Talk:Katyn massacre/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't the Hitler-Stalin Pact be mentioned in the Intro?
-Ned
: Why not: be bold. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hitler-Stalin Pact is directly related to the article, while the whole WWII was not. Using your common sense, we would not need to include anything because everyone can read 20th century history. Aran|heru|nar 12:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler-Stalin Pact

message: Ladies and gentlemen, this article is now FA on the Hebrew wiki. How about improving it to FA standard here as well? For now I added all the pics the Polish wiki article uses. What is lacking? Halibutt 13:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you help me with referencing the facts, I am sure we can get this FA soon :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured status? 

message: There are also many tales, although the authenticity unknown, of many escaped POWs who claimed it was the Soviets, and the Polish believed them to be crazy. This would be nice to include as well. I'll see what I can come up with.
:Never heard of any escapees... There were several hundred (ca. 300, if memory serves me right) prisoners who were on the killing lists, but were instead transferred to a special NKVD villa, where they were kept as a reservoir of Polish officers in case Stalin needed them. One of them was even returned from the railway station, some 500 metres from the mass murder site, and his testimony is quite notable. However, as I said, these people escaped the death, but not from the camps.. Halibutt 02:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this survivor be professor Stanislaw Swianiewicz/Stanisław Świaniewicz mentioned by Fisher?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that's the guy. And he is mentioned in practically every publication, as his case is somehow notable. Halibutt 23:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivors' Tales 

message: External link N1 Original Katyn Ordner
*Original of Katyn order Nikkolai
: What? You have linked to your own userpage... and you left me strange private messages. Please learn how to sign your posts. Better - see Wikipedia:Tutorial first, then try editing again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As one can read from this original order, it was not only Polish officers that were executed, but also policemen, government workers etc.  Hence, using Polish "citizens" in the lead is more correct than Polish "officers", which is too restrictive. Balcer 16:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court-martial 

message: Why "near Smolensk" if we know the place perfectly?
Xx236 11:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's just a literary construction, feel free to fix it if you think it's confusing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near Smolensk, the Poles, with their hands tied behind their backs, were led to the graves and shot in the neck. 

message: I am removing this sentence: Some historians believe the massacre was part of wider action coordinated by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, or that Germans at least knew of the Katyn beforehand. - it is an obvious Weasel word. Some historians'? Please provide names and references. I am going to rewrite this para on the sources provided for it be more NPOV.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel sentence 

message: Why do you write Katyń (massacre) in the headline instead of Katyn? Katyn is a place in Russia. The original spelling is катынь. The English transcription would be Katyn. There is no ń in the English alphabet. I realize this is a minor thing but one should be as accurate as possible.
:Katyń is a Polish spelling, as the massacre is much more known in Poland then in Russia (or in English speaking countries).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Russian spelling for the place name, as given above, is correct, then the above comment is very much à propos and the name should be spelled either "Katyn," as it is in English, or "Katyn'," as it would commonly be transliterated from Russian into English.  logologist|Talk 06:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: As I still cannot find any source to verify this fact, I am moving the relevant quote here, so the article (now a FAC) can have no 'sourced needed' templates and such. Note that the fact that there were civilians at Katyn is not doubted (reference), but the 8,000 number needs a specific source.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I remember the break down onto categories is available in W cieniu Katynia by Swianiewicz. Halibutt 11:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody has access to that reference to verify this? Such a breakdown would be quite a nice addition (especially as no online sources seem to have it).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  8,000 were civilians? source please 

message: What do you think of creating such a category, pararell (in spirit, if not size) to :Category:Holocaust victims? 15,000+ victims should be enough for a notable category.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  But while we're at it, how about getting Poles out of "Category:Holocaust victims"?  To the broad public, the term "Holocaust," with its Biblical referents (in Polish, it's "całopalenie"), attaches exclusively to the Nazis' Jewish victims.  logologist|Talk 07:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And consistently delete all mentions of Poles and Poland from the article on Holocaust? Seems rather a bad idea to me. Halibutt 11:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were all the Nazis' Polish victims Jewish?  There should be a separate category for the Germans' non-Jewish victims.  I repeat:  whatever the merits of the question, to much of the world, the Holocaust was a purely Jewish concern.  logologist|Talk 15:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed the gentile victims of the Holocaust were forgotten in the West for quite some time. Which does not mean that we should repeat the same mistake here. Halibutt 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Halibutt. And besides, what about Polish Jews?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Katyń victims]] 

message: To do.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article.  I am not a Katyń specialist, but this is the kind of thing you need in a historical article for it to be featured.Fifelfoo 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[historiography]] 

message: We should mention that Poland was part of the Allies since 1939 and thus Soviets comitted one of the largest known massacres of Allied POWs by that murder.
--Molobo 13:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go away, troll. What is really glaringly absent from the article is the incident's use by Russophobic forces to escalate anti-Russian hysterics in Poland. It is in relation to this that Katyn is best known in the former SU. --Ghirla | talk 14:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eloquent as always, Ghirla? I guess Molobo is right here. I wonder if Germans have actually commited any larger massacre of Allied POWs? Although it should be noted that until Barbarossa (more then a year after Katyn) Soviets were not 'allies of Allies'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, you may feed your pet trolls as long as you like and convert the article into a battleground for revert wars, if that is your intention. I have more useful things to do. Wish you good luck in editing with Molobo. Ghirla | talk 15:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied soldiers

