Talk:Rape during the liberation of France

Article biased

This article is essentially based on the views of one historian, whose book has attracted attention because it is considerably different from the other books on the liberation of France. While she's well qualified to hold this opinion and the book meets the criteria set out at WP:HISTRS, the article doesn't note the differing views of the liberation of France (except to dismiss these as wrong), and seems to have been written to present the US troops as sex-crazed rapists. Moreover, it's entirely referenced to news stories, which tend to focus on sensational aspects of stories, and not the book itself. I've just removed a fair bit of material, including a paragraph which was about what appears to have been consensual, but 'unseemly', sex: this obviously isn't rape. I've also removed 'see also' links to organised post-war prostitution in Korea and Japan as there's also no link to rape in France. Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Other scholar reported too. Are there scholars deny the rapes during the liberation? What is the appear to have been consensual? I want to know facts, so I want deferent views, too. I need your help. And I corrected some contents.--Syngmung (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a huge literature on the US liberation of France - given that you've written this article, why did't you consult it? You didn't 'correct some contents': you totally reverted my changes without any explanation. Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh great, now you've totally reverted me again. Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No, see introduction. Is there a huge literature on the US liberation of France denying the rape reports?--Syngmung (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a huge literature on the generally good relations between US personnel and French civilians, which you haven't bothered to consult except to claim that it ignored this issue. I don't think that you've done any research beyond Googling for news stories related to the recent book. Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I know very well, there's a huge love romance literature on the generally good relations between US personnel and French civilians. But this article is not focusing love romance. I also know well a huge French-German good relations during world war 2. After the war, the French women were persecuted. You are pure man, but real world is not pure.--Syngmung (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D. This article is about the "Rape during the liberation of France", a dark side of the history. How does "a huge literature on the generally good relations between US personnel and French civilians" relate to this article? Do you label the article Liberation of France as POV because there are no mention of the rape committed by US personnel? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Because these events can't be considered in isolation, as is currently being done here at present; you can't write anything meaningful on topics such as this without putting them in context (eg, that there were rapes, but the vast majority of American servicemen were law abiding, and the sexual relationships which developed were generally consensual). If the liberation of France article doesn't also cover the problems which arose then, yes, it does have a problem with neutrality as well. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

From a third party (neither French nor American) POV, regardless of other relations between the French population and the US army, the article needs certain contextual improvements. There is no coverage, for example, of the rapes commited by other liberating powers such as UK or Canada. Is this because they didn't happen, they aren't documented or no-one has looked? What about the military disciplinary angle - was military discipline poor, giving general opportunity for criminality? There is one quote there about the number of convicted rapists and their ethnic origins, which suggests data does exist on how the military officially handled the issue. Was the issue widespread or restricted to certain areas (the quotes seem to revolve round Le Havre - was this a special case)? Finally, does French wikipedia have any useful perspectives that could be used here? Overall, we need to take some heat from the discussion, and some of the "shock exposé" out of the article, and get down to some context and a proper structured account of the "dark side" of the liberation.Monstrelet (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If the events were being considered in isolation, the neutrality problem wouldn't be as great. But there are broad claims such as "Instead, there came only incomprehension, arrogance, incredibly bad manners and the swagger of conquerors." and "American propaganda did not sell the war to soldiers as a struggle for freedom" that need critical evaluation.--Wikimedes (talk)

Agreed the article is unbalanced, but these are quotes, one contemporary and one from a modern study, not just random xenophobia. The modern one should be counterable by reference to general sources on US WWII propoganda but the cluster of Le Havre quotes suggest there was a real issue irrespective of the ethnicity of the occupying troops. As I've already said, a broader context (was there a particular problem in Le Havre or do we have selective quoting going on?) is the way to go. And I personally doubt whether the problem was either universal among American units or solely confined to them - again context will remove the the POV problem. Monstrelet (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Something else to compare would be the incidence of rape in prewar France with that of France in 1944-45. One would expect the chaos of war to increase the incidence of violent crime; it might also provide some perspective on these reports and quotes. A further point that should be brought out is that the incidents in France involving Allied personnel were the crimes of individuals, as opposed to the state-level involvement of the German and Japanese regimes that organized brothels for their soldiers in which local women were forced into. Finally, statistics should be provided regarding the numbers of rapes reported and how many troops were tried, and punished, for these crimes. There is a lot of background material missing and this leads to what Monstrelet accurately describes as the "shock exposé" character of the article as it stands now. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, this article does definitely need major work to bring it to meet WP:NEU. Should I be surprised that this article was created by someone who stated:

  I want public and medias to know from the article, what only their voice could turn the bureaucrats cold hearts.

