Talk:Field Cathedral of the Polish Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Field Cathedral of the Polish Army appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 May 2006.

[edit] staying on topic

Halibutt, please do not spread the info on your favorite topic in all articles you write no matter how relevant it is there. There are articles about soviet crimes. You wrote several and there are more. This nfo belongs there. You can't retell the whole history of Europe in every article about every city, village and, especially, building. --Irpen 17:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that is no reason to whitewash the USSR just because it's descendants would like it. A mass murder is a mass murder, regardless of what you call it. And calling it an execution, when it was a pure slaughter, with people murdered en masse like cattle is a gross understatement. Before you support your friend Ghirlandajo in his revert war over this article perhaps you could enlighten us on this talk page what was wrong with the version you revert so fiercefuly? After all it's up to the person who introduces their POV to explain their edits, isn't it. //Halibutt 18:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My objection is based purely on that info should belong to the dedicated articles rather than be spread all over Wikipedia. Many historic events are controvercial and the best way to keep the edit war level low is to keep them in appropriate articles rather than add them here and there.

I do not object to the info being covered in Wikipedia. All I am saying is that there is a reason why we have separate articles, seperate categories, etc. This article is about a building. Not once I criticized you for spreading the POVish description of your favorite topics all over Wikipedia, like trying to repeat the centuries-long history of countries in every town article. Many articles you wrote have something like:

The town was a part of Poland... Following the PoP it became a part of Russian Empire and Poles were oppressed... Following the RU revolution it was a part of independent Ukraine and than liberated by Poland again so that Poles could leave there in peace.... Following the R-M pact it was occupied by the Red Army and became a part of USSR. Poles were murdered... Than it fell under the Nazi Germany. Poles were murdered... Than it was reoccupied by the Soviets, attached to the UkrSSR and Poles were murdered and deported. It is now part of an independent Ukraine...

This is just a general idea above but it represents the picture of what's wrong with narrow articles you saturate with the global info. One thing is if there was a concentration camp there or a place of execution. But not such general stuff. I can cite a whole bunch of city and village articles you wrote like that, basically trying to retell complex stories that takes pages to tell in appropriate history articles in one paragraph of the city article. This, however, is not even the city article. It is the article about the building. It is fine to tell who is burried there. The description of the Soviet attoricities is out of place here. Use the article "Treatment of Polish citizens..." you wrote to expand on that or many others about stalinist crimes. --Irpen 19:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its obvious that the information who are the people remembered in the Cathederal is neccessary in the article. --Molobo 19:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The best style I know is to write encyclopaedia articles for uninformed readers. That's how it's done in Poland and that's how it's done in the UK. Don't know about USSR, didn't read much of the GSE recently. That's why articles on history of certain places contain their... history and articles on certain buildings contain information on their interior. Remember that an article is an entity on its own. In wikipedia a reader might want to click an internal link to read up more - but he doesn't have to. That's a basic principle of journalism in general. As to the specific issue, take note that your position is seriously weakened by your own recent campaigns. You consider this a POV language - fine with me. But why should we change our POV vocabulary at your request when you are not limiting your POV language? Lvov liberated anyone? BTW, it's the last time I reported an article to the Russian notice board. It's simply not worth my time and efforts as it only attracts you and Ghirlandajo to correct the historical wrongs in every article out there. //Halibutt 06:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)