Laura: I'll try to do that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.46.113 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be good to add this in a different section instead it being the first topic on the War Rape Wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masumi_Patzel (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well so far, there are (1) incidences of rape, and then (2) explanations of underreporting of rape. What do you think? Also, I still stand by with the rest of the group's recommendation to place your section in some latter parts of the article because it seems a bit surprising or too soon if we see it at the top. Jamiepring (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Also Janny boy, just in case, I think your second paragraph talks about effects that Masumi and Laura are working on, is there any way you can refer to their section for further information? See our conversation in the "Effects" Section of this talk page.Jamiepring (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

One more thing Jan, it really still feels surprising to put your section at the very beginning of the article. I mean come on, War rape is still dominantly about women victims, right, at least in the mainstream? I just feel it's a bit too early to introduce this exceptional case without getting a good grasp of what the mainstream idea was about. Jamiepring (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that "War on Men" is a subsection of "War rape and gender" I think it is fine. I think that the "War rape and gender" section gives a general overview of the topic, so its at the right place. I just don't see another part of the article where my section would fit better -Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.242.13 (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see your point and I can't seem to propose an alternative. And I might be guilty of double-standards if I reinforce the fact that it's surprising to know about the rape of men immediately. Shame on me. Okay then! Jamiepring (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Effects

This is where we edit Masumi and Laura's contribution. As for the first reading, you girls got great stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiepring (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Laura and I created subsection and re-organized the lay out of EFFECTS section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masumi_Patzel (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Great job on the Psychosocial and societal effects, Laura! This topic is such an important aspect to discuss in regards to War Rape. I was unsure what this wording meant to imply: transmitted through make genes. Not sure what make genes means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masumi_Patzel (talk • contribs) 12:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Masumi - it's a typo actually. Will correct it right away. It's supposed to say "male" genes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracur (talk • contribs) 20:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I was reading Jan's section and was wondering if he is overlapping with yours on discussing the effects of male rape? Jamiepring (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jamie! could you quote the the section you are referring to? Masumi_Patzel (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing Masumi, I think its mainly Jan's second paragraph that starts with "The chronic underreporting relates to a particularly harsh stigmatization of male rape victims." Either Jan should have a See Also (then your section). I think I should put this up for Jan to do? Jamiepring (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I also noticed that, see my post on Jan's section above. I just had a look at it again, I think it makes more sense to put the "see also" link in my section, as I cover women and children but not men and people might wonder why - no? What do you guys think? Lauracur (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a matter of style (not content) I don't think it's good wiki practice to put 'see also' with a link to a previous part of the same article - it would indicate that the flow of the article is wrong, no? Jeremyrobertjones (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Yes, that's a good point I guess. Should be added in Jan's section then. Lauracur (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the See Also to another section in the same article may not seem good. Either way, I'm sure that the two sections will sort it out. Jamiepring (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I guess I will not put a "see also" reference then. Right? -Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.242.13 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it, and I think the girls managed it nicely. Jamiepring (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4078677.stm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

History - bias toward modern wars and conflicts involving Western powers

I think the history section suffers from a number of problems.

1. There is only a cursory treatment of the phenomenon of war rape before the colonial era.
2. The section subsequently does not develop any kind of narrative.
3. Coverage is extremely uneven for different times and events.
4. There is a bias for "name events" like the Sepoy Mutiny in India and the Boxer Rebellion in China rather than mention of the longer conflicts of colonization in these countries, and significant instances where war rape was employed on a large scale, such as the Belgian Congo, the conquest of the Americas, Dutch and Portuguese domination of the East Indies, etc.
5. There is a focus on wars and conflicts in which white, Western powers participated in, and predominantly where they were the perpetrators, e.g. there is no mention of war rape carried out by the Viet Cong in the section on the Vietnam War. Obviously war rape by white powers should not be minimized but the article should avoid the connotation that it is a particular white/European trait.
6. There isn't a uniform treatment of incidence rates - in some cases only official reported numbers are listed, in some cases only informed/scholarly estimates, and in some cases both. This can inaccurately create the impression that some armies or countries were less likely to be involved in war rape simply due to incomplete data.

If someone could at least list some WP-quality resources that touch on these issues, the problems could be swiftly rectified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.90.126 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor Coverage of Ancient History and Dubious Sources Cited

I have just removed the following statement, which cites a work of modern, fundamentalist Christian propaganda as its source (itself citing Graeco-Roman propaganda):

"In the near east, victorious armies often dealt in homosexual intercourse with the losers.[87]"

Footnote leading to: ^ Mike Mazzalonga (1996). Gay Rights Or Wrongs: A Christian's Guide to Homosexual Issues and Ministry. College Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-89900-773-2. Retrieved 28 November 2010. As a new editor, I realise my edit might not be maintained. This is an inaccurate statement and inadequate source and does not belong here.

