Talk:Wartime sexual violence

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Useful Sources

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

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)

What about the US Solider in Vietnam?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)