Talk:Bitch Wars

Valid reasoning? Citation?

The article contains the following sentence:

"Prison authorities turned a blind eye, since prisoner deaths would serve to reduce the overall prison population."

Is there a citation for this statement? Did whoever write it know it for a fact, for example, could not more prisoners have allowed for a greater budget which could have then been appropriated? How do we know that prisoners were not used for slave labor, so that allowing them to kill one another would have cut into the profits of the prison administration? Also, why would prison authorities turn a blind eye, if the "sukas" were their allies, as the article states?

Critic9328 04:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Source?

"At the end of World War II, Stalin reneged on his promise and promptly sent those prisoners who had served in the military back to prison".

Actually after the ww2 a lot of those soldiers who had criminal past couldn't adapt to peace life and commited felony again. That's how they usually went back to prisons. It needs no fairytale about "Stalin reneging on his promise" - everything is much simplier. --Nekto 10:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No offence but youre talking about a guy who killed millions of innocent ukrainians in a genocide and put thousands of innocent people in prison camps. I really also wish there were some sources for this page but Im not going to lie I could see Stalin having "reneged his promises." -Steve, unregistered nov 30 2006

Welcome Steve, and consider registering. On the subject, I hope we all realize that the "promise" was not offical in the first place and that Stalin's power at the time was absolute, and to get convicted, one did not need to commit a crime: one stuk was often enough. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The person who started this thread has a point. It wasn't "Stalin reneging on his promises" (the USSR, for all its barbarity, was quite civil in matters such as these, especially by the time of WWII and afterwards). First, the original deal struck with the prisoners who went to war was that every year that they were in the army would count for three years in the camp, so some prisoners had to return to the camps after the war, anyway. Second, since this offer was made only to criminals (never to "politicals"), and crimes in the post-WWII USSR proliferated, many returned to a life of crime and were sent to jail again.

even if some prisoners-turned-soldiers were told that their sentences would be commuted after the war and this turned out not to be the case, that doesn't mean that stalin "reneged on his promises." it simply means that he changed his mind. certainly, we should cut heads of state and other authority figures some slack and recognize that they have the prerogative of changing their minds, especially if they do so for the good of the people. stalin may have made certain promises to prisoners in order to get them to serve in the military, but after the war he may have figured (probably with good reason) that these individuals were too dangerous to be released into society. we should recognize the fact that "promises" given by heads of state and others in authority are conditional and subject to change. a prisoner sentenced to a limited number of years may end up serving for life. on the other hand, a prisoner sentenced to life may have his or her sentence commuted at some point. so "flexibility" with respect to prison terms could be a benefit to certain prisoners and a burden to others. in any case, we should recognize that the authorities have a degree of flexibility in these matters and respect their decisions. if the authorities refuse to release a prisoner even though they had said that they would, they have not "reneged on their promise." they have merely changed their minds and their decisions should be accepted with equanimity.

There was no one great influx of "sukas" arriving at the camps. Actually, the whole deal with the Suka Wars was that many criminal bosses became sukas -- which was unprecedented and was only facilitated by the war. Since these men were still viewed with great esteem by many "ordinary" criminals, this led to an ideological schism between the "orthodox thieves" and the "suka thieves".

Forgot to sign: Tullie 03:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I suggest that a serious rewrite of this article be undertaken. The "Bitch Wars" is an important part of modern Russian history and an article should be written in a clear, well organized manner. I will be happy to help edit and fact check anything new that is posted.

Norensberg 10:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

This article needs sources

I came to this article from Russian Mafia. I am concerned that this article currently has no sources. It appears to be a strong candidate for deletion. Could someone with more knowledge of this topic please add some references? --Zippy 08:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, no sources whatsoever sounds like grounds for a deletion proposal to me. RobertM525 (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Title

As a native speaker of American English, I have to tell you that the title "Bitch Wars" is going to be a problem. The word "bitch", as you probably know, already has a negative meaning in English which has nothing to do with its meaning in Russian. Any American reading about the "Bitch Wars" is going to have a hard time in his or her mind keeping the Russian meaning of the word separate from the English meaning. I really think it would be much better to retitle the article "Suka Wars", and explain that "suka" means a female dog if that's what it means. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just Americans either, this relates to all native speakers of English and I am quite happy to see it changed tot he far more more neutral Suka Wars. I wonder really where the translation bitch comes from (presumably female dog) but snitch or grass are much more common terms for informer in English. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)"