In general, coverage of ancient war rape should be expanded. This article also seems to suggest that rape has only recently become an instrument of war and that ancient 'spoils of conquest' mentality was somehow different; rape has always been an instrument of war and I believe it damages this article's credibility to suggest that 'rape and pillage' in the past was somehow natural or unavoidable (precisely what the article is arguing against for modern war rape). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashurbaniapli (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

undocumented cases?

I am pretty sure there were a lot of rapes during the colonial era. The article make it sound like very few rapes happened during that period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.27.96 (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> UN: 3,600 raped in DRC in four-year periodLihaas (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Rape in Genocide

What about the rapes of armenian and assyrian women and girls by turkish and kurdish troops during the armenian and assyrian genocide?--77.3.68.160 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Broader scope

War rape is very limiting as pertaining, according to the academic literature (Michele Leiby comes to mind here, though Kas Wachala would probably stick to this). A more appropriate title would deal with sexual violence in conflict as not all such sexual violence is rape/penetrative. The current title also then is POV in that it lumps in women as almost all victims and men as perpetrators. The broader definition has more male victims.

Also to be NPOV, dont forget the Abu Ghraib scandal with the female soldier (London, if memory serves, was her name).

Other points that need mention here are the female perpetrators mentioned above and also the child as victim (paedophilia) and child as perpetrator too (esp. in Africa where there are child soldiers.). Per above, I can add to this in a month.Lihaas (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Lihaas: I have proposed renaming the article to 'wartime sexual violence'. See discussion below.Lugevas (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Legal instruments

There is more to the legal instruments as analysed by Wachala. The Geneva Convention was NOT encompassing enough. More recently int'l tribunals have clarified the definition (and had prosecutions). The problem with the Geneva Convention being definitive was victor's justice and that BOITH sides committed it.Lihaas (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My reply on this matter with regard to pedophilia is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

---

War rape → Wartime sexual violence – See below, just made it an official requested move. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Tutelary (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Building upon the 'broader scope' argument put forth by Lihaas, I would like to propose renaming this article from 'War Rape' to 'Wartime Sexual Violence.' This new title would better follow WP:UCN which states that "the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets...major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals" should be taken into consideration when choosing an article title for a topic. If you do a Google search for war rape, and compare it to a Google search of wartime sexual violence, the difference in the two results is very clear. 'Wartime sexual violence' clearly is the preferred phrase for this topic, being used in the titles of scholarly journal articles, research institute reports, and international media. Lugevas (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving the article in the way that Lugevas did is completely inappropriate, which is why I reversed it. Anyone wanting this article moved to Wartime sexual violence (notice the sentence case instead of title case, per WP:Article title) should argue for it through the WP:Requested moves process, and make one or more good arguments for the move, arguments achieving WP:Consensus in that regard, before moving the article. As for citing Google searches, WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:Search engine test should be kept in mind. WP:Requested moves has a requirement that potentially controversial moves should be discussed through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process; it states, "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." Well, I've contested the move; it's now time for those wanting the article moved to the proposed title to do so through the appropriate means. Flyer22 (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, you have created WP:Double redirects, such as with this edit, which need to be fixed (though a bot will eventually fix it if no person does). Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Lugevas, simply changing the title of this section is not the way to start an official move discussion. Follow the instructions at the WP:Requested moves page; for example, a tag (template) that alerts the general Wikipedia community to the discussion should be included. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I noticed yesterday that Lugevas did ask for an outside opinion before moving the article. So he attempted to be appropriate regarding the matter. I think that he simply did not know about the WP:Requested moves aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support I agree that 'sexual violence' is the more commonly-used term, and provides a more appropriate (and broader) scope for this article. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Mild support... this would indeed be a rescope, but it's a pretty logical one. Red Slash 02:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Possibly having a descriptive name like title like "Wartime rape and other form of sexual violence" might be better (see #Discussion section below).-- PBS (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support general idea, oppose specific proposal. "War rape" is admittedly a poor title. "Wartime rape" makes more sense. "Wartime sexual violence" is pointless, politically correct verbosity, and a phrase virtually no one will ever search for. It's already understood that all of our rape-related articles also cover "not-quite-rape" sexual assault, so it's not really a re-scope at all. If we renamed this one to stop using "rape", we'd have to rename most or all of them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, Lugevas's argument to rename the article to Wartime sexual violence is not about political correctness. The terms rape and sexual violence are distinguished in literature on the topics, and the latter term is broader, which is what Lugevas and others above are arguing for -- a title to support the article being broader than rape. Yes, the Rape article covers sexual violence, especially since rape is an aspect of sexual violence. And, yes, the War rape article addresses acts that are not strictly defined as rape. But the point the others are making above is that not all acts of sexual violence are categorized as rape; prime examples are female genital mutilation (though some cultures don't consider it sexual violence) and mutilation of male or female genitals as a form of torture. That again is why we have two different Wikipedia articles to cover those two terms (rape and sexual violence); it's similar to why we also have a Sexual assault article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Meh. If "the Rape article covers sexual violence" but "not all acts of sexual violence are categorized as rape", and we have separate articles rape, sexual assault and sexual violence for no apparent reason, and all overlapping, and we're inconsistently using any of these three terms, seemingly at random, in titles of sub-topical articles like this one, without any rhyme or reason, I think we need to re-examine our entire approach to the broader issue before renaming this particular sub-topical article. As for political correctness and verbosity, yes, I realize that "sexual violence" is, at the cost of all emotional impact, a more clinical and catch-all term. So, I direct you to George Carlin's famous not-at-all-comedy skit about the re-labelling what we used to call "shell shock", first to "battle fatigue", then "operational exhaustion", and finally to "post-traumatic stress disorder", and the dehumanizing nature of such buzzwordy euphemisms, no matter how well they're intended. As Carlin put it, "the pain is completely buried under jargon". He also says of this trend: "Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSp8IyaKCs0  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rape article doesn't cover all aspects of sexual violence; nor should it, since not all aspects of sexual violence are rape, like I pointed out above. We have a Rape, Sexual assault and Sexual violence article for valid reasons -- these terms are distinguished in the literature regarding them, as well as in layman discourse, though rape and sexual assault are also often used interchangeably, and the Rape and Sexual assault articles note the interchangeability factor. But for as often as they are interchangeable, they often are not interchangeable. For example, kissing someone against his or her will or grabbing a woman's breast against her will are labeled sexual assault, but never are they labeled rape, at least when it comes to law and common language; that factor is not just an American thing. As I'm sure you know, there is nothing wrong with articles overlapping, as long as they are not inappropriate WP:Content forks or are otherwise confusing. Many topics overlap, significantly or not so significantly. But, anyway, I can somewhat see why you think that the term sexual violence is, or can be, a political correctness matter. However, I think that the vast majority of people, Americans and abroad, would have trouble calling every sexually violent act (female genital mutilation included, according to some views) rape. Flyer22 (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I understand where you're coming from, but my reasoning is less to do with trying to make titles more verbose and politically correct, and more with trying to model the title after how the concept is referred to by academics, international organizations and the news media. Wartime sexual violence or Sexual violence in armed conflict is usually how the concept is referred to. Furthermore, in consulting WP:TITLECHANGES they state the following:

