Talk:Khatyn massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Belarus  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Death (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Disaster management  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Khatyn and Katyn[edit]

To Ben-Vevel, the similarity of the names, fairly and logically would be sufficient reason to want to clarify the difference betweent the two events. Hard to understand why this clarification would be a problem to anyone. Before I readd this small but important detail to the Khatyn article, and a similar addition to the Katyn article, I am willing to discuss it further. Perhaps if you can show me where Katyn has been unnecessarily added to other articles of this nature, I would agree with your position, that there has been some kind of over kill on the subject. Dr. Dan 16:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Template:About is the solution for us - it was designed specifically to solve such problems.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear P.Piotrus! The template has already solved a problem of similarity of names of settlements. There is no necessity, to write the paragraph in this small article, why communist propaganda has chosen Khatyn. It as a POW more likely suitable to newspaper... I also have the point of view, why modern Polish propaganda ignores a theme of mass brutal killings of Polish civilians carried by the Ukrainian nationalists in 1942-1943 in Volhynia and Galicia. It has been killed in twenty times more Polish people on Volhynia and in Galicia than in Katyn. In July 1941 in Lvov many remarkable Polish intellectuals have been killed by the Ukrainian batallion Nachtigal (I can inform some names). But this theme is a victim of momentary political interests Ben-Velvel 00:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know there is any modern Polish propaganda - perhaps you should elaborate on that. Therefore I have no idea why this fictional entity would or would not ignore the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia or Massacre of Lwów professors. Besides that, I see no reason why the size of this article should be any reason to delete a sourced paragraph on how Soviet propaganda abused this massacre (there is even an expantion request here, after all).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
These themes (Lvov and Volhynia killings) practically are not discussed in the Polish press. Ben-Velvel 02:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have asked Ben-Vevel a question here and on our respective talk pages in a civil and a "just wanting to know attitude". Unfortunately, he has not yet responded. So I'll ask him again, and anyone else for that matter, what the objection could possibly be, to not want to distinguish between two similarly named horrible events. Why someone would object to clarifying some confusion between two similarly named events that took place in relatively the same time period, and relatively the same geographical location, is somewhat mystifying. It honestly deserves some introspection, less it be interpreted as some weird agenda, that is deliberately trying to deprive unknowing persons of the truth regarding both events. Dr. Dan 01:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is already specified in this article, that Khatyn massacre and Katyn massacre are two different events. You certainly can state proofs, that Khatyn massacre is a dodge of the Soviet propaganda, to hide the truth about Katyn. But please do it in other article. This article is devoted to victims of a genocidal German policy in Belarus and these victims are not dodge of the Soviet propagandaBen-Velvel 02:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, it's specified in this article, but not thanks to you. What confused me was your removal of the information that didn't appeal to you without readding anything to clarify the matter. In any case it, seems to be settled fairly now. Dr. Dan 02:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be a problem to mention the name confusion in this article, although it should not be the first thing said about Khatyn. No one is suggesting that Khatyn didn't happen (indeed, as the article states it was one of hundreds of such massacres in Belarus) or that there was any connection or equivalency to Katyn. However, the choice of Khatyn as the memorial site, rather than one of the 600 other massacre sites, some of which were better documented, and the timing (the late 1960s, as Polish exile groups were demanding recognition of Soviet responsibility for Katyn), suggests strongly that obfuscation was the reason.
This may seem less obvious to someone whose native language is Russian, but to the untrained ear in English (and in many, if not most other western European languages), the two names sound very similar or identical. In the event, the Khatyn memorial did indeed confuse a lot of people, of which the links in the article are just a small sampling. Owing to the secretive nature of the Soviet state, we will probably never have direct proof that such a decision was taken, but the fact that this was widely believed to have been the case should be mentioned. ProhibitOnions 20:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
In that case it is a POV, until we see direct evidence that this site was chosen because of the two names sounding so similar. It is nothing but an opinion, an opinion that has to be treated as such. --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it's a widespread and well-documented belief. It is therefore notable and should be mentioned. ProhibitOnions 20:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly a belief, and should be treated as such. --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 20:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Which is how it is treated in the article. However, just because it's a "belief" doesn't mean it isn't probably an accurate assessment of the situation in the absence of an admission from the Politburo. I'm curious, what do you personally think? ProhibitOnions 21:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Any theory shall remain a theory until proven or disproven by solid facts. As we lack the latter... --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 22:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not how an encyclopedia works; truth is not dependent on the Politburo's press releases. We are reporting the existence of a widespread belief that is entirely cogent to the choice of this site. Even Belarusians I spoke to at Khatyn spoke of the Katyn connection; it's hardly a fringe belief. ProhibitOnions 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the section clarifing the difference of Katyn and Khatyn because it was out of place. While we certainly need to clarify that they are different events, it should not be done is such an offensive manner. I think that 2,230,000* victims of German genocide deserve more respect than having a paragraph with political accusations against the USSR placed above it. My solidarity is with the person who said "It is already specified in this article, that Khatyn massacre and Katyn massacre are two different events. You certainly can state proofs, that Khatyn massacre is a dodge of the Soviet propaganda, to hide the truth about Katyn. But please do it in other article. This article is devoted to victims of a genocidal German policy in Belarus and these victims are not dodge of the Soviet propaganda". With respect, Ko Soi IX 23:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC) *the actual number of victims of genocide is lower by perhaps 200-300 thousand people, if not more, that were killed in the crossfire.