message: Please explain why the Poles always polonize the names of Eastern European locations. Why should the name of a Russian village be spelled in a Polish way? Please move the article to the valid title: Katyn Incident (without weird marks above n). --Ghirla | talk 15:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't start new sections on something discussed above. Katyn vs Katyń, as discussed above merits further discussion, Incident vs Massacre don't.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Katyn massacre is the appropriate location. Katyn is by far the most common english spelling. Raul654 15:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Question-is there any larger massacre of Allied soldiers in WW2 ?
--Molobo 16:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is ill-defined. List of massacres lists a few that were larger. What exactly constitutes a soldier? Military_description_of_the_Warsaw_Uprising#Wola_Massacre would seem to be bigger, for example. Raul654 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Regarding the following quote Unfortunately we have had to give up Katyn. The Bolsheviks undoubtedly will soon 'find' that we shot 12,000 Polish officers, Anti-Flag wrote that "There needs to be a reference to that statement in a reliable record of his diary. At the moment, this is a quotation of a quotation of that particular statment". The quote was referenced and only a few mousclicks are needed to verify it comes from Zawodny (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27886543 p.49), and he gives a reference to  Goebbels Diaries, p. 487. I cannot personally verify the Goebbels Diaries atm (if sb has access to them, please do so), so I posted the best reference I had, which is Zawodny.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote, if somebody can get to the Goebbels Diaries, p. 487 and verify this, that's great. Otherwise we are stuck with Zawodny, which I think is reputable enough. And note that Goebbels does not take blame for the massacre - with quotes around "find" irony is pretty self-evident, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By coincidence, I happen to have a copy of the 1948 edition sitting on my shelf as I write this. Raul654 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third paragraph from the bottom of the page: "Unfortunately we have had to give up Katyn. The Bolsheviks undoubtedly will soon 'find' that we shot 12,000 Polish officers. That episode is one that is going to cause us quite a little trouble in the future. The Soviets are undoubtedly going to make it their buisness to discover as many mass graves as possible and then blame it on us."  Raul654 01:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Tnx! By any chance, could you verify this quote: "Foreign commentators marvel at the extraordinary cleverness with which we have been able to convert the Katyn incident into a highly political question"? Unforunately ATM the Irving book the quote was taken from is offline (footnote 71, if anyone can check what was his source - hopefuly another page in Goebbels memoires).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the book's index, I checked every reference to Katyn and did not find that quote. Here are some others you might find helpful though (unsurprisingly, the typos are all mine):
----
pg 328, April 14, 1943 - "We are now using the discovery of 12,000 Polish officers, murdered by the GPU, for anti-Bolshevik propaganda on a grand style. We sent neutral journalists and Polish intellectuals to the spot where they were found. Their reports now reaching us from ahead are gruesome. They Fuehrer has also given permission for us to hand out a drastic news item to the german press. I gave instructions to make the widest possible use of the propaganda material. We shall be able to live on it for a couple weeks"
pg 332, April 17, 1943 - "The Katyn incident is developing into a gigantic political affair which may have wide represcussions. We are exploiting it in every manner possible. So long as ten to twelve thousand polish victims have sacrificed their lives anyway - probably not entirely without their fault, for they were the real instigators of this war - they might as well now serve to open the eyes of the peoples of Europe about Bolshevism. 
In the evening, a Globe Reuter reporter reached us containing a declartion by the Polish Government-in-exile. This declaration changes the whole Katyn affair fundementally in that the Polish Government-in-exile now demands that the International Red Cross take part in the investigation. That suits us perfectly. I immediately contacted the Fuehrer, who gave me permission to send a telegram to the International Red Cross, requesting it to collaborate to the greatest extenet possible in identifying corpses. This telegram is signed by the Duke of Colburg and Gotha, whose name is well known in England and who has many family connections there. In that way, in my opinion, something has been started the reprecussions of which we simply can't imagine yet." 
pg 384, April 30, 1943 - Our propaganda is suspected everywhere of having blown up the Katyn incident to enable us to make a seperate peace either with the English or the Soviets. That, of course, is not our intention, although such a possiblity would naturally be very pleasing. 
pg 354, May 8, 1943 - Unfortunately, German munitions were found in the graves of Katyn. The question of how they got there needs clarfication. It is either a case of munitions sold by us during hte period of our friendly arrangement with the Soviet Russians, or of the Soviets themselves throwing these munitions into the graves. In any case it is essential that this incident be kept top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped. 
page 366, May 10, 1943 - The fuehrer is very much impressed with the Katyn incident. It showed him what tremendous possiblities are still inherent in anti-Bolshevik propaganda.... The wermacht has no buisness to interfere in this matter. It should concern itself with military questions only. Questions of psychology are exclusively the conern of the Propaganda Ministry
----
Great. Since we have agreed do de-Irvine the article anyway, I'd suggest we exchange the current quote (which is the only part of the article relying only on Irving) with one of the others, provided to us by Raul. The rest can be moved to Wikiquote, so his effort is not in vain.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've done the switch. Someone still needs to remove the Irving citations (nudgenudge) Raul654 20:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irving is gone now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goebbles quote

message: "Stalin used the Katyn Massacre "unsupported allegations" as the pretext to withdraw recognition of Sikorski's government in Britainon April 26, accuse it of collaborating with Nazi Germany[19][18]and start a campaign to get the Western Allies to recognize the Soviet puppet Polish government[20] led by Wanda Wasilewska."
In this sentence are a lot of statements which might be considered biased and they are insufficiently based on citations.
*Reference 19 ("The Polish Government official statement") is a primary source and therefore cannot be used.
*Reference 18 ("Europe: A History", 1392 pages) unfortunately is not accessible to me and needs backup. I have the suspicion that this used to pretend the validity of that statement by using remote sources. (moved away..) 
*Reference 20 ("Collaboration in the Holocaust") again seems to be the attempt to use books that the contributors are unlikely to own in order to pretend validity.
Therefore, I'd like this paragraph to be removed, as it is interpreting the intentions of Stalin and in fact has nothing to do with the topic, or be backed up with sources which are easily accessible. An alternative would be if someone who owns these books could scan the page(s) on which the statements are based or quote them. --Anti-Flag 16:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All sources in this paragraph are online. I am not sure if I like your suggestion that we (I?) are using some 'clandestine' sources to push a particular POV. Few people don't have a Google account now, so using sources witha link to Google Print page is one of the best ways to quickly verify a reference. If you don't have a Google account, send me an email and I'll send you an invitation. And I am still waiting for you to point me to a policy that states that primary sources should not be used (not to mention that I provided secondary sources backing up those claims as well).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in case of reporting some official statement, the statement itself is quite a good source to use. The same situation applies to international treaties and so on. If we are claiming that X said Y, we don't have to find it repeated in a book written by Z, the statement by X should be enough, especially as a reference for such a widely-known fact. Halibutt 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is true that the official statement (ref 19) does not make such an accusation, but the second ref for this (Davies, 18) is enough: "The exiled Polish government appealed to International Red Cross for an enquiry. For this, they were denouced as 'Fashist collaborators' by the Kremlin, which promptly withdrew diplomatic recognition."--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is random page lock for random accounts - you may want to use 2+ accounts for such cases. Anyway, the reference about Wasilewska reads: "By the end of 1943 the Soviet partisan commanders insisted that the Poles subordinate themselves to the 'legal' pro-Soviet government in Moscow under Wanda Wasilewska. In suprise attacks the leaders of the Polish partisants were arrested by Soviets; some were taken to Moscow and others were killed."--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a noteworthy difference between pro-Soviet government and Soviet puppet Polish government. Even if the latter was replaced with the first, still there's no source saying that Stalin used "the Katyn Massacre (...) as the pretext to (...) recognize" that goverment in Poland however you call it. --Anti-Flag 12:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he used the Katyn case as a pretext to break relations with the legitimate Polish government, re-established in 1941 under pressure from the Brits. This gave him a freedom of manouevre in Polish question and allowed him to create his own Polish government. Halibutt 14:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversial statements 