In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage.

Lugevas (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Strong support per Flyer22: Unless the article starts to become too lengthy, it makes sense to keep this topic under a more generalized term rather than specific ones as is necessary for rape, sexual assault, and sexual violence. We don't currently need wartime rape, wartime sexual assault, and wartime sexual violence; the first two are too specific for the scope of this article. This has little to do with political correctness and who searches for what, and even if it did, redirects exist for a reason. - SweetNightmares 13:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Changing the name has to be considered carefully because there is a danger of using an euphemism. In the more restrained diplomatic language of the early 20th century the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the convention IV (Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land) covered this issue with:

Art. 46.

Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.

More recently the crimes this article coves has been included by both the Geneva Protocol I (1977)

Art 76. Protection of women

1. Women shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected in particular against rape, forced prostitution and any other form of indecent assault.

...

and more recent still the Rome Statute (2002)

Article 7: Crimes against humanity

...

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

...

The Rome Statute covers crimes against humanity (and that means events involving enough people to be designated "mass rape" etc), which if this article is about war crimes, although of passing interest it should not be the focus of the article. Presumably what this article (ought to be) about are the crimes described in Protocol I which rather than using "sexual violence" uses the term "forced prostitution and any other form of indecent assault".

Both of the two more recent treaties emphasise rape. -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Following WP:UCN, the title should reflect what is commonly used in the media, scientific literature, international organizations, etc. The article title should be Wartime sexual violence, or Sexual violence in armed conflict. Just last month there was a high profile global summit on this topic, (see [[23]]) which should give you an idea of this term's usage. Help me understand how the danger of a euphemism follows WP guidelines for article titles.Lugevas (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should this headline "wartime sexual violence" include post-war military occupation?