The quoted book says something different than written in the article. Either correct or remove the link. Xx236 14:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The IHR link[edit]

After having a look at who writes or wrote there:

I have decided to delete that link. Not because it claims that the site was chosen for the similarity of the name (only in English) but because it claims that it never happened. Small surprise that guys writing there would do so? User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 17:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Like you, Pan Gerwazy, I don't like these people. Unlike you, I don't act like the Grand Censor, and delete information that doesn't appeal to me. What has made Wikipedia of great interest, to many people, is its diversity of view points and information. Censorship of information is more likely in the main stream encyclopedias. A link to the extreme left or right shouldn't be deleted in a "knee jerk" reaction. It can and should be debated on the talk pages. I also believe that the author of the book on Katyn, Fitzgibbons, is not a kook. So let's not have guilt by association. Am I wrong? Dr. Dan 21:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I would not discount the opinion of a Nazi on, say, astrophysics or cell biology, but surely the IHR -- a centre for Holocaust deniers -- is an extremely unreliable historical source? Feketekave (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the information not directly related to the massacre[edit]

To Piotrus - it seems this article did not say that the Balts participated in *this* massacre, but rather that they participated in other similar events in Belarus. However, the way the article is currently written is wrong:some of the things does not belong here, a separate article should be written about the German operations in general, and this should be left about this particular massacre. Village burning as a revenge for actions of the Soviet partisans was common not only in Belarus, but in other occupied territories as well, therefore, perhaps it would be the best to add it to the existing Soviet Partisans article? However, the information as it is written now is factually inaccurate (the batallion name numbers are not accurate frommy knowledge of the events (even the number of batallions that participated itself is not clear, as it says 10 but 11 are listed) other inaccuracies also exist, such as downplaying (not mentioning) the actions of Belarusian collaborators who also participated in these events). And, as well, that text is a possible copyright violation, as it is largely copied and pasted from the official website of Khatyn massacre, link to which is given at the bottom (just few words are changed, example: the word "fascist" is changed to "nazi"). Therefore, I am removing that misplaced, inaccurate and possible copyvio section. If I'll find out more about these German operations (revenge for Soviet partisan actions), I might write an separate article about them myself. Kaiser 747 09:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What is problem? 118th schutzmannschaft batallion (Ukrainian) did not participate in Khatyn massacre, because it was in Kiev at that time. Baltic schuma-batallions participated in "Winterzauber"-operation in 02-03/1943 in this region. The description of this operation and German occupation in general is a pertinent part of this article because Khatyn is a symbol of a genocide of the slavic population of the East Europe. Your "revenge for Soviet partisan actions" is "1 to 1" Nazi propaganda. Only Nazis considered that it is possible to execute two hundred civilians including women and children for one German soldier. 2 mio Belorussian civilians and 4 mio Russian civilians killed by Nazis is "revenge for Soviet partisan actions"? During these "antipartisan-actions" tens thousands of Jews were massacred also. Kaiser, do not joke these questions... About copyvio. The information on massacres in Belarus and Russia is PD. There is the reference to a source in the article... I have removed from the article the information on execution of Polish. This tragic incident occurred in other settlement and other time, it has no relation to this article. It is not necessary to mention NKVD each time, the huge number of mass killings had taken place in the world without any participation of NKVD. Ben-Velvel 00:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, comparing me to a nazi is a great insult to me; I just said that they were *meant to be* by the nazi regime as a revenge for actions of the Soviet partisans - I haven't said anywhere that this revenge was justified. As for copyvio, the policy of Wikipedia is that nothing should be copied and pasted from elsewhere, even with references. And each article should only be about a particular topic. Kaiser 747 09:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering in your and Kaiser's dialogue, but I would just like to note, that I have explained some related things in your talk page rather than here, as it has soemthing to do with general Wikipedia policies rather than particular articles. I hope that will help. As for NKVD by the way, I am not sure if Katyn should or should not be mentioned here (the reason why it could is a similar sounding name which might mislead some users into believing that this is the same event), but, in general, of course, I would like to note that the fact that many massacres were perpetrated not by NKVD does not means that NKVD massacres should not be mentioned at all - Wikipedia is big enough, all the more imprtant events will find their place here. Burann 11:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The outcome of the genocide policy was that 2 230 000 people were killed in Belarus within the three years of German occupation. Every fourth Belarusian died during the WWII.

