Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Katyn Commission"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Edwardx
(reply)
imported>Callanecc
(Good point, this is good to go)
Line 28: Line 28:
 
::::::I see your point, but we are running into a problem here. The article says "in November 2010 the Russian State Duma admitted" to ''Soviet'' responsibility, however, the Soviet Union disintegrated a decade earlier. So the denial continued beyond the Soviet "60" and on to "70" mentioned in the hook. [[User:Poeticbent|<font face="Papyrus" color="darkblue"><b>Poeticbent</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Poeticbent|<font style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk</font>]] 09:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 
::::::I see your point, but we are running into a problem here. The article says "in November 2010 the Russian State Duma admitted" to ''Soviet'' responsibility, however, the Soviet Union disintegrated a decade earlier. So the denial continued beyond the Soviet "60" and on to "70" mentioned in the hook. [[User:Poeticbent|<font face="Papyrus" color="darkblue"><b>Poeticbent</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Poeticbent|<font style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk</font>]] 09:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 
::::::: When reviewing this nom, I did consider adding "by the Soviets", but as Poeticbent states, who else would have an interest in denying it?  I also realised that there was the possibility for Soviet/Russian confusion, so decided to leave it as it stands.  In any event, the hook doesn't have to tell the whole story. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] ([[User talk:Edwardx|talk]]) 10:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 
::::::: When reviewing this nom, I did consider adding "by the Soviets", but as Poeticbent states, who else would have an interest in denying it?  I also realised that there was the possibility for Soviet/Russian confusion, so decided to leave it as it stands.  In any event, the hook doesn't have to tell the whole story. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] ([[User talk:Edwardx|talk]]) 10:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 +
::::::::Ok, all good points. Probably not worth the gain to try and work out another word (or more likely phrase would be). So this is good to go. [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] for ease of viewing. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 11:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 11:24, 30 November 2013

Katyn Commission

Katyn Commission, Berlin, May 4, 1943

Created by Poeticbent (talk). Self nominated at 20:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC).

  • 16px New enough, long enough, hook content cited in article, which is well cited generally. Image is widely used on Wikipedia in several languages. Edwardx (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The article explains it. The perpetrators are already named and linked; no-one else would have a stake in denying the facts. In my opinion, there's no need to say it twice. Poeticbent talk 08:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I just think that it's a bit too ambiguous at the moment, in terms of whether its part of the Commission, the Soviet Union, the world, the Polish. What about something like: "were denied by the Soviets for seventy years"? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, but we are running into a problem here. The article says "in November 2010 the Russian State Duma admitted" to Soviet responsibility, however, the Soviet Union disintegrated a decade earlier. So the denial continued beyond the Soviet "60" and on to "70" mentioned in the hook. Poeticbent talk 09:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
When reviewing this nom, I did consider adding "by the Soviets", but as Poeticbent states, who else would have an interest in denying it? I also realised that there was the possibility for Soviet/Russian confusion, so decided to leave it as it stands. In any event, the hook doesn't have to tell the whole story. Edwardx (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, all good points. Probably not worth the gain to try and work out another word (or more likely phrase would be). So this is good to go. 16px for ease of viewing. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)