Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katyń massacre

Katyń massacre
A controversial, but well referenced article about one of the most tragic moments in the Polish-Soviet relations. Recently peer reviewed. Your comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I'm not sure what's going on with the notes, but numbered notes in text should have a corresponding numbered note in the notes list.--nixie 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because some sources (like Fisher) are referenced many times (since this is a controversial subject, I decided to reference every possible questionable fact), the ref/note system is not that good when we have over 50 footnotes. What happens is that clicking on the footnote (number) in text will take you to the correct footnote, but clicking on footnote 'note' link (the up arrrow) will take you to the first instance of 'ref' (number) in the text. This can be fixed if one divides those references which are used many times into several different (i.e. use 'fisher1', 'fisher2', etc. inud of just 'fisher'. This would probably double the lenght of already-large footnote section though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not use ref_label/note_label or Cite/Cite.php for multiple notes from the same source, the numbering using both these systems is more intutative for the reader. I also agree with Raul, the reference section of the article is currently a mess.--nixie 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I was not aware of those new functions till today :) Eh, and just a few months ago I was so proud to have mastered the ref/note :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * References are now fixed - major kudos to Raul for doing so!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - It is a controversial topic, but the article, through the efforts of many editors, is written with commendable NPOV and should qualify as an example of Wikipedia's best work. Balcer 05:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, definitely one of the best articles on difficult subjects out there. It's a pity I added close to nothing to it... Halibutt 05:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Not even close. Total slanted in favor of the Soviet guilt POV&mdash;the very first sentence is horribly POV. Everyking 06:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Soviets did admit they were guilty, so that slant is entirely correct. The corresponding article in Encylopedia Britannica begins: Katyn Massacre - mass execution of Polish military officers by the Soviet Union during World War II.  Are you saying EB is not even close to NPOV? Balcer 06:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Balcer has a point. Raul654 07:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I maintain that it is disputed by enough people, particularly in Russia, that further NPOVing needs to be done. Everyking 09:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure there are some people who dispute it. Just like there are Holocaust Deniers who dispute that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis.  Still, we do not extend the idea of NPOV to include their views in the leads of articles like Auschwitz. Balcer 14:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the comparison is preposterous, and actually a little amusing when you consider that the viewpoint you don't want to include attributes blame to the Nazis&mdash;which side is closer to Holocaust denial, really, if you're going to sling mud around like that? I acknowledge the practical necessity of giving the Soviet guilt POV primacy, but that doesn't mean something can't be done to mitigate it. Everyking 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I made the comparison simply to show clearly that just because there is a small group of people who believe in an alternative version of an event, that is not a good enough reason to include that version in the lead of an article. This is especially true for articles dealing with genocides, massacres, and other painful events, where more often than not you will find some small (or not so small) group that will want to deny the facts in the face of overwhelming evidence.  This phenomenon has actually been recognised as the 8th stage of Genocide (see ).  How one deals with such views is an interesting question for Wikipedia.  It appears the practice has been to keep such POV out of the article lead, but discuss it further down in the article.  This is precisely what has been done here. Balcer 14:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We have had Russian editors contribute to the article. They had pointed out various things that needed improvement. Eventually all fact and NPOV have been removed. If you have any specific objection, especially regarding some unreferenced fact (or you have contradicting references), please provide them. The only problem with the first sentence was a mass execution of Polish citizens by the Soviet Union during World War II, as far as I can see it, is that it terms a massacre an execution, and sais nothing about illegality or brutality of the massacre - thus I'd rather say it has a pro-Soviet bias, not the other way around.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Well written, thorough and informative. And it is NPOV.radek 07:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - beautiful article on an ugly subject. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The referencing style in this article is, well, very ugly and difficult to read. I think you should merge the notes and references section, and (since you re-use the same sources a lot) you might want ot use the mediawiki citation style (which generates very nice numbering). Raul654 17:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you point me with a link towards this mediawiki citation style? I am not happy with the current look of footnotes/references, so I'd gladly see a viable alternative.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Go here Raul654 23:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment—yes, worthy topic for FA status; needs a run through by an editor. Just a small point: can you make the spacing, or lack of spacing, consistent for the inline reference numbers? Tony 01:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. But all uses of Katyń should be standardized in this article (there are numerous Katyn's floating around in it). --Fastfission 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Lots of red links. I would suggest removing them until the relavent articles are written, as they look rather ugly. --BadSeed 18:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Red links are how we see the articles that need to be written. Removing them is an awful suggestion. Raul654 18:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Provisional Support As a historical article, the article cannot be featured until it has a historiography section. The historiography section should probably have a link to a main page, something along the lines of Russian disputes regarding the Katyn massacre. Fifelfoo 00:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose. As the standard of FAs has been steadly plummeting, I won't be surprised if this monument to the Polish POV interpretation of history gets promoted too. In the past, we've seen Polish editors promote such articles to the FA in order to fend off any NPOVing changes. When we discussed Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) last time, many supported the move to Polish invasion of Russia, but the Polish editors had the issue suppressed. So let's now take a look at the latest candidate.
 * Even the title is grossly POV, as my concerns that the article should be moved to Katyn Incident remain unheard. When the officers are killed during the war and our Polish friends style it a "murder" about dozen times around the article, they prepare a playing ground for future revert wars. Currently, the article reflects Polish nationalist mythology only. Russian reaction is misinterpreted. The article's hyped-up reference base doesn't include Russian websites. Now to some more specific concerns.
 * The article is a lasting monument to the ignorance of those who wrote it. What is Putivli - is it Putivl? What is Vologod - is it Vologda? Other names are so heavily distorted that it's impossible to make any sense of them.
 * No mention is made of the fact that the episode, quite similar to countless such executions perpetrated by Stalin's regime, was wildly hyped up by Goebbels and Co and has been advertised by every Russophobic force in Germany, Poland, and elsewhere in order to sour the relations with Russia.