1. It's "Khatyn massacre", not Belarus in the WWII. 2. The number is doubful. What is your non-Soviet source? Xx236 14:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section as I agree that it is not directly related to the particular subject: we are not going to repeat same stuff on *every* article dealing with nazis in Belarus (articles about massacres in Belarus, ghettoes in Belarus, resistance in Belarus and so on) as this is encyclopedia rather than a book about a particular event. Instead of repeating the same stuff it is always better to link to other article that is specifically made for that stuff. The sentence "Hundreds similar settlements shared the fate of Khatyn in Russia and Belarus during WWII." is enough to signify that this massacre was not the only such event in Belarus during the World War II. Judging from the page history, I believe we are not the only people to share such opinion about too much information and it is a common Wikipedia's practice not to overcrowd article with unnecessary information that is not *directly* related to the article's topic. I as well decommented the part of the commented out section which says that it became the national war memorial of the Byelarussian SSR as this is useful information I think. Burann 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In order for this discussion to be more visible I have moved it here at one place. No one have yet provided any counter-arguements. Kaiser 747 09:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that this para provides a useful background, and the article is short enough not to merit any need for summarization. It may be moved to an article about Nazi attrocities in Belarus or something, but for now it is rather useful. And certainly I don't support Ghirla removal of yet more sourced information.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

At Talk:Lviv User:Irpen has suggested to move this article to Khatyn incident and asked me to propose such a move as a sign of good will. While I'm certainly not sure it's a good idea, I'd like to hear what the others think. //Halibutt 09:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~


Add any additional comments
Only after Katyn Massacre is moved to Katyn incident. Please leave your double standards aside. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Not mine, Ghirla. Not mine. It was Irpen to propose it and ask me to forward his proposal here. I wouldn't support such a move myself. //Halibutt 10:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Per Ghirla, how silly is this? --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, as Halibutt notes above, it was Irpen who suggested this move. If he thinks it is a better title, and Halibutt agrees, then perhaps we should consider it seriously.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again about the usage of strong terms in Wikipedia. Let me explain for a umpteenth time my take on this. First, strong terms in titles should be avoided at all cost. This article's new name should reflect this common sense rule.

Another issue is whether we are allowed to use strong words in Wikipedia or we are not allowed to use them at all, even in the text. Strong words are not only "massacre" (as opposed to incident), but also "liberated" , "occupied", "murdered" as well as nouns, like "Genocide" (as opposed to "numerous deaths"), "uprising" (as opposed to "mutiny"), "revolution" (as opposed to coup d'etat), etc. If all these words are banned, we should only use "killed", "died", "taken", etc. This, however, is not the case. No encyclopedia, book, writer, no matter how NPOV can be required to stick to PC language and no one does that, including the very respectable Britannica and Columbia which also have NPOV policy.