Some of the incidents such as the U.S. occupation and subsequent presence of country after World War II when the U.S. and the Japanese are now allies. But this headline should indicate that it is only specifically committed in times of war. If the war ends, regardless of military occupation or not, then the war is over. If that's not the case, then we could talk about all of the rapes committed by service personnel in occupation of other nations in peacetime. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight upon Brownmiller

The first section (after the lede) is "Gender" and the first statement made in it is this: "Susan Brownmiller was the first historian to attempt an overview of rape in war with documentation and theory. Brownmiller's thesis is that 'War provides men with the perfect psychological backdrop to give vent to their contempt for women. The maleness of the military—the brute power of weaponry exclusive to their hands, the spiritual bonding of men at arms, the manly discipline of orders given and orders obeyed, the simple logic of the hierarchical command—confirms for men what they long suspect—that women are peripheral to the world that counts.'" I believe that positioning Brownmiller's controversial opinion at the top of the article gives undue weight to it. I move that it be repositioned to the bottom of that section, under the broader and more neutral perspectives that now follow it. Occam's Shaver (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfitting Citation + Factual Error: Rome and Women

First paragraph of "Pre-modern era": One of the first references to the "laws of war", or "traditions of war" was by Cicero, who urged soldiers to observe the rules of war, since obeying the regulations separated the "men" from the "brutes". Conquering the riches and property of an enemy was regarded as legitimate reason for war in itself. Women were included with "property", since they were considered under the lawful ownership of a man, whether a father, husband, slave master, or guardian. In this context, the rape of a woman was considered a property crime committed against the man who owned the woman.

The "source" in question - it doesn't even touch the topic of Rome: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/13/rape-defined-sexual-crime-history

Free Roman women were not owned as property. (Yes, there were restrictions regarding their capacity - but rather comparable to those of minors than to those of slaves/property.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Rome#Always_a_daughter

On the other hand one of the most common ways to become a Roman slave (and therefore property) was through war captivity - for both genders. And slaves were objects (legally) much as animals are today.

Therefore I do not think that war rape by ancient Roman soldiers committed against enemy civilians has anything to do with the legal status of women in particular.

HAL 0.04 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

History isn't my forte, but you're correct that the source does not support that paragraph. I've removed it and added a {{citation needed}} to it. If no one can find anything, the paragraph should eventually be removed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Rape = Terrorism if and only if it is done by the Islamic State

I'm not arguing that the IS rapes aren't horrific, just that, in the big picture, is it really so extreme that it exceeds both Nanking and Rwanda? I don't know how to fix it but this stinks of CIA sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.212.12.111 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to expand a bit on the above, it's pretty easy to find western sources that describe anything that IS does as "Terrorist" and I'm not saying that they aren't, they just seem to get special treatment and it seems to be a coordinated attack on Wikipedia. I already said who I suspect of being the culprit so, well, I leave it to you who read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.212.12.111 (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Who has made the claim that the rapes perpetrated by IS "exceeds both Nanking and Rwanda"? Nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines require that the wartime sexual violence committed by a particular group be worse than that of either Nanking or Rwanda to be notable enough for inclusion. There is quite enough violence associated with IS to seem notable on its own merits, independently of how it may compare to other historical instances. As for it being described as "terrorism," that is how it has been described. We may disagree with that characterization, but it is documented. EastTN (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reconsider Artwork

I am of the opinion that the majority of the artwork in this article romanticises wartime rape. The women are objectified, sexualized and their suffering is not evident. It is not clear that the men are not taking what they deserve. It's all a little (a lot) too pretty. Interestingly, all these paintings and drawings are by men. Perhaps I can find some "rape artwork" by women that depict its savagery more accurately. 43hellokitty21 (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. I am a new editor and don't know how to remove or change artwork, but every single work of art in this article is completely inappropriate to the topic, particularly the heading image--as well as failing to illustrate anything about the realities of war rape. Can these be removed? User:Ashurbaniapli

Ashurbaniapli (talk · contribs), like I stated when reverting you, that is your opinion; see WP:Not censored and WP:Offensive material. Flyer22 (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as an issue that falls under either the anti-censorship guidelines or the offensive material guidelines (any of these images would be appropriate under articles about orientalism, erotic painting, narrative painting, or even a subsection of this article about war rape in propaganda), but is rather a question of whether an article on this topic is best illustrated by historically inaccurate nineteenth century artwork which clearly glamourise and sexualise victims of war rape. These images are also not contextualised in any way that points this out, or that points out which are propaganda. The photographs that come later in the article do a far better job of illustrating the article without glamourising war rape or sexualising victims of it. Ashurbaniapli — Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ashurbaniapli (talk · contribs), you apparently find the artwork objectionable and/or offensive for this article; I don't, I don't see the issues you see. So I pointed you to the WP:Offensive material guideline. And as for pointing you to the WP:Censored policy... Well, you are trying to censor these images as far as this article goes based on you finding them objectionable and/or offensive or thinking they will be objectionable to/offend others. Flyer22 (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If you have what the WP:Offensive material guideline cites as "equally suitable alternatives" to replace them, I'm open to that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: AddMore der Zweite recently removed these images on the grounds that they are "pre-internet pornography." I disagree, which is clear from what I stated above in this section, and since pornography is material that is meant to be sexually arousing. If there is proof that these images were meant to be sexually arousing, then provide it. If I had seen AddMore der Zweite's WP:IDON'TLIKEIT edit at the time, I would have reverted. I'm not going to revert now, but the reason for removals is invalid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Mighty Asian Warriors and European Women.

