Talk:Trial of the Sixteen

A fact from Trial of the Sixteen appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 September 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 1945 Trial of the Sixteen helped the USSR consolidate its control over Poland?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/September.

Wikipedia

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Poland Mid‑importance

	Poland portal 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Absolute bias

How can you possibly say that the charges were false and trumped up when Okulicki literally admitted it multiple times in correspondences and radio transmissions???

To quote the leader of the AK, General Leopold Okulicki:

"1. The developing Soviet offensive may soon lead to the occupation of the entire territory of Poland by the Red Army, which in reality means the replacement of the German occupation by the Soviet one. 2. The war imposed on Poland in 1939 will not end in Soviet victory. For us, it will end only when we reach our goal… 3. In the changed conditions of the new occupation, we must focus our activities on restoring independence and protecting the population. 4. The Home Army is disbanded. Commanders are not legalized. The soldiers should be released from the oath, pay a two-month allowance, and hide."

" In the event of a victory of the U.S.S.R. over Germany, this will threaten not only the interests of Britain in Europe, but the whole of Europe will be in fear... Considering their interests in Europe,the British will have to start mobilizing the forces of Europe against the U.S.S.R. It is clear that we will be at the forefront of this European anti-Soviet bloc; and it is also impossible to imagine this bloc without the participation of Germany, which will be controlled by the British (...) We will be included in the anti-Soviet European bloc organized by the British, and in the meantime we must make full use of their material assistance ."

You can argue, if you wish, about weather he was right to do this or not, but he was absolutely guilty of forming an underground organization against Soviet power, and he admitted to it himself! Yet, the article still says it was a trumped up show trial. What an absolute farce.

Neutrality

The neutrality is disputed yet there's no discussion on the talk page? Please elaborate on the reasons for the NPOV alert box. Thanks. :) Krupo 02:53, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Statements such as: "After several months of brutal interrogation and torture they were presented with the forged accusations of:" have no sources or counter claims. I'm not contesting the veracity of the article, but it is completely one-sided. While this may be an acceptable style for a history book - it is not suitable for the Wikipedia. ed g2s • talk 10:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

References are in place. I wouldn't call the article one-sided, though. If it presents the facts, those are the facts. Embarassing for the Soviets? Surely. But explaining away criminal behaviour is not necessary to make an article suitable for Wikipedia, eh? Krupo 18:55, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, how then could the following informations be included:
- - torture
  - false accusations

without using the POV language? I don't deny that this might be POV, I simply have no idea as to the way it should be corrected. The sentence could be softened a bit to after several months of torture and interrogation by the NKVD, they were presented with accusations of: and then add that the accusations were mostly false and invented for political reasons. However, that wouldn't add much new info, it would simply make the article longer. Do you have any ideas? [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 13:32, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

One word answer: references.

James F. (talk) 15:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As per your request I added both the Polish sources I used in preparing the article (one is a monography on the trial and the other is mostly a collection of NKVD sources released in the early 1990s) and two English language books that describe the whole matter (Davies is available in most bookshops in the West). Any other requests/suggestions/pleas/needs? [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 17:03, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Curious as to whether the neutrality call has been satisifed or not...? Krupo 02:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Now removed.

James F. (talk) 03:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I note that a Google search for Trial of the Sixteen yields a whole lot of information about a totally different Trial of the Sixteen: the first of the four great show trials in the Great Purge of 1936-1938. Jpgordon 21:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not surprising. A disambig message would be a good idea, eh? Krupo 02:54, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

International law

There is a comment here that the trial contravened international law. I am dubious as to which law this is supposed to have been. XmarkX 08:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

Dear Editors: I started this evening adding references which I saw as a key failing of this article. I plan on Saturday (UK time) to have another go at references up this article. My last reference has been removed. I would appreciate knowing issues with my recent changes especially from Loosmark about the last references I added. Thanks. Jniech (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Jniech I don't tnink you need to attach the same reference to every sentence. It makes the article difficult to read with all those "12" everywhere. Wouldn't it be better to add all references at the beginning or the end of the sentences section? But aynway you can restore it if you want i want change it anymore. Loosmark (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Loosmark: This article is currently tagged due to lack of inline citation. Without it done correctly you can not tell what is and is not supported by the references. It would be great if the reader could see the article without the references but editors could see them to ensure the information is accurate. Can I suggest I reference it up today/tomorrow? Then I will try to rework the article so as to allow less referencing or a more experienced editor can change the article knowing what is supported? Jniech (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good idea. Loosmark (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Story of a Secret State

The original references used "Jan Karski, Story of a Secret State. Simon Publications, 2001. ISBN 1-931541-39-6. Paperback, 391 pages."

I have the 1944 edition which clearly pre-dates these events. Does anyone have a later edition as my copy has nothing on page 391 about these events? Jniech (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Stemler

I can not find when Józef Stemler was arrested. My guess is as the books are listing those the Soviets were after and as interpreter for the group he is not seen as a target. I have therefore included him as one of those arrested on the next day. Anyone disagree with me doing this? Jniech (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False pretext?

Pretext is a false reason so "false pretext" is like "false falsification", and has no sense unless someone only pretends that he or she is acting on the pretext. But this is not the case in the context of the article. It was a very real pretext. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikom (talk • contribs) 01:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]