message: I cannot follow why this link gets deleted. The Soviets acknowledge it was a war crime, hence a link to allied war crimes. What is the problem? Get-back-world-respect 18:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Calling it an allied war crime is (1) disputable, as they didn't become part of the Allied powers until over a year after the massacre (the discussion is elsewhere on this talk page) and (2) the way you are trying to put it into the article (in a see also section - one which I pointedly removed when we started putting this article on the road to FA status) is unacceptable. Raul654 19:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already saw that they were at the time not yet allies, so I removed it from the article. I however do not see what the problem is with see also, most articles have that section. Get-back-world-respect 19:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's lazy, degenerate writing. If something is important enough to merit a mention in an article, it should be mentioned in an actual sentence which puts it in context. Otherwise, it's probably not be important enough to mention. Raul654 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. For example, Nuremberg Trials has International Military Tribunal for the Far East under see also. Definitely related and interesting for the reader, however not related closely enough to be mentioned in the article itself. Get-back-world-respect 20:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: According to Wikipedia:Section#.22See_also.22_for_the_whole_article, the 'See also' seems to be justified. However, the insistence of the ones involved might imply that there's a specific reason behind adding/removing it. If people believe that it's biased to insert that link, the easiest solution would be to avoid that link/section as the see also section never should be entirely necessary (or else the link should be included in the text). --Anti-Flag 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? We already agreed that the link does not fit here. Get-back-world-respect 21:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Allied war crimes]]

message: It's an incorrect information. They were executed for their crimes in Leningrad area. You can see scans of newspapers of the time here: 
And at last - my opinion: the very topic is controversal and thus a priori is not stable, so it's waste of time to make it "featured article". Best regards. --Nekto 19:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (As the person who wrote the stability requirement for featured articles) A priori claims of instability are inherently invalid, as they relate to the subject matter and not the actual article. Raul654 06:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean that the topic as controversal as maybe JFK assassination - tons of speculation, versions. The article is onesided, not comprehensive and factually inaccurate. --Nekto 06:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specific examples, diffs and links would make your stance much clearer to understand. Halibutt 11:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't pretend that you were not given "specific examples, diffs and links" ad nauseum. The article should be rewritten. --Ghirla | talk 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello, Ghirla! I will try to present them examples of the most "inacurate" things (lets call it politely) in the article within a week, though my writing English is not good. By the way the Russian article about Katyn is now in processing and you can see temp-version here :ru:Катынский расстрел/Temp  It already has a lot of references and covers the issue rather well (though the work is not finnished, yet)--Nekto 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germans condemned to death 

message: The Burdenko Commission, headed by Nikolai Burdenko, the President of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR, exhumed the bodies again and reached the conclusion that the shooting was done in 1941, when the Katyn area was under German occupation. No foreign personnel, including the Polish communists, were allowed to join the Burdenko Commission.[1] [3] This forms a sharp contrast with the German investigation, which allowed wider access to both international press and organizations (like the Red Cross) and even used Polish workers, like Józef Mackiewicz[24].
That’s factually inaccurate and not neutral. 
Soviets did allow access to international press and others (one of them – daughter of American ambassador). Also Polish Corps buried remains after exhumation works were finished.
The comparison between the German and the Soviet investigations is not neutral. On the other hand it could be said that Germans made public propaganda campaign out of the investigation while the Soviet commission concentrated on the practice work having to investigate much more pits and graves with killed Soviet citizens all over Soviet Union. For example in Smolensk area they also found 87 mass graves with 135,000 killed Soviet citizens and POWs. And unlike forensic experts in the pro-German commission who cannot date the murder from bodies’ state and had to rely on the found documents with dates, Soviet specialists were much more experienced. --Nekto 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I remember the German report (don't have any sources on it at hand), it simply stated that the muddy and wet soil of the area made the corpses too waxy for exact date to be given. They could only tell that there must've passed at least several years since the burials. On the other hand, the Soviets indeed miraculously found the evidence that the Poles were buried in the summer of 1941. So, all in all, two years after the massacre (as per the version accepted by almost everyone) it was impossible to tell the exact time of the mass murder, while 4 years after the shootings it was somehow easier... Halibutt 23:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the report of the Internetional Forensic Commision  I didn't find anything about "several years" when it comes to the corpses' conditions. In the report of German prof. Butz such phrase does exist but Butz was not a member of the Internetional Forensic Commision because he was a German (i.e. from interested party). --Nekto 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Burdenko Commission

message: In November 1945, seven officers of the German Wehrmacht, K.H. Strueffling, H. Remlinger, E. Böhom, E. Sommerfeld, H. Jannike, E. Skotki and E. Geherer were tried by a court of the victorious allies: the Americans, the English, the French and the Soviets. They were condemned to death for their role in the Katyn massacre and were subsequently hanged. Three more were tried on the same charges; E.P. Vogel, F. Wiese, A. Diere. They received sentences of 20 years of hard labor, were turned over to the Soviets and never heard from again.[29]
That’s factually inaccurate. 
They were condemned to death for their role in the crimes in Leningrad area and during the process one of the accused just mentioned Katyn case. --Nekto 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are your sources refering to the same 7 officers?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the New York Times, 6 Jan 1946 they mentioned 8 officeres and one of them was H. Remlinger  So, yes I'm sure , though there is certanly a mistake with number. In any case in the link to an article in Montréal Gazette Professor H. Famira didn't give any source for his knowledge - "Doing my reading... I came across a most interesting passage". It's not enough.--Nekto 13:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seven officers of the German Wehrmacht