A couple of years ago, I had added in a bunch of pages a piece of information I had simply gathered from another WP page, Roger of Apulia. Roger was an Italian monk who witnessed the First Mongol invasion of Hungary. He recalled how "the Mongol warriors took particular pleasure in humiliating local women".

Now the page seems to have undergone a massive overhaul and, among other things, this report was removed and can't be found. I shouldn't be surprised anyway - political agendas are a terrible thing.

I'll soon add back the TRUTH FOR ANYONE TO READ ON ALL PERTAINING PAGES. As of now, I can't work properly and edit several pages. Just wait a few hours. My regards. --151.38.125.172 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion?

What about the section about the Boxer Rebellion? Chinese girls and women were r*ped by British, French, German, Italian, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, US American and Japanese Soldiers.--Aitor der Weise (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)--Aitor der Weise (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The single purpose troll account above deleted this sourced sentence During the Boxer Rebellion, Chinese Boxers regularly killed and mutilated foreigners, including women and children, but did not rape them.Rajmaan (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Aceh

Insurgency in Aceh

http://uca.edu/politicalscience/dadm-project/asiapacific-region/indonesiaaceh-1949-present/

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/01/indo-j06.html

http://reliefweb.int/report/indonesia/aceh-rebels-kill-six-indonesian-soldiers-ambush

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/29297

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/24/world/indonesian-troops-kill-leader-of-a-province-s-separatist-group.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=w5DEEClMsy8C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=aceh+killed+indonesian+soldiers&source=bl&ots=L_1Cv6FiYH&sig=GHUDiY32KyOSajPVEK1vumPKOwI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BLZIU_LBB_DJsQTTlIGICA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=aceh%20killed%20indonesian%20soldiers&f=false

http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/891

http://www.sacw.net/Wmov/RCoomaraswamyOnHonour.html

http://www.reocities.com/CapitolHill/4120/unletter.html

http://home.snafu.de/watchin/Coomaraswamy.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/526420.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/504973.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/509414.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/426138.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/524655.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/504497.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/414998.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/522279.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/362741.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/335875.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/518445.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/404517.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/407771.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/410001.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/413573.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/indonesia/special_report/270462.stm

Rajmaan (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwitDMbNiEU

http://books.google.com/books?id=nrN077AEgzMC&pg=PA440#v=onepage&q&f=false

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wartime sexual violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080910201407/http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Anthropology/21A-217Fall-2004/BC205381-420D-471A-8B40-2AF7FFA4B0C0/0/6_yugoslavia.pdf to http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Anthropology/21A-217Fall-2004/BC205381-420D-471A-8B40-2AF7FFA4B0C0/0/6_yugoslavia.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.mhro.org/montangards-history/conclusions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Wartime sexual violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100602095417/https://www.uchastings.edu/hlj/archive/vol60/Stemple_60-HLJ-605.pdf to http://uchastings.edu/hlj/archive/vol60/Stemple_60-HLJ-605.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060926231120/http://www.ru.ac.za/academic/graduation/addresses_and_citations/2005/Judge_Pillay_citation.doc to http://www.ru.ac.za/academic/graduation/addresses_and_citations/2005/Judge_Pillay_citation.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080714065316/http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/rape.html to http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/rape.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wartime sexual violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090817144747/http://www.haverford.edu:80/relg/sells/rape.html to http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/rape.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110504000928/http://ihl.ihlresearch.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=2104 to http://ihl.ihlresearch.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=2104