  If this was an AfD I would support a restart per WP:TNT, but this isn't a AfD, and the subject of the article appears to be part of a larger subject say Rape in France during World War II, this could cover rape during the German Invasion of France, German occupation of France, Vichy France, and during the liberation of France. This will balance the article and cover rape during this entire historic period.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've read an article about Roberts book What Soldiers Do in last weeks issue of the german news magazine Der Spiegel which names it a book on a field of science which was long tabooed in the US as well as in France. And this taboo is the point: You can have whole libraries full of books about the fightings in France in 1944/45 but they are worthless on this theme because they taboo it. Especially official history books from the Cold War era cant be used on this topic because neither side had any interest to admit such things as rapes and war crimes committed by their troops. And many armed forces and their institutes even today dont have any books published about such crimes in any conflict. In my opinion this article covers an immense important topic about the history of World War II that until today wasnt really researched because the books topic won the war. --Bomzibar (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You've read an article (actually a one-page skimmed review) about the book. Might I suggest that you read the book itself before pontificating about the issues it covers? This entire article suffers from the same lack of proper citation and original research. HLGallon (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Spiegel rarely misses opportunities to chide the U.S. (and other foreign countries) while remaining highly selective about which German issues they address. (This comment generally applies to most German journalism -- I'm not sure why unless the German laws concerning Beleidigung, Üble Nachrede, Verleumdung tend to censor any German journalistic desires to out scandals within their own borders.) Spiegel's reporting is interesting but it is worth recalling that they most certainly have their own POV on events that is not particularly well-balanced. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is why I suggested expanding the scope of this article to all Rape in France during World War II, this allows the scope to look at the history of Rape in France during this entire period, whether in during the Battle of France, Vichy France, German occupied France, and during Operation Overlord. This will serve to neutralize the article rather than focusing the article upon a single organization which this article appears to do, and thus causing it to run into POV issues and being used as an WP:ATTACKPAGE.

I am not saying that reliable sourced content should be entirely removed from Wikipedia, I am saying that it falls into a much wider subject which is being ignored to advocate a POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, RightCowLeftCoast appeared here, too. What is the neutrality? This article focuses when the time "Liberation". The article was created modeling on "Rape during the liberation of Poland". But I havent find Red Army's crimes. The RightCowLeftCoast's proposal of "Rape in France during World War II", bringing serious issue, cos the proposal make Nazi and U.S. same ones. So I dont want to equalize Nazi and US.--Syngmung (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)--Syngmung (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Does it matter what organization the rapist belongs to? Furthermore, may I ask what the above editor means by "over taken"?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh... about section of See also, Comfort station and women were taken over by US forces See p94 Haunting the Korean Diaspora: Shame, Secrecy, and the Forgotten War By Grace M. Cho p4 Donna M. Hughes, Katherine Y. Chon, and Derek P. Ellerman Modern-Day Comfort Women:The U.S. Military, Transnational Crime, and the Trafficking of Women--Syngmung (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What do either of those links have to do with activities in Normandy or elsewhere France in 1944?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The links are for see also lists. if the contents are the very rapes in france, which should be writen in body text as usual.--Syngmung (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

@ W. B. Wilson: Do you have any source to proof what you just said about Der Spiegel and German media in common? Or ever read a German news magazine?