message: In 1989 Soviet scholars revealed that Joseph Stalin had indeed ordered the massacre, and in 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev admitted that the NKVD had executed the Poles[32], and confirmed two other burial sites similar to the site at Katyn: Mednoje and Pyatikhatki.
That’s factually inaccurate. 
In 1989 Soviet scholar didn’t reveal anything of that kind. What they had found at the time were as follows:
# They found documents  evidenced that Polish officeres were sent to OSO of the NKVD  (osoboe soveshanie – special council ). <OSO of the NKVD was a special non-judicial body with judicial powers>.
# They found transport lists of Polish officeres.
From that info they drawed a conclusion that Polish officeres might be executed after formal trials in OSO. 
 – Doc from presidential archive about finds. <in Russian>--Nekto 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that we are missing a citation for the following: In 1989 Soviet scholars revealed that Joseph Stalin had indeed ordered the massacre. What scholars? If this is not verified it should be removed, or preferably updated to what you found above (is there an English version of this source?). The second part (in 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev admitted that the NKVD had executed the Poles[32], and confirmed two other burial sites similar to the site at Katyn: Mednoje and Pyatikhatki) is however confirmed by our reference  (although it does not mention Mednoje and Pyatikhatki).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's an official document #03900 Letter to Gorbachev from V.M. Falin "Additional information on Katyn tragedy" February 22, 1990  Have no idea if it was translated to English. In the letter Falin wrote that Soviet scholars (Zorya, Parsadanova and Liebedeva) who were allowed to search the Soviet archives found some indirect evidences that pointed at the NKVD guilt. He mentioned that they found that Polish officeres were to set to OSO of the NKVD and their cases should be investigated by this extrajudicial body. And at the end he called Gorbachev to arrive at a political decision and admitt that Poles were killed by NKVD though direct shooting orders were not found. <Background: It worth to mention that at the perestroyka time in 1987 Soviet media opened great "anti-stalinism" campaign and many people including politicians were under it influence> --Nekto 19:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While I'm not sure what exactly documents are being mentioned in the first part, I'd like to note that the second part is a pure speculation. Are you suggesting that Gorbachov was conspiring with Wałęsa and the CIA or what? Also, take note of the books by Lebiedieva, who was among the Russian historians allowed to search the archives. Halibutt 23:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read about the Soviet scholars finds and about reasons for the admittion in 1990 in the Falin's secret letter to Gorbachev that I gave above - it's from Presidential archive  <in Russian>. By the way he mentioned Lebedeva among others. --Nekto 18:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What did Soviet scholars reveal in 1989

message: The massacre took place before the USSR was invaded and entered World War II. The wording of the text should reflect this point. It also means that this incident can not be included in the "Category:World War II crimes" if Wikipedia is to be accurate in such matters --Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the POV. According to Soviet historians the USSR did not take part in WWII at all. Instead they fought the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). However, the Katyn massacre happened precisely during WWII and because the USSR entered the war on September 17, 1939. Otherwise there would be no Allied POWs in Soviet captivity and there would be noone to murder (well, except for the Soviet citizens, but this is another story). That's why I'm putting the category back. Halibutt 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: user:Halibutt wrote: "According to Soviet historians the USSR did not take part in WWII at all." 
Halibutt, where do you get your info from I wonder? Please no jokes under the pretence of serious arguments. I have no problem with people making a joke at the talk once in a while. But please don't talk nonsence. --Irpen 16:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather a common knowledge. While the Russian wiki article describes the Soviet actions of 1939 and 1940 as part of the WWII, in Soviet times I doubt there were any museums of World War II in the USSR. Instead, you have the museums of the Great Patriotic War in every corner of the USSR, from Minsk and Kiev to Vladivostok. My comment was not a joke, it was a mental shortcut but not a joke and I was hoping it was clear to everyone around. Anyway, it does not change a thing as my arguments are still valid. The massacre happened during and because of WWII. Whether USSR was belligerent or not precisely at that time has no meaning here. Halibutt 18:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't really depend on what I agree with. No matter if I agree or not, the article contradicts itself. To avoid controversy, the term 'prisoner of war' should be generalized to 'prisoner'. --Anti-Flag 12:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the article contradicts itself in whether the USSR was engaged in WWII at that point or not. However, the Poles in Soviet captivity were called prisoners of war by the Soviets themselves - most of the NKVD documents (including Beria's order of March 5) mention the term voyennoplennyie (prisoners of war), and not arestovanyie (arrested), zaklyuchenyie (incarcerated), plennyie (prisoners) or uzniki (inmates). Halibutt 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before World War II 

message: While so many questions are looming about the neutrality and factual accuracy, I don't think that keeping the FA tag is appropriate. The tag with the wording that this is "one of the best articles produced by the WP community" applied to the article with several clear questions about both neutrality and factual accuracy is harmful for the reputation of the FA tag as well as for WIkipedia as a whole. Once the issues are addressed, we can put it up for another FA vote if authors want that. It seems to me that the problems are so clear that no de-FA formal vote is necessary, especially since it is likely to rise same kinds of barbs and emotions that were present in the FAing vote. Thoughts? Objections? --Irpen 16:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall who decided to add the tag to this pot of fantasies, but if it was Raul, let it be a lesson for him. This page is a clear evidence that he needs to raise the standard of his work. --Ghirla | talk 18:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not any person in particular but rather the wiki community. As the tag specifically states that  If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute. then I see no problem here. Gentlemen, just try to be as constructive as Nekto is. We're working on improving the article even more, which does not mean that it's perfect or ever will be. No article is ever perfect in wikipedia. Halibutt 18:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What can be seen above is a sensible and source-supported discussion on how to improve the article. The article is good even without it, which has been proved by the wiki community. Altogether there were 23 votes in favour and one against it. Indeed, the community was not unanimous, though 96% is quite a decent consensus, isn't it. You say it was premature? I don't think so. Of course we could wait another week or two, but would it change anything? I doubt it. Anyway, I believe the best thing we can do is to start being constructive and discuss how to improve the article or settle the questions raised, and not to de-FA it or anything. Irpen, feel free to join with your sources and arguments. Halibutt 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: de-FA?