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Antiquity

I didn't study the history of the article, but it looks like somebody added soundly referenced information regarding the Bible; then somebody added "allegedly" which is totally innappropriate for soundly referenced and easily verified material; then someone claimed the Torah "clarified" the biblical verses to show that rape was not permissable to the Jewish faithful and gave a reference. I read that reference and that is a gross misrepresentation of its content. I left the reference exactly as it was, because it IS a good reference, but it shows exactly the opposite of what was claimed. So as to be an equal-opportunity offender, I added some material on the Koran. All of this could be expanded if someone cared to. But, please, people, let's not use this as a platform for "my religion is better than his religion" propoganda. Stick to the facts and don't try to cast doubt on something objectively true and verifiable just because it casts some book you revere in a light you aren't comfortable with. The simple truth is that ALL those ancient writings (well, "ancient" may an exaggeration in the case of the Koran, but old at any rate) contain passages clearly indicating approval of rape. Other passages indicate the contrary presumably and if someone cares to do the work to verify and cite passages to that effect it would be a useful addition, but let's not falsify what's there just because we don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wartime sexual violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127013306/http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/rape.html to http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/rape.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Wartime sexual violence. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/basicdocuments/elements%28e%29.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907091105/http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR630042001?open&of=ENG-BIH to http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR630042001?open&of=ENG-BIH
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203101025/http://www.awid.org/Library/UN-Security-Council-Takes-a-Historic-Stand-Supporting-Abortion-Access-for-Women-Raped-in-War to http://www.awid.org/Library/UN-Security-Council-Takes-a-Historic-Stand-Supporting-Abortion-Access-for-Women-Raped-in-War
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kki.net.pl/~museum/rozdz3%2C2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715172056/http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9705&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=D&F=P&P=1025 to http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9705&L=twatch-l&D=1&O=D&F=P&P=1025
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0811fcbd0b9f6bd58025667300306dea/3d25270b5fa3ea998025665f0032f220?OpenDocument

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wartime sexual violence. 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/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio

@Diannaa: [24] This edit seems to be a copy of this, can you double check please, Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no copyvio here, show examples — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.46.160.174 (talk • contribs)

Some is copyvio and some is not. The part that's copyvio is from "Human Rights Watch Report from 1992" to the end of the paragraph. The rest of the addition does not appear to be supported by the citation provided. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa, I've requested PP due to this sock repeatedly adding it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

According to WP I read, socking allegations without SPI are considered harassment, Darkness Shines. As for D4iNa4, making vague claims like that is insufficient, you need to provide examples, like show the sentences. I would not be surprised if you are lying again though, because you put a false edit summary when you removed the longstanding content by claiming it was added by a sock when it was not. 39.46.185.8 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Here's the article text

Human Rights Watch Report from 1992, Rape in Kashmir: A Crime Of War, states that there are no reliable statistics on the number of rapes committed by the Indian security forces in Kashmir because a significant number of the rapes by Indian security forces have been perpetrated in isolated rural areas of Kashmir which makes it difficult to document all the cases. However, the Human Rights Watch Report states that the use of rape is common and the perpetrators are not punished.

here's the source text

There are no reliable statistics on the number of rapes committed by security forces in Kashmir.

Human rights groups have documented many cases since 1990, but because many of the incidents have occurred in remote villages, it is impossible to confirm any precise number. There can be no doubt that the

use of rape is common and routinely goes unpunished.

Anyone can see there is no copyright violation here. 39.46.185.8 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Strike blatant Faizan sock. D4iNa4 (talk)

Except two people say it is a copyvio, so just stop now Faizan Darkness Shines (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the paraphrase could be a little less close, but I don't see it as clear a copyvio as you consider it. Rewriting would be better than outright removal, I think. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa is pretty good with copyvio stuff, given what she said the edit as it stands cannot go back in, first section copyvio of the HRW pdf the rest apparently made up as not supported. And I can't rewrite it, I'm TBanned from it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It presents the same material in the same order using almost identical wording. It's a copyright violation in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:PARAPHRASE, Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text. Considering this is a single paragraph from a 21-page report, and it's attributed twice, I think it's acceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa's conclusions here. The English Wikipedia copyright policy is significantly stricter than required by the laws of the United States, both as it is written and in how we enforce it: the sentence structure and wording are too close, and there are other ways it reasonably could be written so as not to require close paraphrase. There is enough content here that is similar in structure and wording to be in violation of the en.wiki policy, and I also suspect the laws of the United States (INAL). It is borderline as to whether or not it needs revision deletion, and I will defer to Diannaa on that. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:PARAPHRASE is not a policy page, it's supplementary info. The actual policy calls for removal of any and all copyvio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio or not, Faizan is on verge of getting sitebanned for his deceitful meat puppetry and socking, none of his content needs to be restored and should be reverted on sight. Internal conflicts cannot be classified as war, that's why Syrian civil war, Balochistan insurgency, Myanmar Rohingya conflict are not included here either. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Anthropological perspective

What would an anthropologist from Mars write about this subject? Under the 'causes ' section I suspect there is a lot of other stuff which could be written on the subject looked at from anthropological, psychological, historical, sociological and gender perspectives. Maybe Desmond Morris has written about it? At the moment the 'tone' in some places seems somewhat modern feminist rather than being strictly academic and objective. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.63.42 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion

Given the widespread censorship and control of publications even in peace-time, especially during the era of Mao, many details of Chinese history are shrouded in questions, blanks spots and whole-sale fabrications. An extra-ordinary claim such as ..."the Chinese Boxers did not commit rape against foreign women and just killed them... All of the nationalities engaged in looting and rape." should also require extra-ordinary evidence. Both sources cited originate in 2015; more than 100 years after the primary event. There is not even an accurate death-toll available; only extremely vague estimates. An absence of evidence should not be considered as evidence.