 * While the Soviet government was run by two ethnic Georgians (Stalin, Beria) and quite a few Jews, while a number of Ukrainians/Belarusians were involved in the execution, while 12,000 victims are actually buried in Ukraine, the article stubbornly opperates with the term "Russians" instead of "Soviets" (e.g., "Churchill assured the Russians..."), thus further highlighting the anti-Russian bias. That was the case only in a few places.  It is fixed now. Balcer 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No mention is made of the fact that the very same officers who fell victim to Stalin's terror had planned an invasion of the SU, similar to the one which was effected by the Poles in 1919. In the Polish black-and-white vision of history there is no place for such signal monents of Poland's history as Polish-German Partition of Czechoslovakia and German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. Every murky fact is being covered up, while the Poles are represented as lambs and victims of those bloody Russians.
 * Judgmental tone and NPOV phrasing is everywhere: e.g., The demands - often bordering on political blackmail - by Stalin and his diplomats. IMHO the publicity surrounding this obscure episode in modern Polish politics is a pure political blackmail. Unfortunately, no mention of Katyn being instrumental in propagating anti-Russian hysterics in Poland is made.
 * The investigations that indicted the German state rather than the Soviet state for the killings are sometimes used to impeach the Nuremberg Trials in their entirety, often in support of Holocaust denial... I can't make anything of this drivel. Please elaborate. --Ghirla | talk 10:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your proposal to move it to Katyn incident has been thoroughly discussed at the talk page and it was decided not to, mainly because the term is barely used. Google books has 127 books for Katyn massacre and 6 for Katyn incident, for instance. Not to mention Google. As to typos- I believe we should not confuse typos with ignorance, especially that the two mentioned are not typos. It's two tiny villages, not two major towns, as indicated by the nearest train stations mentioned. The Goebbels' efforts are also well-presented in the article, read it again and you'll find the relevant part. The mention of Russians as synonymic to Soviets, although well-established in English, could indeed be fixed for greater clarity. As to the Polish invasion of the Soviet Union in 1939, you already mentioned that some month ago or so. However, when asked to provide sources for your revelations, you did not comply, so I see no need to include your unsupported claims - unless you find support for them. Also, the Soviets who executed the officers did not really care for their alleged guilts, they were executed without a trial. As to anti-Russian hysteria - I saw non. Perhaps you mean anti-Soviet feelings? After all Stalin was Georgian and so was Beria... Halibutt 11:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious, can you supply any solid evidence that mysterious Vologod and Putivli are "tiny villages" as you claim them to be. In the past, you claimed that Ostashkov and Kozelsk were mere villages, until we found time to write articles on those cities. From my past experience, I know that it's hopeless to expect you to understand that Russia consists of anything more than tiny villages and vodka pissers but let me hope at least. --Ghirla | talk 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I join Halibutt in asking Ghirlandajo to provide some evidence for his accusation in point number 4. So far he has steadfastly refused to provide even one reference, despite being repeatedly asked.  As for the massacre being similar to countless others conducted by Stalin's regime, that is not quite true.  To my knowledge, Katyn was the only instance in which the Soviet Union conducted a mass execution of Allied POWs. Balcer 14:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a moot point whether the SU and Poland were really allies. Perhaps the article on German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact would have cleared up the issue, but your friends' persistant efforts at whitewashing the embarrassing stains in Poland's history induce me to think that the article will never be written. It's so much easier to vociferate about the "murders" of the innocent and high-minded Poles by the bloody Russkies and to forget that the NKVD (presumed to have been guilty of the Katyn executions) was founded by a Polish nobleman... --Ghirla | talk 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ever considered writing that articles yourself - if you think it is so important? Don't forget to cite your sources, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And what does it have to do with what you wrote above? Moreover, whether USSR was part of the Allies of World War II is a complicated matter, which does not change the fact that Poland indeed was an Allied state - and I doubt the USSR committed similar massacres of other foreign citizens, especially citizens of Allied states. Halibutt 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * While USSR did posses some other prisoners who were Allied soldiers the mass execution of Allied soldiers from Poland was an exception.It is worth mentioning in the article that the soldiers were part of Allies and not only Polish soldiers.--Molobo 13:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support as per radek abakharev 07:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The article is thorough, nicely written, well documented. Appleseed (Talk) 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. Remove the references to "Russians" instead of "Soviets" and you have my vote. Kazak 18:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done (except for references to Russia after 1991, of course). Balcer 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support as per, well, almost everyone.--SylwiaS | talk 04:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This vote is disturbing. Promoting this to FA status will be in blatant contradiction to our NPOV policy. I don't know how plainly I can say it: this article reflects anticommunist Western and Polish nationalist historical views; it is not a balanced portrayal of the event and the evidence and arguments from both of the basic POVs, not even remotely. The article appears to be well-written and well-cited, but all that is secondary to neutrality, which this article fundamentally does not have. Everyking 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You have opposed on the same grounds every Polish-Russian related FAC I have seen here in the past. Let me reply as I always did, then: please provide the examples of POVed statements here, and we will see if they can be fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyking - are you prepared to cite (with specifity) part(s) of the article which are not neutral? You claimed above that it's not neutral because the first sentence says the Russians did it, and then Balcer pointed out that EB says the same thing. In summary, your comments are long on histrionics and very, very short on meaningful content. Raul654 18:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support On the whole an interesting article, certainly informative and thought-provoking. Could do with slight NPOVing as Kazak said.--Kuban kazak 11:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I replied to Everyking: please provide examples of what sentences need NPOVing. have removed one POVed sentence mentioned earlier in this review, if you tell me of others, I'll see what I can do. Or feel free to fix it yourself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support-an important historic WW2 atrocitity.Well written and touches all aspects-from cooperation of NKVD and Gestapo to Russian "Katyn denial".--Molobo 13:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just spent the better part of the morning converting this article to use the mediawiki citation style. The references section no longer sucks and is quite a bit more readable now. Raul654 14:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"'Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian.''"
 * Conditional oppose This is an impressive article, and it feels like it should be an FA (though I don't know a lot about the topic other than this material. so I can't comment too much on the historical interpretations used), but the David Irving stuff has to go before it can be promoted. As the judge in his case ruled: "Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence... that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism". And his history is totally uncredible:
 * Other than that, I would support this, though I do have two other more minor issues: (1) The "largest massacre of Allied soldiers" bit in the intro seems like a random POV insertion, and may not be correct and (2) it would be good to have an expansion of why Kaytn is argued to be a genocide, since I don't think the Soviets were exterminationist towards the Poles as whole, though I could be wrong. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