message: What are those reverts about? Is the link concerned not on the topic? Why is it removed labelling the editor's contribution "vandalism" and arguing "Stalin Society is not a reliable source"? --Anti-Flag 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Stalin Society - this should answer your question.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there's an article about it does not mean it doesn't deserve to be mentioned. There's also no reason to declare it an unreliable source or to call that contribution vandalism. Even if it really was an unreliable source with certainty there's no law in wikipedia that forbids it from adding in the 'External links' section. --Anti-Flag 12:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Balcer that this link is marginal and biased - it's on the same level as Holocaust Denial or pro-nazi sites.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just your opinion that it's biased or marginal or on the same level as 'Holocast Denial'. There is simply no justification to use words like 'vandalism' for it. It obviously presents another point of view on the subject. The intentional exclusion of another point of view violates wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Anti-Flag 17:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should reread the Wikipedia:NPOV policy, paying special attention to the point about Giving "equal validity": Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is certainly not that it should be given equal validity or validity at all, which a simple external link would not cause one way or the other. I was thinking that  Wikipedia:NPOV#The neutral point of view applies to that case. I think it would be fair to represent the view at all.--Anti-Flag 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please ask on Talk:Holocaust if we should include list to Holocaust Denial sites in the article. If they agree, I'll withdraw my objections to including Stalin Society Katyn Denial link in this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's getting pathetic in a way. We are talking about another view of what happened and not of the denial that it happened, so please don't attempt equation. One single link to the other view does not mean it's a list by the way. Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked to clearly states: "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view." --Anti-Flag 16:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would rather not have references by the Stalin Society and Irving in an unrelated article. OTOH if you feel that Irving is a reliable source for the mainstream version of the events, then what is wrong with using Stalin society to illustrate a marginal version abakharev 01:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irving is gone now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert war due to external link 

message: In regards to the technicality that this most heinous and horrific crime should not be included in World War II Crimes, I completely understand the "technicality". The fact of the matter is however, that when the Soviet Union inavaded Poland on September 17, 1939, in order to "protect its minorities", it entered the Second World War, and all of the intellectual onanism that it did not, is just that. Katyn has always been referrenced to the Second World War because it is a part of it. Of course there are still those who deny that it happened, and who did it. Fortunately for these people the Stalin Society holds meetings for them to comfort and support each other. Dr. Dan 16:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For russian people it cannot be a part of Second World War cause it started in 1941, so Katyn took place a year earlier.--Futrzakus 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technicality

message: There is a new article on Khatyn (Belarussian spelling). Notmine, but the two need to be resolved. Is the new article repesting the cover-up version or is it referring to a different massacre (of villagers). Jameswilson 02:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure it's a different massacre with a similar name. Could use more sources, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a completely different massacre in a completely different place. There were rumors that the Communist ideologists deliberately choose to emphasize the plight of these particular village (among thousands destroyed by Nazi) since its name sounds very similar to Katyn and so can create confusion between the two massacres. AFAIK it was not confirmed by any archive documents so it is just a rumor (thow a believable one). abakharev 22:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting. Sources for those rumours and lack of confirmation would be quite useful - any chance you could find them?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khatyn new article 

message: Please don't revert to the version that claims that the 'Departamental Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation' believes that all of those arrested were spies and saboteurs.  That is misleading.  The full sentence makes it clear that many were 'intelligence agents and gendarmes, spies and saboteurs, former landowners, factory owners and officials'.  See ref 6.  
'Spies and saboteurs' makes it sound like someone is trying to justify the massacre.
Thank you.  MilesVorkosigan 23:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I agree with you. I - and I assume Balcer - are trying to make sure this is not confusing, and if you think it can be reworded better, by all means, please help us with that. I think that the current variant: many civilians who had been arrested for being "intelligence agents and gendarmes, spies and saboteurs, former landowners, factory owners and officials" is clear enough. Regarding recent changes, I am more worried about this new Russian downsizing to '1803 killed'. Is this news article notable enough to be placed in lead along the older, more credible academic references?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Polish Government 

message: If anyone knows how to pronounce Katyn, please add it.  Emphasis on first syllable or second?
:I know only the Polish spelling and it's , but I guess in Russian it would be . //Halibutt 06:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Under the head "Cover-up," sub-heading "Actions taken by the Soviet Union," the second paragraph starts with this sentence:
Indeed, having retaken the Katyn area almost immediately after the Red Army had recaptured Smolensk, Soviet Union, led by the MKVD
This was supposed to say NKVD I'm sure?
Paragraph 6 under the heading "Revelations" incorrectly cites (as #44) an articles from FrontPageMag.com as claiming Nazi responsibility for the Katsyn massacre.  I read this article - it is doing the very opposite, and reaffirming Soviet responsibility.  FrontPageMag is very conservative, so this is more in line with what you would expect.
I don't know how to do references (I'm very new at editing wiki), but citation 44 should be removed, and the rest of them bumped down one number.
:The magazine does not blame the Germans, but it mentions that Stalin and others did (Stalin, naturally, blamed the massacre on the Nazis, and for fifty years the Soviets would steadfastly maintain their innocence.). That's why the reference fits there perfectly IMO. //Halibutt 06:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely looks like a mistake 

message: My grandfather spent many years trying to prove the massacre of thousands of Polish soldiers in the USSR during WWII, who were supposedly crammed onto an old passenger ship and then sunk in the Black Sea. Are you, or any of your sources, aware of this? Unforfunately my grandfather's papers were destroyed when he died.
thanks/--Vumba 18:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Black Sea? I'm aware about White Sea: "Testimony was presented by several witnesses that the Ostashkov prisoners were placed on barges and drowned in the White Sea." US Congress final report. Who destroyed the papers of your grandfather?--Nekto 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems like a notable topic. Could you guys write a (referenced) stub on this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Piotrus, I think this is a comingling of the story about a Jewish refugee ship that sank in the Black Sea. I forget its name. Dr. Dan 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it came to me, the Struma. A different case, never heard of the White Sea case, have you? Dr. Dan 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacre on the Black Sea 

message: *The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
*Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
* article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. 
*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.   
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. 
*You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. 
*Thanks, Andy t 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: It's important that current version stays, this vandal Mieciu the idiot keeps on reverting facts, which are all prooven.  (by User:66.99.3.88)
:First, we don't add unverifiable information to articles.  Second, we don't call other editors names.  Third, many of us watch over articles, and I promise that if you continue along the path you've set out for yourself in this article, you run the risk of having your IP address blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Rklawton 21:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Massacre