It is also incredibly biased and lacking context in the entire way this subject is being framed. From what I've seen, there were fewer than 100 foreign women in the all of China, and a large portion of those were systematically beheaded or otherwise publicly executed. It's a bit like saying prisoners are less likely to rape women that free men. Yeah, it's true, but it's not a fair or accurate comparison. The vast majority of deaths were Chinese Christian civilians. No word on how they were treated by the Boxers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.183.96 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Heyderabad section

@EvergreenFir: You reverted my edit where I removed a section which was added by a now blocked sock (User:Towns Hill). This article is about wartime sexual violence war, the section is not about a war. I am not sure how is it germane or why it should be here. Gotitbro (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: per WP:BADSOCK and WP:EVADE, you are right to remove that. I think it's still germane as it's about a war-like operation I think, but I'll self-revert for now. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

committed by combatants

Nazi sexual violence was made also by non-combatants - the police, clercs, civilians, even some prisoners. The time was precisely a wartime.Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is supported by the phrase It also covers the situation where girls and women are forced into prostitution or sexual slavery by an occupying power. General Government administration wasn't a combatant. Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Red hair in Taiwan

I removed the statement that red hair in Taiwan comes from Dutch admixture as the cited source offered no genetic or anthropological evidence for the wild statement given on this Wiki article, and in fact never directly supported that statement.

Red hair in Taiwan is apparently nonexistent in Chinese Taiwanese and only appears in Taiwanese aboriginals, and evolved locally in Southeast Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_hair#Geographic_distribution

Nemeren90 (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Islam, wartime rape and Fadl

The inclusion of this text is misleading,

According to Fadl, Medieval Islamic military jurisprudence laid down severe penalties for those who committed rape.[32] The punishment for such crimes were severe, including death, regardless of the political convictions and religion of the perpetrator.[32]

On the face of it, it is true that Islam lays down penalties for rape. But capturing enemy women in battle and having intercourse with them after the commander has distributed the captives to each soldier does not come under the Islamic definition of rape. This is explained here in the Hadith about the man Dharah who had sex with a captive woman before the war booty had been distributed and was consequently punished.[1] What Islam does allow, sex with captive women after the war booty has been distributed, comes under the same behaviour described earlier in the section about the Greeks,

The ancient Greeks considered war rape of women "socially acceptable behavior well within the rules of warfare", and warriors considered the conquered women "legitimate booty, useful as wives, concubines, slave labor, or battle-camp trophy".[21]

It should also be noted that under Islamic law a slave woman's consent to sex with her master is irrelevant. In the words of scholar Kecia Ali [2]

For premodern Muslim jurists, as well as for those marginal figures who believe that the permission [for slavery] still holds, the category “rape” doesn’t apply: ownership makes sex lawful; consent is irrelevant.

Kecia Ali elaborates more on the topic of concubinage and consent in this scholarly article; https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F8E807073C33F403A91C1ACA0CFA47FD/S0020743816001203a.pdf/concubinage_and_consent.pdf

In a first century biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him), "The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi's Kitab Al-Maghazi", its mentioned that captive slave girls after the Battle of Awtas were distributed among the Prophet's companions.[3] It is also mentioned that

he gave Uthman b. Affan a slave girl named Zaynab b. Hayyan b. Amr. Uthman had intercourse with her and she detested him."

Clearly there was no real consent if the captive slave girl detested the man who slept with her.

Now I am not in favour of adding any of this to the article, it would be undue. But Fadl's opinion clearly needs to be removed for being misleading and irrelevant (WP:UNDUE) 14.203.129.249 (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Impartiality

Really? Russian soldiers who raped 2 million German women 70 times, including little girls and old women. I wonder whoever wrote this in all seriousness believes in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Александр Ашкаров (talk • contribs) 10:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some help

Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

To do Women in conflict zones

Hi,

While discussing on women related topics on a talk page I realized that following topics deserve attention for as articles. Wartime sexual violence article is available but it does not cover many other aspects related to Women in conflict zones

Women in conflict zones, Civil life in conflict zones,

Expand : Collateral damage

Civilian casualties need to have summarized section of Women in conflict zones.

Please contribute to the topics if those interest you.

