Talk:Bitch Wars

message: 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?
In answer: The prison system was run  on a bi-ulnar method, in that the guards ran the prisons during the day. The prisoners had much more latitude at night. Consequently there was little that guards could do to stop the attacks, which occurred most often in the night hours. "Prison authorities" had little interest in the prisoners, even in the "bitch" ranks.  They were treated as replaceable. The total headcount went down and wardens were rewarded for cutting costs. Perhaps "allies" should have been "favored"? These prisoners were more amenable to the authorities and as such garnered more favors. Better conditions, better work, etc..
Critic9328 04:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Valid reasoning? Citation?

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Source?

message: 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)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: 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)
replies: text: Yep, no sources whatsoever sounds like grounds for a deletion proposal to me. RobertM525 (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Suka war. I think unquestionably so. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well it would be interesting tknow, wikipedia not being censored. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Mikkalai, can you make the move, please. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'll cast my vote for "Suka Wars" then. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Title

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bitch Wars. 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/20080424053543/http://www.e-lib.info/book.php?id=112100186&p=7 to http://www.e-lib.info/book.php?id=112100186&p=7
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified