Talk:Władysław Sikorski's death controversy

Soldiers, An obituary for Geneva

Such title is quoted in Rolf Hochhuth.Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Decrypting.... failed. I have no idea what the above comment is about. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You have written about Soldiers, but the full title is like above [1].Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Feel free to add it to the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Concerns over neutrality and rigour of analysis

I don't want to review the article as such at this time, but in my opinon this article shows bias in the form of support for the conspiracy theories, rather than neutral analysis of their probability. IE:

• It spends little time laying out results of formal investigation(s) but a lot of time looking into several conspiracy theories
• it states the existence of the conspiracy theories, but states no rebuttals
• several quoted sources(eg Nicholas Atkin; Michael Biddiss; Frank Tallett (8 March 2011). The Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789. John Wiley & Sons. p. 389. ISBN 978-1-4051-8922-4. Retrieved 8 November 2012.) mention both the conspiracy theories but also that they are unlikely to be true/that the cause is probably natural, yet in the article only reference to the conspiracy theory is given, not to the mention that the writer believes they are probably untrue

I think this needs to be addressed before this can be considered a Good Article. At present it reads biased towards support for the truth of the conspiracy theories due to selective weight on pro-conspiracy sources, and of selective use of content from those sources. -PocklingtonDan (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:PocklingtonDan: thank you for the comments. The article is about the conspiracy theories, and the lead as well as the "Investigation and controversy" section state clearly that the incident is officially classified as an accident. I am not sure where more debunking should be added, but if you think you see such a place, I'd like to invite you to add such a claim to the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved for lack of consensus. This is a very close discussion, and a difficult call. WP:CONSISTENCY does seem to favor a "Death of" title, but opposers make the good point that most "Death of" articles do not involve deaths where assassination conspiracy theories are widely discussed. I count seven participants favoring a rename, four against, and one objecting to a merge of the topics, while stating the opinion that "the existing articles are fine where they are", which also suggests opposition to the rename. bd2412 T 02:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Władysław Sikorski's death controversy → Death of Władysław Sikorski – Having the article be about Sikorski's death - perhaps merging the article about the crash into this article (the reverse of a previously proposed merge) - would make it a more comprehensive and informative article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Object to merge. It's quite sneaky - if merge A to B was just rejected, trying to circumvent consensus by suggesting merge B to A. No. We have an article about the controversy, and an article about the plane crash. Two separate notable concepts. Now, if anyone would like to create a parent article to them under proposed name, by copying and compiling the content from those two, that would be fine. But the existing articles are fine where they are.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Try assuming some good faith with the nominator. The article should be renamed and the article should be merged, but it appears that these unnecessary forks are all designed to maximise the number of GAs possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Try to assume good faith with the authors. Władysław Sikorski's death was believed in Poland to be an assasination since 1943, there are hundreds of texts about it, two movies.Xx236 (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
    • For clarity, Rename per nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Rename per BR. Technically all deaths have a deal of controversy to them, and it's POV pushing too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The death is controversial according to British governments who keeps some documents classified, Allegedly till 2041.[2]Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Rename per The Bushranger. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Rename per BR. No comment on merge of crash article though --Rushton2010 (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• How do they describe the Assassination of John F. Kennedy:
  • Timeline of the John F. Kennedy assassination
  • John F. Kennedy assassination rifle
  • John F. Kennedy autopsy
  • John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and several other articles.

There are plenty of conspiration theories regarding Sikorski's death and several internationally known texts, eg. a Soldiers (play) by Rolf Hochhuth.
I believe that Władysław Sikorski assasination conspiracy theories and Władysław Sikorski death IPN investigation deserve to be discussed separately. Xx236 (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Been through all this before. Look at the size of the JFK article and how therefore such forks are justified. These Sikorski articles cover much the same material in each case and can easily be merged. But this a rename discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose move I think this is by far the better description of the topic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support This would be more consistent with our many "Death of" articles. Like Rushton2010, I have no strong opinion on the merge. At a glance, it seems logical, but if there was just no consensus for it, perhaps this isn't the time. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support For consistency. I don't think there's a real need to use the word 'controversy' in the title. No need for a merger as per @Xx236:. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 11:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose move because the mian argumentation Pro is a consistency of inconsistent matters. see also above this article shows bias in the form of support for the conspiracy theories.Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, the controversies and debate about the subject makes the title logical.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this move. I don't believe this move will serve to clarify matters. What needs to happen is a division of the subject into two articles: one, attesting only the known clear facts, at "Death of..."; and the other, detailing reliably sourced theories and conjectures regarding the possible conspirators in the death, at "Sikorski death controversy". This proposal only makes these two branches less distinct, not more so. Xoloz (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tadeusz Kobylinski