message: According to Beria's note, there were 8,424 polish warrant officers, offisers and general officers in the soviet POW camps and prisons. About 300 of them were spared the execution. Which brings the total number of the officers executed to approximately 8000. Hence the correction Fat yankey 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appreciate the attempt to clarify the numbers, I think that the current version may be misleading, as it suggests majority of the Polish army was composed of belarussians and ukrainians, which I don't think was the case. Soviets released Polish soldiers below the rank of NCOs, but they kept officers (the ~8,000) and NCOs (which I think compromise the ~25,000), and that the 25,000 represents all non-officer soldiers of Polish nationality.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's what russian documents say. By October 23, 1939 there were 85,074 polish POWs still in camps and at transfer points. 41,819 of them were from Western Poland, and had to be delivered to Germans. The 8,470 of the rest were officers and warrant officers (chorąży) to be delivered to Starobelsk and Kozelsk special camps, 4700 were police officers, etc., to be sent to Ostashkov camp, 18,000 NCO and privates were to be employed on roadworks (Rovno camp), and 10,000 NCO and privates were requested to work near Krivoj Rog (Катынь. Пленники необъявленной войны. сб.док. М., МФ "Демократия": 1999, сс.163-164). Out of the ~250,000 captured, about half were released by the army almost on the spot, and only 125,000 were delivered to NKVD. NKVD released 42,400 of them, 43,000 gave to Germans, and had the balance of 39,600 POWs by November 19, 1939. Of those, 8,500 were military officers and warrant officers, 6,500 were police officers, and 24,600 were NCOs and privates. (ibid., cc.208-210).Fat yankey 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. I would just like to avoid the misinterpretation that half of those 250,000 who were released were of Belarusian or Ukrainian origin (unless this is what the source states?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source states that, but in non-documentary part, which makes it a conclusion, not a fact. And there is no documental proof, that most of the released were indeed of ukrainian or belorussian origin. But there is documental proof, that such were intentions of the Soviet government. And then again, if about a quarter of the population of Rzeczpospolita were belorussians and ukrainians, it's just naturally to guess, that about a quarter of the army were of that origin too. Given, that the men strength of Wojsko Polskie was about 1 million people, the estimation of 150-200 thousand of belorussian and ukrainian soldiers in the Eastern Poland looks sound enough.Fat yankey 21:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, however the total numbers of Polish POWs was about 700,000 (see Invasion of Poland (1939) for details), out of which Soviet held ~250,000. Although assuming minorities had no reservations about joining Polish army (conscripts, seems logical) almost 1/3 of them would be non-Poles (as about 1/3 of SPR population were minorities), however Ukrainians and Belarusians would compromise only 17% of the total population (see Second_Polish_Republic#Minorities for details). This 17% of gives us closer to ~42,500. Thus if NKVD released ~125,000 out of their ~250,000, plus about 42,500 soon afterwards, thus assume in the ~167,500 released that way we have ~125,000 non-B. and non-U., thus not only did the NKVD release some Poles but I'd say that it's unlikely half of them were B. and U. (unless my math is wrong...?), and thus saying that majority of the released were B. and U. seems doubtful. I have adjusted the article's text to reflect this, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you assume uniform B&U distribution among the units of the polish army, while I assume the concentration of B&U in the units formed in the eastern Poland, which is more natural, and has some factual proof. But I never thought that there were such many jews in Poland. I knew, that ethnical minorities were about 30% of Rzeczpospolita's population, and assumed, that most of them were B&U... Well, now I think it's better to change "belorussian and ukrainian" to "non-polish". And I agree, that non-officers of polish origin were also released, but the policy was to release ukrainian and belorusiian. Here we have the usual discrepancy between intentions and reality.Fat yankey 14:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think that because of conscription and general mobilization eastern units would have higher proportion of B. and U., I think that the troops were rushed up to the western front, then mixed up, and thus whatever surrendered to the Soviets was probably more mixed and 'averaged' then you assume. Anyway, some more references would be nice, and if your source clearly states that the policy was to release b. and u., we should state it clearly in the article (actually, try to inline reference every one of your numbers - so in the future we can be certain that this number or fact comes from this reference).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of officers killed

message: I stumbled upon a nice academic refs on that subject: , and the rest of the book.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, it would be good if you took a little effort to read the sources before recommending them to others. This "nice academic ref" on the very page you link us to has this extraordinary claim: "At the Treaty of Riga... [Bolsheviks]... had to... accept a frontier close to the so-called Curzon Line." So, be careful with other claims you find in this "nice academic ref". --Irpen 04:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, aren't you grasping straws? Close is very ambigous, and Lenin was certainly unhappy with the border; certainly at some point he wanted the border to be much further west - i.e. direct border with Germany. Besides, the book was published by Routledge, are you disputing credibility of this publisher? Or of it's author?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However ambiguos is "close", the "close to the CL border" is something Stalin got in 1939 and in 1945. One can reasonably call the 1945 border "close" to 1939 but no reasonable person would call a 1920 border "close" to the 1939≈1945≈Curzon line. Just check any of the Halibutt's maps around or go to any other source with maps. I am saying nothing about the general credentials of the author or the publisher. Maybe the author's specialization lie in different field. All I am saying that the very page you refer us to contains a major blunder which undermines the credibility of the source, at least in these matters.  --Irpen 02:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree it's a rather strange statement, I wouldn't go as far and call it an error (per my reasins above), and saying it's 'a major blunder which undermines the credibility of the source' is rather too far. Still, I agree we should not use this as a source for Curzon line or Polish border - it is somewhat confusing for that. But as for Katyn massacre and Russian prisoners from PSW that's completly irrelevant.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Piotrus was trying to explain above that Curzon line was not relevant to the Katyn massacre. --Lysytalk 09:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to say that the source that would claim that the interwar Polish western border went along Oder-Neisse line would raise suspicions about it realiability. Saying that the east border went along the Curzon line is no less a blunder. --Irpen 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Close is not 'on the line. As I told you, it was closer to that line that the border of the PLC, and from the other direction, like closer than before the fall of the Empire (but after the partitions). So while it is somewhat confusing, from certain perspectives it is quite correct.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? --Irpen 06:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian attitudes towards Katyn

