Wikipedia:Featured article review/Witold Pilecki


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 23:51, 27 April 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notification of all relevant parties complete: Nominator and a main contributor User talk:Piotrus, another main contributor User talk:Logologist; Wikiprojects - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland

1(c) - currently all inlines are based on one web source. It maybe accurate but hard to verify reliability. (Background:It was promoted 4 years ago and has not been reviewed since.) Tom B (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotta admit it, one ref may have been okay when this became FA, but not now.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see anything objectionable about the prose, so I'm assuming that adding inline citations will be enough to save it from FARC. I've added a couple to the article so far and will try to secure the rest of the books in the bibliography section when I get the time. — east718  &#124;  talk  &#124; 06:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's okay now.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

On a very cursory flyover, I don't see any MoS issues. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Creator comment. The article had one issue: it relied on a web source. Since it was nomianted for review, better sources were added - primarily thanks to East718 . As such, I think the article is still up to modern FA standards.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to see citations for:

Prior to trial, he was repeatedly tortured but revealed no sensitive information and sought to protect other prisoners.

and

He is thought to have been buried in a rubbish dump

What does "(not confirmed)" mean after "Józef Cyrankiewicz"? I presume this means not confirmed as prime minister, but it can be misread as not confirmed as the accuser, or not confirmed as an Auschwitz survivor.