The issue is different. If the majority of scholars see something as NPOV and acceptable usage, we can use this here as well. That the Holocaust was Genocide, that creationism is unscientific (still doesn't make it wrong), October was revolution, Pinochet was coup, Bounty was "mutiny", 1939 was Soviet-German Occupation of Poland, and 1943-45 was liberation of Europe are the terms the scholars agree on to use. I don't object to the usage of the strong words in the article texts, provided that they are backed up by similarly wide usage in the majority of the literature. I will not support the expunging of the word massacre from the article's text. But titles, are the different story. Katyn incident, Battle of the Lower Dnieper (rather than Liberation of Ukraine), Khotin uprising (rather than Khotin Massacre) and its "mirror", so to speak, Fântâna Albă incident rather than Fântâna Albă massacre, etc. --Irpen 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This above was written under my false impression that we are talking about Katyn massacre -> Katyn incident move. My typo caused the confusion. I still support ridding "massacre" from all article titles. This one should be just Khatyn (since there is no village, a shorter title is preferred). The other article has to go to Katyn incident. In Katyn as well as in this article we can keep massacre in the text, but rid the titles from such. How about that? --Irpen 18:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that a revision of "Words to avoid" list would be a decent option, I don't think getting rid of POV from the titles would be enough. Besides, if we adopted your view that "well-established means NPOV", then such a solution would be inconsistent. If we consider something as NPOV, then why not use it in the title as well? On the other hand, I doubt such a wholesale approach is possible and I believe we should discuss it on a case by case basis. //Halibutt 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, I was going to bed but this one caught my eye. If it looks like a massacre and smells like a massacre, it probably is a massacre. What can any honest person call the murder of these POWS, besides a massacre (or worse)? Some of these officers, were "kids", who did not deserve such deaths (nor did the older ones, either). It's a historical event that makes me sick, whenever I'm reminded of it, and there cannot be any rationale or excuse for it. And after reading about the Khotin massacre, for the first time, it should be so renamed, IMHO. Dr. Dan 04:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. Goodnght, and this time I mean it!

If Katyn incident then Auschwitz falanster, Zyklon B inhalations against asthma and Gulag travels for Stakhanovites.

Incident says "An incident is a series of events that involves an attack or series of attacks (compromise and/or breach of security) at one or more sites. Who did attack someone in Katyń? Xx236 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


I don't see consensus for the move, so page not moved. Eugène van der Pijll 21:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the place?[edit]

The article doesn't inform, e.g. where is the Khatyn situated. Xx236 13:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It still doesn't. Xx236 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added some info from pl wiki on location, and note geodata in top right corner.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Khatyn and Katyn[edit]

Khatyn has been selected as the symbol from tens or hundreds equal places because of its English name. Such information should be in this article. The best tactics is to accuse others of POV and to promote his own POV.

This article is about Nazi pacifications in Belarus, not only about Khatyn massacre. Some edits or new article are needed.Xx236 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I request to stop inserting CIA propaganda into the article. Thanks, Ghirla-трёп- 09:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And I request limiting of the NKVD/KGB propaganda. Xx236 11:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC) [1] A Thesis Presented to the Department of History Western Illinois University Xx236 11:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't insert anything into this article. Since it's you who promote a fringe theory, it's up to you to provide a reliable source for your insinuations. CIA propaganda is not a reliable or unbiased source, when it concerns the Soviet Union. Neither someone's "feelings" or "suspicions" on the issue are a valid source. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • CIA propaganda is quoted in thousands of Wikipedia articles, eg. the The World Factbook.
  • A Thesis Presented to the Department of History Western Illinois University [2] Xx236 13:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that a CIA publication might be unacceptable to some, and since there should be no difficulty in finding something better, we might as well do that.
Still, just to satisfy the curiosity of the readers, the article should explain just why Katyn and Khatyn have such similar names, and what is the possible significance of that. Passing over this in silence insults the intelligence of the reader. Balcer 14:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I found the explanation by Benjamin B. Fischer very interesting, and a good addition to the article. I don't understand why this quote (coming from a scholarly publication) is being removed, with the agitprop-sounding dismissive comment "CIA propaganda". I say, let's have the info in the article, and let the reader decide on its validity -- not censor Fischer's work on such dubious grounds. Turgidson 14:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Polish language text:,1180210,dzial.html