Bomzibar, drop it -- this isn't a court. I have my reasons and my experiences to state what I posted above. You are welcome to disagree. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

About the article, naming it Rape in France during World War II is a little imprecise as this would have to include "normal" rape too. In my opinion the best name was something like Rape in France trough foreign armed Forces during and immediately after World War II. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not include ""normal" rape"? Rape is rape, regardless of the organization an individual may belong to during this period. It's not like someone would agree with an article Rape by Jews during the Weimar Republic? The very scope would lean it towards a a non-neutral article. Expanding the scope to the entire World War II period and defining the scope to being rape in France during that period, would serve to neutralize the topic, so it doesn't serve as an attack page. Let me remind editors of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; Wikipedia is not the place for such things.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the neutral? Some people bring only unsourced OR comments like "non-neutral". We want to see other view if there is the opposite one. In West Point, where gathering the top patriots from all over the United States, they are teached what their shames of history.[1] So they become great commanders who have high moral, but here some people sadly neglect the facts without reliable sources.--Syngmung (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Serious copyright/plagiarism problems

This article consists of heavily plagiarized text from several of the sources it cites, which, in addition to plagiarism, also constitutes a copyright violation. Even with direct, inline citations, you cannot copy text word for word, or even use very similar wording—you must paraphrase in your own words. Most of the article needs to be completely rewritten, and the old edits in the history will need to be deleted. Please rewrite the text, or I will take a hatchet to the problematic text. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed most of the glaring plagiarism. The article is still basically pieced together from sound bytes (text bytes?) from sensationalist news articles mostly about a single book, and still needs to be completely rewritten.

It's hard not to plagiarize when all you have to work with are quotes and sound bytes. I would suggest that whoever does the rewriting actually reads the books the articles are describing at a bare minimum. Perhaps the article should go into an incubator until then?--Wikimedes (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Best suggestion here. Pull this to someone's sandbox until it's a proper article. Intothatdarkness 21:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Scope and focus

As is, the article is little more than a collection of quotes, most of which seem to be comments from non-notable people (the article needs content and structure). Any approach to this topic should provide perspective by comparing the frequency of rape or other sexual crime with basic facts like the numbers of Allied (not just U.S.) personnel in France during 1944-45 and what the population of France was at the time. As it is, the article seems to simply say "rape occurred" in 1944-45. I also found curious that the "see also" links pointed to rape articles involving Allied and Soviet military personnel, but that phenomena as well known as women being forced to serve in German and Japanese brothels during the war were not linked. Those omissions alone make me wonder about agendas. W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding Axis crimes are very welcome. My first addition of "see also" was very related ones, which were allied crimes. But I approve to expand "see also" up to whole military sexual crmines.--Syngmung (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Take care to select your subjects for See Also. These should be closely linked to the main subject matter. If this is sexual crimes in WWII, then focus there - military brothels should only be linked when connected to this, I would have thought. Also a link to the extensive article War Rape I would have thought should top the list (and could help build a context paragraph for the beginning of the article). I can't find a wiki article on the post-war occupation of France but it would be a useful link if anyone else can locate it.Monstrelet (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. I fixed.--Syngmung (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge into Operation Overlord or a similar article

I think this article should be placed into a section in Operation Overlord or a similar article, this will help with the POV of the target article and also to help put this issue in context, which at the moment it does not have. Only when there is too much information provided for one article should a separate article be considered.

There is a section the the Battle of Berlin and also in the East Prussian where rape is mentioned, but we do not have an article dedicated to the subject about the 100,000 rapes that took place in Berlin because the subject is better delete with in the context of the battle article. -- PBS (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

But we do have an article Rape during the occupation of Germany which would appear to exactly match this one, except it is much better developed. It makes little sense to link the topic to a campaign article like Overlord, as it is describing a situation apparently across France and continuing after the hostilities have ended. One could imagine a summary article on sexual crimes committed by armies in WWII, which this could form a section of, but would it add much to the War Rape article? I would suggest this article needs a wider range of inputs from specialists to iron out POV issues, it needs to be clearer in its temporal and geographic scope and it needs contextualisation (for example, was rape more common during the allied occupation or the German one? If there was a difference, to what do scholars attribute it?). Overall, I think there is a good case for a stand alone article but it needs more editors with more specialisms to contribute to make a worthwhile (and neutral) article.Monstrelet (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Until the article meets basic quality standards…

There seems to be agreement that the article’s subject is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. However in many other respects (scope, structure, sourcing, adherence to copyright laws, neutrality, prose) the article fails to meet basic quality standards. I see 3 basic paths forward while the article is being improved:

1. Keep the article and continue to improve (including renaming and rescoping as appropriate).
2. Delete, move to an wp:incubator for improvement, then submit to wp:articles for creation when it meets basic quality standards.
3. Reword and retitle as an article about the book “What Soldiers Do” by Mary Louise Roberts. Most of the sources cited in the article are in fact about this book, and would work better as secondary sources on the book than on the book’s subject matter. Rape during the liberation of France or a similar article could then be worked on and submitted as a separate article.