Bookku (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Texts and sources for Vikings/rape

Hi, sry, I'm bad at editing ...
Simon Coupland, History (Wiley), Volume 88, Issue 290 (2003) pp. 186-203:
Nor, surprisingly, is there clear evidence of Viking rape: certainly they were not known for ‘rape and pillage’ in the ninth century.
Fourth Wave Feminism in Science Fiction and Fantasy Vol 2. Ed V.E: Frankel, McFarland and Co, 2020:
«Historically, Vikings appear to have shunned rape, as it goes unmentioned in all the Annals of St Bertin's description of pillaging, though the rapes committed by Christian kings are repeatedly mentioned (Sawyer 47).» (p 65). These episodes involved christian Franks that raped (or tried to rape) a nun and two other women of high social rank. In all cases, the women fled to the Vikings for their protection. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Googling for "Vikings sexual slavery" (I know, shotgun approach) gave a series of hits from a variety of sources, with, probably, a variety of reliability. Many hits also have almost identical wording, apparently copied from 'source X'. One article in History.com (RS or not? No clue.) - https://www.history.com/news/viking-slavery-raids-evidence - has the benefit of containing _all_ the snippets spread out over a number of other hits. Then there is this curious item: https://sciencenorway.no/forskningno-history-norway/was-rape-common-in-the-middle-ages/1452223 - which may be regarded as an interested party :); and besides, the topic is extended to the Middle Ages, not only the Viking Age. This title speaks for itself, although to conclude from this that there were no rapes is probably SYNTH or worse: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134-300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna/. However, nothing came up wrt. Spain or Russia - sources may perhaps not be online. What ae your thooughts on differentiating between rape as part of raiding, and sexual slavery as part of the serf system? T84.208.86.134 (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Texts and sources for Vikings/rape

Hi, sry, I'm bad at editing ...
Simon Coupland, History (Wiley), Volume 88, Issue 290 (2003) pp. 186-203:
Nor, surprisingly, is there clear evidence of Viking rape: certainly they were not known for ‘rape and pillage’ in the ninth century.
Fourth Wave Feminism in Science Fiction and Fantasy Vol 2. Ed V.E: Frankel, McFarland and Co, 2020:
«Historically, Vikings appear to have shunned rape, as it goes unmentioned in all the Annals of St Bertin's description of pillaging, though the rapes committed by Christian kings are repeatedly mentioned (Sawyer 47).» (p 65). These episodes involved christian Franks that raped (or tried to rape) a nun and two other women of high social rank. In all cases, the women fled to the Vikings for their protection. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Googling for "Vikings sexual slavery" (I know, shotgun approach) gave a series of hits from a variety of sources, with, probably, a variety of reliability. Many hits also have almost identical wording, apparently copied from 'source X'. One article in History.com (RS or not? No clue.) - https://www.history.com/news/viking-slavery-raids-evidence - has the benefit of containing _all_ the snippets spread out over a number of other hits. Then there is this curious item: https://sciencenorway.no/forskningno-history-norway/was-rape-common-in-the-middle-ages/1452223 - which may be regarded as an interested party :); and besides, the topic is extended to the Middle Ages, not only the Viking Age. This title speaks for itself, although to conclude from this that there were no rapes is probably SYNTH or worse: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134-300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna/. However, nothing came up wrt. Spain or Russia - sources may perhaps not be online. What ae your thooughts on differentiating between rape as part of raiding, and sexual slavery as part of the serf system? T84.208.86.134 (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I did the BOLD thing and removed the phrase "reputation for 'rape and pillage' ", as it is actually unsourced. Happy to see it reinstated if a proper source can be found. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Rape camps

This article wartime sexual violence has a list of articles where there were rape camps where some of the rape during the Bosnian War took place, but there doesn't seem to be much documentation of specific rape camps or an article rape camp. There's currently a small section on the Hawzen rape camp by the Ethiopian National Defense Force organised during the Tigray War in Hawzen Primary Hospital. Both cases are related to civil wars of ethnic federations with wide use of ethnic hate speech.

An article on rape camps might be justified if there are sufficient sources for questions like these:

• Can these occur without administrative planning?
• How high up the military/political hierarchy does the responsibility for creating rape camps go?
• Why is there so little coverage in the mainstream media, even though reliable sources are available?
• Which articles and sections of crimes against humanity law cover rape camps?

Boud (talk) 20:10, 20 November 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): AD510621, Anonymous2018.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Not very balanced selection of examples.

It seems to have overfocused on Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.21.128 (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Add the allies

Ww2, just the Japanese and Soviets are mentioned of having raped German women. But there were rapes, group rapes, committed by American soldiers. You might want to consider that too. There is a paragraph of rapes committed by the allies on the German page to this topic including quotes to some American sources. 92.219.97.88 (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There is already an article on Rape during the occupation of Germany. Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)