There is also allegedly a capsule in Europe by Davies.Xx236 14:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Davies ref is enough to show it's not a fringe theory. For the record, I have 404 accessing Fischer's article, but pdf link works - but I think its the entire CSI part of CIA section that just has a short downtime. Anyway, Studies in Intelligence seems relativly reliable, although one should of course keep in mind possible bias originating from CIA pro-American stance. That stance, however, should not be significant when dealing with history of Soviet Union (see also [3], [4] and [5] for blurbs about that journal).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: we have this page crowded by a group of "truth-seekers" from the Polish noticeboard within several hours after intense and incivil canvassing on that page by Xx236.[6] Once again, I urge the administrators to delete the canvas-board, where they belittle "a small nuumber of Auschwitz prizoners" as compared to the great and overpowering tragedy of Katyn. Until that is done, I won't stoop to continuing the discussion. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I am not a ""truth-seeker" from the Police noticeboard". Just someone editing at WP, and who doesn't like people being judged by their ethnicity, country or origin, country of residence, or any such criteria, which should not have their place in discussions here at WP, I submit. Turgidson 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't care about your self-identification, but you never fail to pop up on any Poland-related discussion to say "yes" to Russia-bashing. That's the only means I have of assessing your persuasions. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing about Soviet crimes isn't Russia-bashing:

  • Many Russians were buried in Katyn forest.
  • NKVD wasn't a Russian formation, it had two Polish leaders, one or more Caucasian ones, and many Latvian and Caucasian high officers.

Xx236 10:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Auschwitz concentration camp informs:

  • about 7,500 prisoners were liberated by the 322nd Infantry unit of the Red Army on January 27 1945.
    • A reader can decide if 7,500 is many or a small number comparing to millions of Soviet or Nazi German victims.
  • After the war, the camp served through most of 1945 as an NKVD prison

Xx236 06:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For all the handwringing about the sentence regarding the reasons for the focus on Khatyn, nobody has pointed to any other explanation why this village was chosen from among the many others in the region whose residents were slaughtered by Nazi troops. In the absence of such other explanations, and with a number of significant scholars supporting the Katyn-divergence thesis (which also makes sense in the context of Cold War politics), I think this sentence or something like it belongs in this article. Indeed, removal of it makes it much more difficult to understand the history of memorialization at Khatyn.BenA (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at this article today, the sentence on Katyn and Khatyn had been edited to say that Khatyn was chosen to divert attention from the "Nazi crime" at Katyn. This not only falsely attributed Katyn (as opposed to Khatyn) to the Nazis, but it also makes no sense whatsoever on its face. Were Katyn in fact a Nazi crime, the Soviets would have had no interest in diverting attention from it. But Katyn was a Soviet crime, and the focus on the Nazi crime at Khatyn was related to Soviet attempts to divert attention from Katyn.BenA (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of killed in Belorussia[edit]

I strongly believe that the number of over 2 milion killed in Belorussia is confusing. First of all it includes Belorussia 1938, annexed territories in Poland within 1945 borders and Bialystok area. It also includes Jews (if we take 10% as avarage Jewish population this will gives us 800 000 people, but there were areas with 15% of Jews and most of small towns were entirely Jewish), all population killed by Soviets(few hundred thousands), conscripted KIA, vllages burnt by partisans. The numbers invented by Soviet propaganda usually were few times enlarged to make more impression (see 4 milion of victims of Auschwitz versus 1.2 milion reality). Can we give it here with question mark rather then reality? Cautious 09:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a post-Soviet statistic. Please give references for your figure of Soviet civilians supposedly killed by Soviet troops. Feketekave (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The village[edit]

The article is unclear on whether the village exists or not. If it doesn't, and it has been turned into a memorial (as pl wiki suggests), this should be clarified. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 09:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


I've added an NPOV violation tag to the article. Pages about massacres, mass killings, etc. are not meant to be a collection of however many frivolous insults and arbitrary political labels can be hurled at the perpatrators in a single, massive text wall. This article requires serious work to be brought up to NPOV standards. --NEMT (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No propaganda, please[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda!! Also not for russian contributors who would like to cover the fact that Soviet russians killed up to 22 000 polish people in Kathyn/Katyn in 1940. This article is clearly some work from Kreml-friendly/Putin-friendly persons, maybe even written by Kreml own propaganda staff (the few ones who can english). It's easy to see on the level of details, and the way they want to lead the reader to think. Please clarify that there have been two massacres, do not forget that Soviet atrocities under Stalin was on the level with Nazi-Germany, Stalin was even worse than Hitler if you do a body count. This is not a place for propaganda!! Jarao 22.26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be looking for the Katyn massacre article, which is about the 1940 massacre of Poles by the Soviets. Miremare 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

dude, you're talking about no propaganda, and you just totally put in your own judgmental point of view there. Stalin was much worse than Hitler?? Please. Do you have a proper documented source that clearly states that Stalin was worse than Hitler? Hitler committed/started the Genocide. Stalin did not. And just so you know, my mom is half German so I'm obviously not trying to be anti-German. You seem to have something against Russians? And what's up with the "few that can (speak) english" comment? Another dig at the Russians? lol and yes I just realized you wrote that 2 years ago but it still stands. Lenachka25 (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

npov tag[edit]

isn't it a bit... extreme to say the article violates npov, just because in its style it condemnes the massacre? --Gerrit CUTEDH 12:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not the place of an encyclopedia to pass moral judgement on any actions, however heinous they seem to readers and editors. --NEMT (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive article clean-up[edit]