message: Genocide is an exptremly loaded word. The cat implies the applicability of it being universal or near-universal. There is no such thing here. The cat addition was not discussed either. I accept the need for the sourced discussion of the term's applicability with the reader left to decide but not the pre-judgement of such discussion by the дщфвув cat stamped over an entire article. This is a very serious matter and imporper cat of such strength as cat:Genocide warrants a global "POV" tag over the whole article. 
Finally, this remark by Piotrus is heavily misplaced. I did not mark my change minor and supplied a totally clear edit summary. --Irpen 00:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't. Ghirla did, and I object to masking important edits as minor. Now that you have presented your POV I don't intend to reintroduce this cat to article without first discussing it here, but please, teach Ghirla the difference between minor and major edits.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Piotrus, I thought you could do better than to bring frivolous arguments that refer to the Soviet propaganda attempt to reassign the responsibility for this event. I view such act as bad faith. I don't want to revert war with you but adding cat:Genocide is extremely serious and just cannot be done based on Soviet propaganda statements. Since you persist with such strong stuff as cat genocide without the proper justification, I am POV-tagging the article. Feel free to remove the tag along with the cat if you change your mind. --Irpen 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This category is not added 'based on Soviet propaganda', it is based on decisions of Nuremberg Trial, United Nations and Polish government. Unless you can provide some sources which trump that, the category stays - and the POV tag does not. PS. I find your view of Soviet propaganda interesting: it is ok when it suits your views (for example, claims Polish attrocities during PSW) but not ok when it condemns Soviet Union itself :( Soviet Union and Allies agreed that Katyn was a genocide during Nurember Trials. That Soviet Union - and Russia - later renouced that declaration when it became apparent that it, not Germany, committed the massacre does not change the fact that Nuremberg and most of the world consider it a genocide.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Piotrus, please do not lie, especially when it is so easy to check. In the article in question, the Babel's work that is used as a source is not his Red Cavalry, a fiction book, but the 1920 Diary, , a recently translated in English documentary witness account published in 2002 by Yale University Press with highly acclaiming reviews. Please try to come up with something else. --Irpen 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Acusing one of lies is not a productive strategy, Irpen. Although you might have not used Red Stories directly, you had used Isaac Babel works, and there is little difference between propagand in stories and the diary they are based on. From : The exhaustion and revulsion expressed in the diary contrast with the propaganda he simultaneously penned.[...] These contradictions survive in the Red Cavalry stories.. That is not to say that Babel works are not valuable: far from it, they are a valuable source and a literary masterpiece - but one we should treat with caution, as their bias is self-evident. Or will you try to argue that the '1920 diaries' and Isaac Babel other works were not pro-Soviet?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As a newcomer, I don't see how the POV tag nor the genocide category applies to this article.  Tempshill 17:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat:Genocide

message: A book I read "long ago" said that one of the medical experts from occupied territories brought in by the Germans to investigate the remains was later involved in the post mortem of Jan Masaryk. Jackiespeel 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Jan Masaryk connection

message: Isn't this article a bit... detailed? Sure its accurate and everything, but I discovered large articles tend to discourage reading. It is a featured article after all, though. Has anyone thought/discussed this? Colonel Marksman 04:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The absolute worst habit of Wikipedia is that it for some reason wishes to trim articles that are "too large". Nevermind the fact that large articles are simply very complete and thorough; it seems that they're just not wanted for some reason. I disagree, and think that large articles are fine. Most articles are actually much too short, and this article's size is simply what I expect of a good encyclopedia. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 09:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: an encyclopedia is there to be useful, it's not a magazine or anything like that. Its purpose is not to be "fun to read" per se. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 09:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this article is too long, but I can't resist saying I disagree with your general statement.  Suppose that everything about World War II were stuffed into that article.  Articles are meant to be concise in an encyclopedia because they are summaries and overviews; and so that they will be read.  Tempshill 17:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: For those who fear long articles we always have the lead. Just read the lead and ignore the rest ;) //Halibutt 09:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreeing about the general approach, I think that the Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War which I split formed just such a subsection which is better of in it's separate article. And yes, it is a truth that much fewer people care to browse subarticles - but we cannot pack 'everything' into this one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: There is some vandalism in the 'Preperations' section as of 8:42 est 11/16/06
:Be bold and fix it, then, please.  Tempshill 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, that is probably some tiny delay or cache issue. Front page articles are subject to a torrent of vandalism, but it rarely lasts longer then several seconds.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  subject of vandalism 

message: One of the generals that was killed was Franciszek Sikorski.
The head of the Polish government-in-exile was Władysław Sikorski.
Who is the general Sikorski that is discussed throughout?  At times it seems he was one of the perpetrators, as he is described as being used by the Germans as keeping the rift alive.  At other times he seems not.
Is Władysław Sikorski a general?  It's not stated.  If so, he could be the General Silorski.
Djfeldman 14:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In almost all cases Sikorski would refer to Władysław Sikorski; he was much, much more famous than Franciszek Sikorski.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion about the name Sikorski. 

message: :Germans and the international commission, which was invited by Germany, investigated the Katyn corpses and soon produced physical evidence that the massacre took place in early 1940, at a time when the area was still under Soviet control.
Can someone add what exactly this evidence was?  Seems that it might play an important or pivotal role in the whole story and the vague description doesn't inform the reader much.  The cited reference is a book I don't own, so I can't look it up easily.  Tempshill 16:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German-found evidence 

message: Borys J 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Powązki Cemetery, if you want to link it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeltsin Picture

message: ...landowners, factory owners, being really gay(like Joey Moreno) and officials."[6] 
The article cited as source six makes no reference to anyone named Joey Moreno, extremely homosexual or otherwise. This name is not mentioned in the article otherwise.
Vandalism?
207.188.40.165 22:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Paragraph

message: While it is unquestionable that a few hundred polish nationals (up to 400) were executed for crimes against the Soviet state in Kharkov and Kalinin, other executions are a bit eerie. While the president of the Russian Federation admitted that the massacre was done by the NKVD, he is not a COURT to decide, and, to my knowledge, it was not yet solved in COURT. Thus, despite the evidence implicating that the massacre is a work of NKVD, it has not yet been made final. Also, there are interesting problems. For example, the article states that the poles were shot in the back of the head. My sources indicate same thing - 98.5% of the dead were shot in the back of the head, the rest - in the back of the neck. However, the poles executed in Kharkov and Kalinin show a different pattern - 60% are shot in the neck, with the rest getting shot in the back of the head. What is the difference between the two ways of execution? When shot in the head, it doesn't nessesarily mean instant death, but is simpler to do, while shooting in the back of the neck requires twisting the hand with the gun in such a way so that the bullet severs the nerves, causing instant death. Oh, and did I mention that the poles in Kharkov and Kalinin are shot with russian weapons, while it's widely known that the "NKVD" somehow used german weapons in Katyn. Also, supposedly exhumations turned up newspapers. I suggest all of you who believe that it is possible, to go get some newspaper, wrap them in cloth and bury them for a year. It is not gonna be readable.
Another thing - the documents this page gives as proof seem fake. I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but something is out of place in them. However, it is too early to say they are fake.
So supposedly the documents show Soviet motivation (although it goes much against Soviet legal practice, and is much more befitting the Germans); so, could Germany have a motivation to blame Katyn on USSR? Certainly. Could the Polish government have a motive to blame Soviets over Germans? Certainly - after all, this government in exile was at war with the USSR, and it had to be justified to the Western Allies. Did the late government of the USSR have a motive to lie? Certainly - they were traitors/fools after all. To summarize - this is still quite a controversial topic. With respect, Ko Soi IX 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: Have the bodies of the purportedly executed Polish officers actually been found? If not, then these claims are just as meaningless as the propaganda put out against the mass graves in Kosovo that were never found.
Read the article first. --Beaumont (@) 08:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification of Bodies 

