Talk:Katyn massacre

Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski71.231.5.112 (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why any serious discussion on the Katyn Forrest Massacre fails to mention Eugenjusz Andrei Komorowski, the only surviving witness, who revealed the truth long before the rest of the world finally acknowledged it?

Self-referential citation?

The present article contains the following sentence: "Many sources claim that prominent mathematician Stefan Kaczmarz was among the victims, but the Polish version of Wikipedia states that he died in 1939, most likely in combat operations near Warsaw." This "corroboration" by another version of the same article unnerves me somewhat -- what if the Polish version in turn contains a reference to the article in English? Also, the citation has not been hard-coded in, so no one can verify if the Polish article even makes such a claim. I vote for someone to remove the second half of the sentence unless a different, more appropriate source is found. 75.175.174.83 (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I removed it since it was essentially unsourced and speculative. My understanding is that he died in "unknown circumstances" which in turn led to lots of speculation that he died in Katyn, but it was never conclusively established. Good catch.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Revelations ? Perestroïka views !

Why not entitled the section "Revelations" as simply "Prestroïka views". This follows "Cold War Views". It sounds more logical and more historic and more chronological. Tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.250.231.177 (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess "Revelations" is indeed too "flowery" for an encyclopedia, but the described events (disclosure of the documents) are not "views" either. --illythr (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

info

Not sure how reliable RT is but it mentions some unearthed documents at this link Agathoclea (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's old news (2010) of old news (1993) - the article refers to the core incriminating documents that were published in 1993 and were available online since 2004 at the latest. In 2010 they just became available at an official Russian site (Rosarkhiv). --illythr (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Coatrack?

Please explain how the text removed qualified to be deleted citing WP:COATRACK. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

To me this sounds as a thinly veiled justification for the massacre, which as we now know had nothing to do with any imaginary threat. I would also like to see actual quote.--Galassi (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Galassi is essentially right here. Volunteer Marek  20:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps more of a WP:UNDUE issue... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If these aren't the only (sourced) sources of such speculation, it may be worth reinstating worded more appropriately. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a sourced analysis of Soviet motivations could be qualified as a coatrack. That said, this particular analysis looks rather far fetched to me. So, what Vecrumba said, I guess. --illythr (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)