After reading through the article I decided to clean it up. As someone here already mentioned it: it's a bad piece of propaganda scribble. I'm disturbed that something like this could survive at wikipedia for so long. I'm a journalist who regularly uses it, so I'm just the more shocked that the otherwise high quality standards of wikipedia that I regularly defend in my profession had been undermined that severely.

Here's what I did: I only stuck to the part of the article which states no sources. I removed most of the opinionated, colorful descriptions and tried to keep only "facts". The latter is rather hard to decide on, because not a single source is mentioned to back up all the names, ages and claims, yet the article was written in the style of an eye witness which makes it even less believable. I removed the reference to the German convoy attack. It did nothing but imply that this was a revenge attack by Germans, while it's undisputed that villages were cleaned out by the thousands. Also, not a single source is given for the statement which makes it that much harder to use. While I can see that there might not have been written evidence for a massacre, the Germans themselves certainly would have a mentioning if one of their soldiers had died, especially if it was an officer.

I straightened out the various contradictions, for example first it is said that only one man survived. Later the article states that three kids managed to escape. After that two girls are mentioned who supposedly escaped the fire, but also two boys are said of having survived. While it was implicated that only children survived, an adult survivor is named to make the total contradiction complete. Since it's already obvious that this scribble is not reliable, I left out any conclusions about the number of surviving people and just stuck to the explicitly described incidences.

I also kicked out the mentioned families in the beginning and the rather prosaic description of their feelings. It doesn't matter which families were burned, unless ALL of them are mentioned. Just mentioning some selectively serves no purposes and seems to have only been done for an effect of dramatization.

Furthermore, I kicked out tautologies, for example one that attributed "under age" to children, while the term "children" always implies that they are underage. Others include using the term "inhabitants" and specifying it with "including old and children". Unless it was a predominantly male society where old and children were rare, this mentioning is not needed, since inhabitants of a town or village usually contain all ages and sexes. This was just another weak attempt to influence the reader. I also tried to straighten out clumsily sounding English. Since I'm not a native English speaker myself, I may not have succeeded at this.-- (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a slight rearranging - new talk sections go at the bottom of the page. ;) I certainly agree with all of what you say above... Good job. Miremare 10:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I would further suggest you stick to identifying the involved parties as Germans rather than Nazis, as Nazi implies membership in a political party unrelated to the German military or German citizenship in general. --NEMT (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove Polish Bias[edit]

In the Brezhnev era USSR, much attention was paid to this Nazi crime, possibly with the intention of diverting attention from the Katyn massacre of Polish officers[5] . According to Norman Davies, of Wolfson College, Oxford, the village was chosen and the memorial created by the Soviet authorities in a calculated policy of disinformation,[6] designed to create confusion with the Katyn massacre.

Ok, the references provided for this diatribe are [5] which 404'ed and [6] has ISBN that points to completely different book and Mr. Norman Davies's own Wikipedia page states that his Polish bias are well known in historical circles.

This looks like a deliberate and insipid attempt to divert attention from and lower the significance of Katyn massacre by Polish-biased editors. I suggest we remove this NPOV paragraph completely. Zealander (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can admit that it is not the attitudei of Polish- or Belarusian-biased editors but it is the attitude of a scholar called Norman Davis. I am absolutely aware that any scholar and particularly a scholar of such "level" as Norman Davis MUST abstain from such weird if not idiotic conclusions. Any atrocity is equally horrible. And if one puts blood of those Polish citizens (not only ethnic Poles but also Jews, Belarusians, Ukrainians) killed in Katyn over those civilian Belarusians killed in Chatyn (Khatyn), than this person is nothing more than a moral scumbag. Therefore, I entirely support the idea to remove passages of Davis and Fischer from this article. We are all equal and let's not speculate on any tragedy.CityElefant (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Khatyn massacre or Khatyn Massacre?[edit]