message: "Estimates of the number of Polish citizens executed at three mass-murder sites in the spring of 1940 range from 1,803[2] and 14,540[3][4] to 21,857[1] and over 28,000 on the high end.["
1803 is not an estimate but a sum of all bodies exhumed by Soviet and Russian authorities, which is a minimum number of the Poles "established" to have been killed (basically, a technicality).
28,000 is not an estimate AT ALL.
21,857 does not pertain to THREE places of execution.
What dumb ignoramus wrote this?
--Sergey Romanov 06:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of the numbers has got a footnote. Just follow the footnote, check the author of the publication and - voila! //Halibutt 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info about estimates is completely wrong 

message: Moscow's court refuses to investigate Katyn: Polish article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent developments

message: Who found the remains of the massacre at the first place?  Just and coincidentally Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff discovered the mass graves for the first time!
:See Talk:Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gersdorff

message: -Were these Polish civilians or military figures (soldiers, officers, etc)?
-Did the Soviet Union confirm these reports?
-If so, who exactly in the SU confirmed it?
-G
:Please read the article, all of that is answered there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: QUESTIONS

message: User Piotrus has inserted the following text "NKVD secret police had in fact committed the massacres of over 22,000 Polish soldiers and intelligentsia and the subsequent cover-up". edit.  He referenced this text to the following link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4102967.stm. I publish here the text of BBC article.  
----
Russia to release massacre files  
 
Victims' families want the killings to be recognised as genocide 
The Russian government has agreed to allow the Polish authorities to examine Soviet archives on what Poles call the Katyn Forest massacre of 1940. 
More than 20,000 Polish soldiers were killed by the Soviet secret police at the start of World War II. 
----
It is clear that user Piotrus falsified and added original research to the article, since he claims that 22,000 were killed. And he added to the soldiers, "intelligentsia and the subsequent cover-up". These texts by Piotrus are original research and should be removed as Lies and Propaganda.
Next case is:
----
It is applied now also to the execution of prisoners of war held at Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps,Zawodny, Janusz K., Death in the Forest: The Story of the Katyn Forest Massacre, University of Notre Dame Press, 1962,  partial html online and political prisoners in West Belarus and West Ukraine,Excerpt from the minutes No. 13 of the Politburo of the Central Committee meeting, shooting order of March 5, 1940 online, last accessed on 19 December 2005, original in Russian with English translation shot on Stalin's orders at Katyn Forest, at the NKVD (Narodny Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del) Smolensk headquarters and at a slaughterhouse in the same city,, as well as at prisons in Kalinin (Tver), Kharkiv, Moscow, and other Soviet cities. 
----
Only one link is actually relevant to the statement - it is the book (ksiazka) of Zawodny. Other links do not support such statements. It follows that somebody has forged and made original research on the subject.Vlad fedorov 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC source was a little confusing, I removed some unecessary details. The sources support the statements. Your accusations of propaganda in this FA-class article are amusing, but don't disrupt the article with your unreferenced claims and opinions.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you support your insertion of 22000 killed by any sentence in this source? If no, then please stop publishing your falsifications. I have caught your falsification once here and I have caught your falsification in article Persecution of political bloggers where you have restored the same kind of false text. So please do not use Wikipedia as a Soapbox. You anti-russian bias is clearly seen from your edits. Rating of this article matters nothing actually, because I guess its rating was the same kind of fest we have seen at Internet Troll Squads AfD and subsequent Deletion Review. Vlad fedorov 03:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 21,768 can be clearly supported by multitude of sources; there are higher estimates too. News sites change and when it was added in April 2004 it quite possibly had the 22,000 figure (closer to the common estimates than 20,000) and was changed afterwards. Your accusations of falsification, anti-russian bias, vandalism and others are in violation of the WP:NPA policy. If you continue, be warned that it may lead to suspension of your editing priviliges (just like WP:3RR violations).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsification of sources by User:Piotrus 

message: :"More specifically, presented by the Soviet charge the Burdenko report, in spite of the reservesAccording to the formula of Annette Wieviorka, these reserves can be interpreted like a tacit consent of the Soviet culpability, "Le procès de Nuremberg", Editions Ouest-France, 1995, p. 92of the Anglo-Saxons, was accepted on grounds of the article 21 Article 21: The Court will not require that the proof of a publicly known fact be provided, but will hold them for asset. It will also consider as authentic proofs the documents and official reports of the United Nations governments, including those drawn up by the commissions established in the various Allied countries, for the investigations into the war crimes as well as the official reports of the hearings and the decisions of the military courts or other courts of any of the United Nations. and coded as URSS-54. The German White Book of 1943 was accepted on grounds of the article 19Article 19: The Court will not be bound by the technical rules related to the management of the evidence. It will adopt and apply as much as possible an expeditious and nonformal procedure, and will admit any means which it estimates of a convincing value.with, as had underlined it the president of the court,Procès des grands criminels de guerre devant le Tribunal Militaire International de Nuremberg, Tristan Mage, 1993-98, XVII, p.277-380 for the two sessions consecrated to the Katyn masacre a potential convincing value; the course of the debates would make this adjective pointless. The intransigence of the Soviets to reveal Katyn in the bill of indictment was driven by the final objective: to quote it in the verdict. To this end, summoning of some witnesses was refused.Three German officers present in 1943 were accepted by the court (on six asked by defense), while prof. Neville, teaching the forensic medicine in Geneva and member of the International Commission of 1943 have been refused. The charge correlatively obtained the presentation of three witnesses, inclyding prof. Markov, Bulgarian and member of this same commission, "pesuaded" by the Soviets with the known means of pressure, as well as the president of the Soviet Commission, Burdenko, which was also the president of the medical Academy of Science of the USSR."
I omitted the above section of the "Soviet-run Trials" section because only two of the references it cites actually point to researchable texts and the grammar and writing style is horrendous to a point that I can do nothing about it; I simply do not know what the author of the paragraph is trying to say. Someone please help me with this, preferably the original poster of this information. Leopold III 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar so poor there is no adjective for it