Kobylinski left Poland for Ancona in Italy. After service in the BRitish Army, he died in London in 1961. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Similarities to De Gaulle Assasination Attempt

The circumstances of this crash and a near-crash-on takeoff on RAF Hendon of a Wellington bomber carrying Chares De Gaulle are too similar to completely ignore. In the latter case it was firmly established that it was sabotage of controls by acid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle#Plane_sabotage http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1943.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.108.29 (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

De Gaulle's Wellington never left the runway, because the damage to the elevator control rods meant the tail couldn't be raised for take-off, so the pilot simply braked to a halt. Standard pre-take-off checks should have revealed the problem, but perhaps the pilot moved the stick fore-and-aft without looking over his shoulder and noticing that the elevators didn't respond. (There do not seem to be any good sources on this incident, so claims of sabotage and assassination attempts should be regarded with scepticism.) On the Liberator, a tricycle rather than a tailwheel aircraft, the same elevator-control problem would again prevent take-off because the nose could not be lifted. Instead, the Liberator took off, then stalled out and plunked into the sea, 'on an even keel' according to the British accident inquiry: that is, not nose-diving. The surviving co-pilot said he put the nose down to gain safety speed in the usual way and then couldn't pull the stick back again, but it's not very clear and his memory may have been affected by trauma. The Liberator is extremely c.g. sensitive. When sitting on the ground it will rock back on its tail with a loud and costly clunk if you don't keep enough fuel in the correct tanks. In the air it is flown mostly with the elevator trim wheel because it is so unstable in pitch. If anyone moves around the cabin at the back, the pilot will know because he has to re-trim as the Lib noses up or down. A recent Polish researcher, Mieczyslaw Roszicky, has suggested that Sikorski's Lib was simply overloaded and wrongly loaded, the c.g. limit was exceeded, the runway was too short for a Lib at that all-up weight to gain sufficient speed anyway and the aircraft was incapable of controlled flight in those conditions. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Article outdated

Excuse me, but is it OK for a good article to contain data which is 4 years old, without any proper justification?

I mean the passage about the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, which is dated: "as of July 2013". The link that (had to) provide to the site showing progress in the investigation reroutes me to the main page, which simply is: http://www.ipn.gov.pl/. There is no possibility to attain the source. This article (http://www.rp.pl/artykul/1075739-Sledztwo-w-sprawie-smierci-gen--Sikorskiego-umorzone.html#ap-2) suggests that the investigation has been ended as "there is no proof to contradict nor to prove any way Sikorski died".

I haven't yet analysed other passages, but please do check the article so that it was up-to-date. Regards,Ukraroad (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Is their any update to this 2013 investigation that can be added to this article? AIRcorn (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't access the RP link above but a similar one from another reliable news source TVN24 [3] does confirm the investigation has ended, ruling out assassination before the start, and finding no conclusive evidence to either confirm or reject a theory about sabotage as a possible cause of the crash. Other reliable news sources concur, ex Wprost [4], also likely reliable [5] and a bunch of others. Would be nice to add IPN statement, I'll try to look for one later. Feel free to updaste the article, I'll try to do so after finding even better sources. Note that the use of newspapers in this is a bit iffy right now, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland. Right now I am a bit worried about adding any sources to related topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I can't read Polish but google translated it (I know its not ideal, but it does support your description). I have updated the article using the TVN24 source. I don't generally edit this area so am willing to take the risk regards AE. AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

Hello, this is my first time doing this, but I think I found a typo. Thanks!

The word “say” should be changed to the word “day”.

Here is the beginning of the sentence with the typo;

For example, there has been uncertainty since the say of the air crash about who boarded the plane…. Brookelynn23 (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. I also updated the wording a bit to make it easier to read. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 11:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

A political thriller CHAOS THEORY by Graham Masterton, published in 2007, suggested that General Sikorski was assassinated as part of a historical plot to kill off any politican who was capable of bringing stability and peace. 2A00:23C6:4003:7901:704E:E6C9:B31B:A920 (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)