Hiya to all. A question on the titling, as this article came up in a discussion about use of capitals in article naming on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide#Requested move; specifically and NARROWLY PLEASE, about the capitalization of titles of events like these. Is Khatyn massacre a proper noun, and if so, shouldn't it be Khatyn Massacre? Here's my sense of it, copied from over there at the RfM, [where the proposal (not mine, I had questions that led to you) was to move the page from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian Genocide denial]: This was my first question, because I thought, "Well, this would conform better to the Manual of Style (which does not cover this specific point...YET):

  • "However, should it not be Armenian genocide denial, unless there is some legitimate reason why in this case genocide should be capitalized? Further, why should not (for examples) the articles Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Srebrenica Genocide, Rwandan Genocide follow the same naming conventions as do Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, and Burundi genocide? I have the same question concerning titles containing the word massacre: Why Parsley Massacre but Rohingya massacre? Perhaps if such topics are considered events and as such are considered proper nouns...but I'd like to see all such titles conform across the board, to a coherently stated convention, whichever convention is supported by either clear policy or robust consensus. I haven't looked hard for it at all, but maybe someone else has: Is there any established WP policy, guideline, or village pump decision on precisely this?"
The response was:
  • "I'll explain my vision. In the titles it is a name of an event ("Greek Genocide"), a term and not word-combination (adjective + noun) to mark the belonging of the event. The same way the terms for Cuban Missile Crisis or Caribbean Crisis and not Caribbean crisis with Caribbean as an adjective and crisis as a noun. Or the Berlin Blockade, for another example."
to which I queried further:
  • "Is your vision... supported by a WP policy, and if so, please point me to that policy. I studied WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions#Capitalization to no avail. Where is this 'an event, or series of events, is a proper noun whose terms shall be capitalized' policy, if there is one? Declaring that something is an Event (not to opine in any way that this E/event isn't one) and thus is a proper noun that should be capitalized, could be controversial to some, and might encompass different scopes for different folks, so please explain also, if you can, why (as examples--there are a vast number of 'E/events' that might have this issue) the E/events currently titled (and capitalized like this-->) Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, Burundi genocide, and Rohingya massacre should not be capitalized as you propose for the move to Armenian Genocide denial, if there is a good reason to handle each differently. Staying arbitrarily within the narrow category of death and dying-themed events only, why Moors murders and Soham murders, but Parker-Hulme Murder? (the current examples suggest, somewhat irregularly, that single death is an Event, but multiple death is an event, unless it's a whole lot of death, in which case it's an Event??) What is the WP policy, if there is one, that sets these sorts of boundaries (or not) for E/events of all flavors?"
and got this answer:
  • "I do think that massacres or genocides you noted above should be capitallised. Those are events. A murder is an event, a pogrom is an event, a mass murder (massacre) is an event, a genocide is an event, but an article "Mass murders" is not an event, an article "The genocides of Europe" is not AN event or Sexual disorder is a collective word-combination and a collective article but Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is a name of one disorder. the same way Greek, Assyrian or Armenian Genocides are separate events and not some variety of genocides or something. I don't even thing this was ever discussed. Just all the WP:RSs write it with a capital letter so no doubts."
Please share your thoughts on the idea of changing the name of this page to Khatyn Massacre, a proper noun. I'm going to try to edit the Manual of Style to address this question, and before I do, I'd like to find out what community consensus is on the matter.
Sorry so long-winded. =) Duff (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Khatyn Memorial[edit]

"In the Brezhnev era USSR, much attention was paid to this Nazi crime, possibly with the intention of diverting attention from the Soviet crime of the Katyn massacre of Polish officers"

How long are these populist and unfounded statements will be present at the text of the encyclopedic article? Moreover, they denigrated the memory of hundreds of thousands of Belarusians who died at the hands of Nazi occupiers, they are an example of a typical anti-Soviet ravings of the Cold War. The very construction of this phrase is intended to whitewash the crimes of the Nazis, to make them a kind of myth, a red herring.