Please comment below.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete and incubate (option 2). Does not yet meet basic quality standards for inclusion in article mainspace. Incubation can take place in my userpage if Syngmung doesn’t want it in his/hers. (Should this go through a formal deletion discussion at wp:articles for deletion?) I would also support and help in changing it to an article about the book.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. I think the article has progressed beyond the WP:TNT stage.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete and incubate, the limiting of the scope of the project and the POV issues regarding the current content are big enough to warrant WP:TNT IMHO. This article falls within a larger scope which this article appears to be designed not to include as to limit the article to actions during a very narrow time period by individuals belonging to Allied organizations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete and incubate This needs to be reworked, and developed with references to the actual books and rather than sensationalist news stories about them. The article should also put things in context as I've noted above. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep and develop further in light of the significant improvement to the article's quality - great work to all concerned. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Oh, I dont hope it is wikistalking... It reminds us of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. This article have not become sophisticated article, but that's all. This case do not match incubate policy.--Syngmung (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete and incubate. This article should not have left anyone's userpage until properly researched and referenced. (Multiple trivial reviews which repeat the same information do not count as independent verification of dubious claims.) It should certainly not have been linked from just about every article on the Normandy fighting in its present state. HLGallon (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: What are the trivials? I dont think so. Moreover Wikipedia have many trivial articles. This article are reffered by some books, which are not same author.--Syngmung (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep so that history of the article and its Talkpage dont get lost. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Convert to article about the book (Option 3). As noted above there are multiple references, but they are mostly about the book, not about the subject matter in the book. In passing, it's interesting to note that the book was published just in time for a D-Day anniversary.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect (to maintain history) and incubate to actually develop an article of some utility. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete and incubate, per RightCowLeftCoast's comments. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect (to maintain history) and incubate. Add a paragraph into the main history whatever is chosen for balance in that article, it will give focus for the incubated article.-- PBS (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete and incubate. This article is a mess. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: There are some studies, so I dont want to neglect the act to mislead users as single one book issue.--Syngmung (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and somebody clean it up. Just read about it elsewhere the other day, or maybe heard on TV? Must have been one of those D-Day related news stories... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 07:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: it took less than 45 minutes to get the structure and language well within Wiki parameters; I haven't checked all the sources to verify and clear up minor confusions. And, of course, there's probably more useful info there. (Still trying to find better numbers, since one source just added says "well documented" numbers but the preceding google.books page that might say what they are missing. Will check amazon and fix if there. I think an AfD will fail since other US WWII rape articles on specific nations/campaigns still exist.

Submitting this thread two days before D-Day anniversay probably not best way to get neutral opinions, by the way - even if article just started. Needs a few weeks of gurgitation and to be announced to a few of wikiprojects up top in neutral voice. Who wants to do it?CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your great contribution. Carolmooredc added what U.S. soldiers are better than any other foreign forces with a reliable source. I want to find the very ones sources. Wikipedia has much American users, some of them dont believe the military dark side of their own country, so they overreact when they find US dark side in wikipedia. But you clarify, US is better than any other countries, but have only little dark side. It may ease overreacting people. thanks.--Syngmung (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the offending text again. Both of the above users seriously need to familiarize themselves with WP:CITE and WP:TERTIARY, and Syngmung in particular needs to be introduced to WP:AGF: I have now been accused about a dozen times of trying to promote a particular point of view, but the closest I have come to expressing my own point of view in this dispute was on ANI when I said that I personally agree that "rape is bad" and indicated that I share the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY'S view that drawing comparisons between a 12-year-old victim of rape with a consensual prostitute is pretty damn sick. This is not about my POV, but about the above users' failure to cite sources or write coherently. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