Yes. "Snitch Wars" would be better than "Bitch Wars", "Grass Wars" might get into some other problems. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW the article now says that "suka" literally means "bitch." I would understand that to mean literally a female dog, not the much more commonly used meaning of "a woman the speaker doesn't like." Steve Dufour (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In Russian this word also has the same both meanings i.e. in the non-criminal language it is either a female dog or derogatory name for a woman. And the second meaning is much more widespread while the first one is used mostly among dog fanciers. --Nekto (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume from what you are saying that there is that connotation of a snitch not being a man, ie being "just a female" but certainly bitch has no connotations of snitch in English. Perhaps some of this should go in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In normal Russian (not in the criminal argot) it also has no connotations of snitch whatsoever (at least for my part I feel no any and I think one couldn't even find this connotation in Russian dictionaries). I think we shouldn't translate the title of the article. "Suka war" would be better, I think. --Nekto (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Suka war. I think unquestionably so. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest "Vor wars", after the Russian term for "Thieves in Law". The book Red Mafiya by Robert Friedman uses both terms, and would make a fine source for this article. ...The "Vor Wars," or "Bitches' Wars," lasted from 1945 to 1953... Also, the less genteel term may not have a connotation of "snitch" but it may have a particular meaning within the prison system, which I'd rather spare everyone the details of. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it would be interesting tknow, wikipedia not being censored. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since there is virtually no references in English, I would suggest stop speculating and use a literal translation. "Snitch" is not the same as Russian criminal slang for "suka". "Suka" has numerous derogatory meanings, but in this context "suka" means "traitor" (of crimital traditions). "Snitch" specifically corresponds to "stukach". Friedman's terms "Vor Wars," or "Bitches' Wars" also reflect fundamental isunderstanding: it was the war between "vors" ("thieves") and ""sukas" ("traitors"). `'Míkka>t 22:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Mafiya is in English. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote "virtually no". I should have written "close to none". By the way, Friedman's piece got it all wrong in this respect (p. 10 of his book); he contradicts all Russian sources (which also contradict to each other :-). Taking into an account that he does not cites his sources, I don't think this book is valid reference for this article. `'Míkka>t 21:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporters generally don't cite their sources. Also from what I remember of the book, it was the same general story that we have here in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai, can you make the move, please. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest any move. The title is untranslatable. The History Channel (July 2004) said "Bitch Wars", and I guess the term is OK. As I said, "suka" is a general-purpose offensive, just like in English. Unfortunately I didn't see a better title and, frankly, I don't think it is critical and may wait until professional Anglophone historians in the "meat world" establish the accepted term. `'Míkka>t 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll cast my vote for "Suka Wars" then. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK then. I've already noticed in google that "bitch war/bitch wars" means something else. But let's wait a couple more days, no big rush. `'Míkka>t 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Suka is not offensive to English ears while bitch is and certainly what it conjures up in my mind isnt remotely related to the article content though IO certainly here that Discovery Channel used that title, presumably to attract attention to the programme in the trailers. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if Wikipedia weren't censored by religious nutjobs. thanks. That's how I "vote" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.197.148 (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a slight problem. Сучьи = SooCHy (e.g. SUKEY) if you make it sound like English. This is Belorussian, because in Russian ч is soft like CHurch and CHampion. If you want SUKA as the article states, the correct word is сука. сука = SOOKA. As it is at the moment, the article tells the reader that bitch in Russian is soochey which is wrong. If you all agree with me, can someone make the changes because I'm very new to wikipedia. Thanks. Highwrote123 (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The History Channel just had a show on the "bitch wars." This translation seems to be appropriate according to the experts in this field. Johnny^California 18:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Move Request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Bitch Wars → Suka Wars — Relisting  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) There seems to be consensus here for a move; the English translation is not correct. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 23:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The sources state that the translation is accurate. There are other articles about this that use the same name and state that "Сучьи" translates to "bitch". A google image search for "Сучьи" brings up pictures of women and dogs, so, um, I think that says something. --WikiDonn (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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