Who is Fischer, Benjamin B? Retired CIA officer- very credible and respectable source of information. Maybe also an opinion of retired KGB general should be provided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is alot of good information here; is it possible for someone who is a native english speaker to correct this article?Cillmore (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It is "correct". The statement is supported by citations from both Fischer and Norman Davies. If you have sources to the contrary, please add them. Otherwise, what's the problem with it? Miremare 12:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's actually Soviets who desecrated the memory of the victims of this Nazi crime, when they decided to use them to obfuscate their own responsibility for their own crime. -- (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Introductory sentence[edit]

Does the sentence "Khatyn, Chatyń (Belarusian and Russian: Хаты́нь, pronounced [xɐˈtɨnʲ]) was a village in Belarus, in Lahojsk district, Minsk Voblast" mean to suggest that Khatyn is a village in some larger geographic unit called Chatyń or are these variants of the same place name? If the latter, perhaps the formulation "Katyn, also spelled Chatyń" should be used. --Khajidha (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

About Mistery Spectre edits[edit]

User Mistery Spectre conducts purposeful campaign twisting historical events. User Mistery Spectre was seen in Ukrainophobia. And has a great aversion to all Ukrainians as a nation. In statte Khatyn massacre, he tries to put the Ukrainians as involved in this tragedy. In the role of killers. In the Ukrainian Wikipedia, there are professional historians, and they all claim that the version of Mistery Spectre preconceived, one-sided, Soviet version. Version Khatyn massatsre that now - the false! I put the old version before the user Mistery Spectre edits. ✍ Green Zero Letter me 12:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks, your comments about User:Mistery Spectre could lead to sanctions. That editor only reverted anon's edits. The stable version has been the one he is reverting to. My revert is introducing the old, stable version, from before anon's made his edits and you started warring with him. It is high time the two of you discussed things here. For me, I prefer the old version, as it seems the quality of references is higher. You are removing some referenced text without explanation, and the only new ref you are adding is unformatted - and scribd is a problematic host. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Very funny to hear about the charges me Ukrainophobia and aversion to the Ukrainian nation (my mother and Bukovina, and father's ancestors were once Ukrainian Cossacks). When I try a fall with anti-ukrainian fighters in ruWiki, they called me "soviet propaganda" too, will You will believe? (One, and two). But what else to expect, if the articles of British or German sources deleted as "Soviet propaganda" Mistery Spectre (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
За цей епізод в англійській статті Khatyn massacre я перепрошую, але щодо інших обвинувачень - ні. Користувачі Brandner, Helgi, Pavlo1 слушно зауважили щодо неприпустимості радянщини в українській статті про цю трагедію. На майбутнє я б Вам порадив позбутися розуміння радянської історіографії, як єдиної вірної, бо її авторитет в посттоталітарному світі наближається до нуля. Вікіпедія ж має оперувати максимально авторитетними джерелами, до яких радянські міфи і легенди не мають жодного відношення, їх місце - художньо-фантастична ніша у світовій літературі. ✍ Green Zero Letter me 10:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Я не считаю некий "советский вариант" единым верным, я против проталкивания каких-либо попыток оправдать преступления нацизма, шовинизма, etc, под видом борьбы с "советской пропагандой", особенно когда под неё абсурдно записываются сами немцы, британцы и американцы. Ладно, участие украинцев в этом довольно спорный вариант, если верить Косику, но пытаться на этом фоне отрицать ещё сам факт трагедии, это абсурд. Между прочим, украинофобы в рувики тоже любили чуть-что кричать о советской пропаганде, которая в их случае "украинизировала малороссов и искажала ПРАВДУ о Южной России". Абсурдность этого, я думаю, вам объяснять не нужно. В общем, против возвращения абзаца Косика - я не буду (хотя и не понимаю, о какой пропаганде может идти речь, если факт суда скрывался из-за опасения национального конфликта), но без "провокаторов НКДВ" и прочей публицистики. Mistery Spectre (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
В таких суперечливих випадках, зазвичай пишуть: за таким-то істориком було йцукен, за таким-то істориком було некуцй, а не обирати якусь одну позицію як єдиновірну. Доречі, в укрвікі ніхто трагедії і не заперечує, всі зауваження були до однобокості. ✍ Green Zero Letter me 15:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Когда мы имеем общепринятую теорию (за исключением вопроса об участии украинцев, большинство источников пишет об одном и том же) и одностороннюю критику (я не о Косике, а о Дорийко), это будет нарушением взвешенности изложения, что часто используется для нарушений правил. Опять же, напримере украинофобов, мы можем увидеть, как участники пытались подать маргинальную версию о искусственности украинского народа как имевшей вес или даже доминирующей. Именно чтобы вики не стало трибуной, есть правила МАРГ и ВЕС. Mistery Spectre (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)