While I have barely begun to look at sources to verify, looking quick I'd say that the source connects rape (in one sentence) followed by Roberts quote in next: "‘American propaganda did not sell the war to soldiers as a struggle for freedom but as a sexual adventure.’" Obviously finding a more definitive linkage to support that would help. If there are ANI discussions of this topic it would help to link to them. Or even show a diff to a revert and an edit summary? I don't see a similar discussion above. But thre's too little discussion of improving article anyway. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Also added bare minimum note about discussion to: France, Military History, Women’s History, Sexology wikiprojects and gendergap WikiFoundation mailing list, so that's some variety. I usually only do one or two but since people want more even coverage, did a couple more. (Seems like one is damned if do too many and damned if do too few!) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

At the moment we have an article with a title that covers one of the larger national areas of Europe, and the whole of the multinational forces of the Western Allies but the content relates to the behaviour of one nations troops in one small area on two "occasions" about 1 year apart. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite a lot already for a stub article. (One explanation why less rape in Paris is this bit of info in War and Gender by Joshua S. Goldstein: in Paris US military allowed the brothels to be open. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect (to maintain history) and incubate - there is a valuable history here on how the article should develop. Also, Keep and improve Actively seek more input from editors in specialist areas such as France in WWII, crime in WWII - this article should be about much more than the US Army to regain neutrality Monstrelet (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Delete discussions seem procedurally improper here; there is no AfD nomination. The move to the current name is an improvement over the original title, but the intro doesn't seem to reflect the scope, since the implication remains that it's about only U.S. personnel committing rapes. I agree in general with the criticisms of GraemeLeggett and Monstrelet, except that M. makes an erroneous point about neutrality. The neutrality policy does not say that we have to be fair to everybody, like dividing up the candy bar equally; it says we have to represent the scholarship accurately and with balance whether we like it or not, and (if it meets the standards of RS) whether we even intellectually agree with its conclusions. But one problem here is the weight given Roberts' book. Scholarship with crossover market potential is often sensationalized for publicity purposes, and journalistic "reviews" and features should not be treated as if they are independent confirmations of its content, as they are here in the first four footnotes. That headline from Mail Online should immediately disqualify it as a source: or maybe on the basis of this we should state that Elizabeth I was really a man. Journalistic sources shouldn't be used here at all (they are appropriate for an article on the book itself), unless the writer has gone to the trouble of interviewing historians or archivists to offer outside context and criticism—in which case, it's the scholars who are the sources, not the reporter, and either the text or the footnote should make it clear whose view is being stated. (Some outlets may hire actual historians as reviewers, and these will be identified by an author's note. The NYT piece is a feature on the book, not a review by a historian, but it includes brief additional perspectives of J. Robert Lilly and William I. Hitchcock, whose views and books are potential sources.) If Roberts' book is the source, cite the book, not what some reporter cherrypicked to make his article "interesting". This is a topic of history, not current affairs, and the work of historians should be used to compile it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and improve While the incidents of rape in the aftermath of the liberation should be discussed, I doubt that the topic merits a standalone article. From a quick look at available serious works of history (while researching the quote from Life that has been badly misrepresented in the NYT piece and others) it is clear that the relationship between the French and the liberating troops was complex and interesting. The rapes are a part of a larger topic that we don't seem to cover - and perhaps this article could become that. Mcewan (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Historians' Views" removal