What was the outcome of the 2003 trial? DrKiernan (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added inline citations as requested; hopefully East will be able to upgrade them with his more reliable, printed sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There are still 13 citations to a website with no content: On the brighter side, the IPN has an online bio that could be used. Novickas (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, can you explain to the reviewers who the author/publisher of the webref is, as it's quite hard to ascertain at the moment.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 01:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point, with the website being offline anyway, and available only through the net archive, I don't recall the details. It was an extensive, but poorly referenced website about Poland in WWII. That said, the website usually had its facts right, and in the past years, as I've been replacing refs to it in various articles with better sources, they usually confirm what it said. It was a good source in the early days of Wikipedia, but is of course increasingly obsolete today. I fully support replacing all references to it with a more reliable, scholarly refs, where possible. I don't think that any controversial facts are referenced to it now? In any case, we have a better English online ref, the IPN scholarly website bio of Pilecki, so if somebody has a little time, it should be relatively easy to update the article to that better source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: "whatfor" references have been mostly replaced with more reliable sources and as of this time they constitute only about 10% of total references. None of them have been shown to be controversial or contradictory to other sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Delist - Most of the references support for the article is to a dead website. The archive.org website does not show anything of its remains so no one knows what was the original content or author. There are several interesting sources listed in the References, but none are used except mainly Lewis which is a collection of war stories of which the Pilecki source is probably a chapter of around ten pages. This would certainly not pass FAC today, especially in light of the updated 1c criterion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I've notified RelHistBuff on 29 March that his objection was addressed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See additional comments below. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment How reliable is ref #3? The author of the source is the "Institute of National Remembrance — Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation" – the name itself shows what side of the fence the institution walks on. I believe we need a more neutral source for this article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Institute of National Remembrance is quite reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you actually provide an explanation instead a simple declarative statement? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a decent article on it, right? In brief: despite the somewhat grandiose name, its a neutral, academic institution, who employs respected historians (many of them notable and with articles on Wikipeida: ), who publish normal, academic works. I am not aware of any criticism of the institute on the grounds of the lack of academic integrity in its research works. As the article indicates, the only real controversy regarding the institute concerned an attempt to use it in Polish politics some time ago, with little relation to historical research and publications. Its publications are often cited: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's still a fair amount of controversy about the IPN. ("Donald Tusk added that the IPN exists to celebrate Poland’s public heroes, not to slander them"), ,  (Special court cleared Lech Walesa in 2000, in 2009 an IPN historian republishes spying claims), "Former President Aleksander Kwasniewski has apologized to the 'honest researchers' and historians at the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) for having called them an ‘Institute of Liars’."  Given the statement by the PM about its mission, I think some other sources would be good. Having said that, I'll also say that my 10 minutes of searching didn't turn up any major controversies about Pilecki's life and works. One cite request based on an assertion I found only in the whatfor.com website. Novickas (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All of those controversies revolve about recent Polish politics. Questioning IPN on those grounds is as logical as questioning USMHH because it was criticized in an interview by some Holocaust denier :) IPN is staffed with reliable, notable historians and is simply a normal historical institute (with somewhat of an amusing name). PS. I've added ref for the citation tag you left in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dubious references replaced my reliable references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. 38 citations based on a short, online biography with no author and no particular analysis? I laud the efforts for the article's upgrading, but I don't feel comfortable to support keeping it, when it hugely relies on the above source with the above characteristics.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Sometimes background information could be better provided, in order to help the ignorant reader. E.g.: "As the relations between the Polish government in exile and the Polish-Soviet communist government worsened, in September 1945, Pilecki accepted orders from General Władysław Anders to return to Poland under a false identity and gather intelligence to be sent to the government in exile." What was the role of Anders? Who was he after all, and what was his position or influence in the Polish gie? Of course, this is for the article's improvement, and I do not argue that it constitutes an argument strong enough to lead to its delisting!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the role of gen. Anders. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article contains this strong statement: In 1944, the Russian army, despite being within attacking distance of the camp, showed no interest in a joint effort with the Home Army and the ZOW to free the camp. It's sourced to Jozef Garlinski, but it's pretty major to be in there with a single ref, and the Auschwitz article doesn't discuss it. If it's going to be in here, it should reach consensus at the Auschwitz article first. Novickas (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:The only thing that is needed to save this article from the reference gods is the backing up of this with other sources. Res Mar 14:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now and again I see some users criticizing the Institute of National Rememberance. This institution employs a number of professional historians and is a main publisher of books on modern history of Poland. It closely cooperates with offices of this kind in Eastern Europe, and criticism expressed here by user Novickas has nothing to do with the Witold Pilecki and IPN's publications about him. It is a positive sign that IPN historians dispel myths of modern Polish history and are not afraid to write about even most touchy subjects, such as Lech Walesa's cooperation with Communist Secret Services. Here is English version of IPN's webpage. Those interested should visit it . Tymek (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the Walesa bio demonstrates independence. You could ask Nishkid and Yanni to weigh in again. Novickas (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've changed my mind about its academic independence. If the law may be changed so that its board and director can be fired midstream (Warsaw Voice,), or the Prime Minister can close it at his discretion (Polskie Radio, ) - that gives me pause. Uncomfortably close to the government and government funding. The Warsaw Voice also states that the IPN-published book causing the latest flap is based on oral evidence from anonymous witnesses. That's SOP for news outlets, not historians, but they published it. The source is troubling on these counts. Novickas (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Novickas, it really seems like your first point supports the fact that IPN is an independent institution, not the other way around. IPN may be publicly funded but the law as it is right now is designed to prevent it from politicians' influence. The above articles merely show that sometimes professional historians come to conclusions which politicians don't like - but that's a problem with politicians not historians. Note also that 1) no law has been passed yet and even 2) no amendment has even been proposed (they're merely "working on it" - which could be just making noise for political reasons) - but even then, politicians will often propose a law which doesn't have much chance of passing simply to garner support with some particular electoral block. Your argument could MAYBE be valid if the amendment was actually proposed and passed - but so far, this really isn't anything except proof that IPN is willing to investigate uncomfortable facts even when this is opposed by politicians; it shows its independence, not vice versa. BTW, Witold Piilecki is far less controversial than Walesa.radek (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Novickas, but I do not really get it. What does criticism of a book on Walesa have to do with IPN's works on Pilecki? These are two completely unrelated subjects. Perhaps most people here have no idea that Walesa is regarded by members of Poland's ruling party as a kind of an immaculate hero, and books which contradict this opinion are mercilessly kicked. This is the kind of political infighting in which politicians of major Polish parties want to implicate the IPN and its historians. Let me repeat again. IPN is one of the biggest historical institutes of the XXth century history of Poland. It employs professional historians and it presents Polish history in a very unbiased way. It is the politicians that want to smear this institution. We all know that political parties have their agendas, and they are very willing to desribe modern history according to their likes and dislikes. Tymek (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the criticism - it's the threats from the Prime Minister to close it or cut off its funding. I have no way of evaluating how realistic these are. Also the IPN Deputy Director's (Maria Dmochowska) statement that the previous Walesa book didn't fit with the Institute's mission is troubling. Please realize that I'm not the first or only one to worry about this source. In fact, I suggested it as a replacement for whatfor.com. But as someone has said, Pilecki's life is much further back in the past than Walesa's, and the bio is probably based on solid material, so I would give them the benefit of the doubt here. (Disagreeing with Faulkner). Possibly those who brought IPN up won't come back here. And I have no intention of opposing this article any further, since my major objection, which was dozens of cites to a mystery website, has been answered. Novickas (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed in Tusk; I am a strong believer in I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.. I consider Wałęsa a hero, but I have no problems with others having a different opinion. It is understandable that a book criticizing him would cause much controversy in media - imagine what would happen in US if somebody published a book accusing Obama of being a KGB agent :) But I will repeat that all the criticism of IPN comes from popular media, and it is hardly reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist - it is simply unacceptable, that article, which allegedly should be FA, almost exclusively relays on single web page.M.K. (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comments:I struck my comments referring to the dead website. However, there is still a heavy (although not a sole) reliance on a single website. An author is given for the website, but she provides no bibliography of primary sources as would be expected in a book or journal article. The new 1c criterion calls for a higher standard of referencing. So my original delist still stands. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of the material in those footnotes (if not all of it) can be sourced to other books, for example Foot's "Six Faces of Courage" or other sources . It's simply not controversial and that website was probably used for convenience. I can go through and add the refs to Foot if that would help. Please also note, that contra's MK's assertion there is a good number of other sources in the article as well.radek (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I change my vote to neutral. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please note that there is in fact both a list of primary sources, under the heading "From the Archives", as well as a bibilography, under the heading "Publications" . In both cases these might be missed because the site is so nicely organized/developed aesthetically, which is unusual.radek (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - oh yes. As noted above, the website is reliable and there's a substantial number of other sources. There are also additional sources which can be used to back up the IPN ones.radek (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I took part in the discussion, but I forgot to vote. Tymek (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral per RelHistBuff.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.