Talk:Józef Światło/Archives/2011

Orchestrated "defection"
On 28 Jan 2011, Polish press claimed that newly revealed STASI documents suggest Światło's defection was in fact well-planned and ordered by Khruschev to provide a public reason for a purge of Stalin's hardliners. It is also claimed that "CIA was aware that Światło's revelations were badly incomplete, including omissions of facts he must have been aware of".

Should we wait a bit of time to see what comes from these sensational claims, or mention them outright? KiloByte (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd add a mention, with the attribution as above (recent press revelations). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Here's what the tooling said, I made my comments on the WPP:Talk page

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * This article does not have any categories. Please categorize it with relevant.
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * it has been
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: organise (B) (American: organize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), traveled (A) (British: travelled), travelled (B) (American: traveled).
 * The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

That is all! Ajh1492 (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Umm, in future, can you prune the irrelevant ones? Peer Review script gives lots of false positives. No image? Wrong. No infobox? Wrong. No categories? Wrong. No references? Wrong. I agree that lead could be expanded, but this is more for a GA level to worry about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Operation Splinter Factor - fringe?
I've reverted this addition by an anonymous editor. It seems that it is a WP:FRINGE theory, not corroborated by any academic sources. The blurb we have on Stewart Steven does not inspire me to treat him as a very reliable author, anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 03:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)