I removed this section, but I think my edit summary might have been lacking. Basically the title gives the false impression that "this how historians (as opposed to laymen and/or people with an agenda) view things" (since the user who added it has a questionable level of English, this may not have been intentional, but still). Unfortunately, of the three historians mentioned in the paragraph, two are in fact the same person ("J Robert Lilly" and "Bob Lilly"), and one (Kaplan) has a Wikipedia article that implies she is a professional linguist who has dabbled in French history, literature, culture, etc., but to cite her as the representative of "historians" is therefore deceptive. Further, while I am not familiar with Lilly's real-world credentials, he was referred to as both a sociologist and a historian in the paragraph, and given the context I would say it is most likely that he is only trained as a sociologist and User:Syngmung, in yet another example of misrepresentation of sources, chose to refer to him as a historian. Or rather, an "American professional" under the original title.[2] Gaarmyvet was right to change the title, but it was still inaccurate to call the people mentioned in this paragraph "historians".[3] Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, then the section should be renamed. It doesn't justify the removal of sourced material. Alice Kaplan is a professor at Yale who has written a historical study - she does not have to have a Ph.D in history to be dubbed a "historian" if her writing is in keeping with historical standards. I note that she has won major awards for historical writing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What changes do you propose making to the section, rather than simply removing it entirely? Your assertion that these are "people with an agenda" is nonsensical and/or irrelevant - everyone has an agenda. The act of telling a story has an agenda. If you think these writers have a particular POV, we should discuss it and disclose it. That would not justify removing their information. Both writers are tenured professors at major American universities whose books have been published by major publishing houses. They are inherently reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The section could be titled "historical view", perhaps. I have never addressed these particular writers' POV, and that is not my concern. The problem is that they are being used here by an editor with an agenda. I also have very good reason to believe that the editor in question has not actually read either of the sources. Notice how Lilly was cited in the text but the actual reference was to a tertiary source? It's therefore not unreasonable to assume that this user also read a blurb of Kaplan somewhere and inserted an inappropriate reference to the actual Kaplan article rather than his/her real source. This would be consistent with his/her previous behaviour on this and other articles. I am therefore not willing to take his/her word for it that the representations given are accurate. YOU apparently have read the sources, and the section as it is now (I notice you retitled it as I write this message - the new title is good) but your blankly reverting me in the first place rather than pointing this out here first was not the right way to go about it.

Also, I need to underline again that I have NO opinion on the reliability of either of these sources, and it is also not my "POV" (something Syngmung has accused me of having about a dozen times now) that these authors are "wrong" or anything of the sort. I am a casual reader of Wikipedia interested in the American military bases in Okinawa, and when I noticed a VERY troubling edit being made there by a user with an obvious agenda, I decided to look into a bit more and found that this user had been making the same kind of edits on numerous other articles. Note that until you fixed it within the last 30 minutes, the section in question was inherently problematic in the same way (misrepresentation of sources, SYNTH, inappropriate use of tertiary material...), so I was not wrong to remove it in the meantime and attempt to discuss any further additions of the sort on this talk page.

Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I made a number of improvements to address your concerns - you blindly reverted them anyway. That's not calculated to create a collaborative editorial environment. If the section was still imperfect - and it surely was - you could have said "Well, that's a start, but I think more needs to be done here, here, and here," and we could have discussed what more needed to be changed. Instead, you just hit the "undo" button and nuked it entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It's all academic now, since I basically have no problem with the section as you have rewritten it, but I think BRD applied here. Syngmung made a bold addition (and you must admit, as it was worded when I first reverted it was BOLD), I reverted, and then (with the section still removed from the article) discussion should have taken place here. Your initial edit[4] was a blank revert of me in which you appeared to claim that just because Lilly is a reliable source the text should not have been removed. I tried to revert you (in order to discuss further changes on this talk page) but came into an edit conflict with these three edits, none of which properly addressed my concerns, so I still was not wrong in removing the section again and asking you to discuss.[5] Your second revert[6] tweaked the title in a way that I didn't initially notice, but your edit summary again accused me of not attempting to discuss these edits on the talk page, when you were the one who was reverting me without replying to my talk page comment. I also wouldn't mind some acknowledgement on your part that the section I removed (twice, if not necessarily the third time) had no place in the article as written, and that I had already attempted to discuss this on talk before ever being reverted. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section to specifically describe who the authors are - a historian of France and chair of the Department of French at Yale University, and the Regents professor of sociology and criminology at Northern Kentucky University. Readers can decide how to judge those statements and to determine the veracity or accuracy of their estimates. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Are there other changes that you think should be made to the section? I invite you to engage in *editing* the section to improve it, rather than blindly reverting to blank the section entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

New York Times

I removed the NYT citation from the portion of the article about Le Havre. The NYT did not identify either the commander or the mayor by name. NYT did refer to Life magezine. There is an archive of Life Magazine issues available. Our protagonist should review these for the original citation.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Paint it black?

Since there's evidently some disagreement over including mention of racist treatment of African-American soldiers, & the quality of the evidence or reasoning of the cited source, it seems necessary we discuss it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

But it is included. The vast majority of the disciplined soldiers were disproportionally black. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rape during the liberation of France. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hY3cUraWo4fVJqWbA34Fd2IeTFOQ?docId=CNG.26cca045d911d64d66269c72328f270e.b11

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} 11:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)