it would be good to have an expansion of why Kaytn is argued to be a genocide, since I don't think the Soviets were exterminationist towards the Poles as whole, though I could be wrong.

I would say that the main arguments of Polish side that it should be regarded as genocide are following: From http://www.ipn.gov.pl/eng/eng_news_high_katyn_decision.html
 * The selection of persons for extermination was also characterised by the fact that they formed part of the intellectual elite of the Polish Nation which, under the appropriate conditions, could assume leadership.


 * The physical elimination of these people was meant to prevent the rebirth of Polish statehood based on their intellectual potential. Therefore the decisions of elimination were taken with the intention of destroying the strength of the Polish Nation and liquidate its elites.


 * Therefore one can conclude that the murder of Polish prisoners of war and Polish civilians by the NKVD was dictated by a desire to liquidate part of the Polish national group


 * The view whereby the extermination of Polish citizens is an act of genocide was also expressed in the USSR's stance during the trial of Nazi war criminals before the Nuremberg Tribunal after the end of World War II.

--Molobo 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Having conducted evidentiary proceedings which did not confirm the opinion that the atrocity was carried out by the Germans, the Nuremberg Tribunal in its verdict did not make any substantive reference to the charge regarding the Katyn Massacre.
 * Great, it might be good to have this in the article since it was a bit confusing without this context -- but I still am going to have to conditionally oppose until the Irving nonsense is removed. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All the Irving-dependent statements have been changed to use a different source or written out. Raul654 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments Just wanted to add that I also think that where appropriate "Russia" should be replaced by "Soviet". Second, I'd also like to see the Irving reference removed. He may have just happened to be correct about Sikorski (though undoubtedly for the wrong reasons) but the guy's a discredited odious hack and I think the article's credibility could suffer just by association. Also his relevence to this particular topic seems marginal at best. radek 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. However, one question I have is the following sentence in the intro:  "Since Poland's conscription system required every unexempted university graduate to become a reserve officer,[6] the Soviets were thus able to round up much of the Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian and Belarusian intelligentsias of Polish citizenship."  I assume "on the grounds they were enemy combatants" or something similar is the implied conclusion to that sentence.  Should it be stated explicitly?  Also, either way, the mention of this in the intro is not followed by further discussion in the article, unless I missed it, so as an uninformed reader I would have no idea what motivated the Soviets to do this.  Can it be expanded a bit? Kaisershatner 16:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)