This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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 is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime 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 is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.
Does this article mention the Volodymyr-Volynskyi crime? If not - what is the connection? Why don't you edit any Holocaust article or Volodymyr-Volynskyi?Xx234 (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Since you ask if the article mentions Volodymyr-Volynskyi, you appear to be implying that you did not read the article, if I am not mistaken. Also, when you ask rhetorical questions such as "why don't you edit any Holocaust articles?", I believe that you may be simply trying to be provocative. I ask that you discontinue that. None of us are holocaust deniers, and to insult us by name-calling is not behavior I want to see from fellow Wikipedians. That aside, he information provided in the articles listed above appear to be valid and reliable. I believe that it would be appropriate to add the above information into the article. If you disagree, will you please explain, with substantial reasoning, why? I apologize if I appear to be judgemental, but in the past I've seen you dismiss counter points by simply saying "please respect victims" or "this is not the place for JFK was an alien theories.", both of which are ultimately weasel arguments. Anti-Katyn may be a fringe viewpoint, but Wikipedia does not necessarily exclude fringe viewpoints from being presented; they simply should not be given undue weight. I would argue that Anti-Katyn is at least prominent enough that it deserves to be given some amount of attention within the primary article. While Soviet responsibility for Katyn is the dominant viewpoint, it is a fact that the documentation supporting it is far more sparse than that of Nazi crimes, which we can all agree are very real. Paradigm shifts do happen, you know. Who's to say that that won't ever happen with Katyn? Unrequestedsillything (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
No, this should not be added. It's not relevant to this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Furr is an expert in old English literature, not in Katyn crime. Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from mislabeling edits as 'vandalism'. It is possible that the edit was 'inaccurate', but there were obviously no ill intentions. Thank you, Unrequestedsillything (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I mean not the edit by the revert.
My grandftaher was murdered by the NKVD, not in Katyn, but I expect respect for families of the victims. It's not a right place to present JFK was an alien theories.
Please don't use bold. Thank you. Xx236 (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Granted, Anti-Kaytn is not the dominant view, but to equate it to suggesting that JFK was an alien seems like an unncessesary exaggeration, if you ask me. Maybe Grover Furr's research truly doesn't belong here. If that's the case, however, then let's at least make sure that we have a solid explanation to justify why that is. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking for actual photocopy's of these execution orders, or transcripts. The articles claim they exist and that they're referenced, but when I click the outside links they go straight to "google books" and just give the name/titles of the books rather than the actual content. Can people read these books and state whether these books have the actual transcripts of the see orders - or do they just merely reference them too?
This is rather alarming. If this is true about the sources claiming the existence of actual execution orders, then they need to be removed. There needs to be further discussion on this. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently, there is no consensus regarding the general notability of Furr. Unless that is achieved at a later point in time, I do not see any reason to remove his work about Katyn. Remember that terms such as 'hobby historian' and 'JKF was an alien theories' are insufficient (see: WP:WEASEL). Please also keep in mind that personal or family experiences with the article subject cannot directly interfere with explanations for actions. E.g. 'respecting victims' does not constitute for removal of information. If there community members that want the entry for Grover Furr removed, please allow discussion before taking action. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, Grover Furr is a denier of Stalin's crimes who has zero credibility as a historian. Adding one of his denialist articles to the Wikipedia page about the Katyn massacre is like adding a holocaust denying article to the Wikipedia page about the holocaust. Ivanevian (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do not mislabel good-faith edits as vandalism. If you have a reason for reverting content, please support the action with a constructive argument, rather than simply claiming that the subject has 'zero credibility'. Remember that there is currently no consensus on Wikipedia regarding Furr's credibility whatsoever.
I also fail to see how adding an alternative viewpoint on Stalin can be compared to holcaust denial. Can you elaborate on your reasoning for comparing the two?
I will not start and edit war here, but neither do I consider this conflict over. It is clear to me that both of us have a conflict of interest regarding the issue. If a neutral point of view in the article is too difficult to ascertain, then I believe it will be best for both sides to be presented.
I would also like to point out that there is information in the article claiming to support official story of the Katyn massacre that appears to be original research, as stated in the entry above. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The Earth isn't flat.Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Grover Furr is not a reliable source for Katyn massacre history. He's an English language professor, so his expertise is not in military history. The people who are experts in military history don't think very highly at all of Furr's arguments. That makes him a fringe character here, not worthy of having a link to any of his writings. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Xx236, you are going out of your bounds right now. Insulting me by saying that I believe the Earth is flat is completely uncalled for and you are clearly trying to be inflammatory. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
You are insulting victims of the crime and their families. The Katyń crime isn't a scientific theory, it's real life, 50 yers of lies. Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please, enough of this 'insulting' nonsense. This helps my discussion in no way. Truth is truth, even if it is insulting, regardless of which side is true. While I don't agree with you nor Binksternet regarding Katyn, at least he made a relevant case about Grover Furr. I have no complaints about him since he actually explained why Grover Furr should not be here. He contributed to the discussion without simply blowing me off by calling me a 'flat Earther'. Anyway, I'd say that this discussion about Grover is otherwise complete. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)