This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex Bakharev (talk | contribs) at 07:40, 30 January 2006 (→[]: Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:40, 30 January 2006 by Alex Bakharev (talk | contribs) (→[]: Support)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 04:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, 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. instead of just 'fisher'. This would probably double the lenght of already-large footnote section though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Why not use {{ref_label}}/{{note_label}} or m: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 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Why not use {{ref_label}}/{{note_label}} or m: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 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. instead of just 'fisher'. This would probably double the lenght of already-large footnote section though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:25, 27 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 Misplaced Pages'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—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—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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
- 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—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)
- 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 16:25, 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 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)
- I think Balcer has a point. Raul654 07:14, 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)
- 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 22:44, 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)
- Support as per radek abakharev 07:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)