Jump to content

Talk:Slava Ukraini

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 48JCL (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 12 May 2024 (Restored revision 1223511853 by 48JCL (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Rossolinski-Liebe, Stepan Bandera

I noticed latest edits are based on Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe, Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist. Fascism, Genocide, and Cult . This work has a negative review - please see [2]

A conscientious historian must take into account not only the facts that supporthis working hypothesis, but also the ones that do not fit it. Unfortunately,Rossolinski-Liebe does not always observe this rule and sometimes consciouslyor unconsciously adjusts the facts to an a priori scheme of ‘fascism’, ‘racism’ and‘genocidal nationalism’. ... The author regards the OUN as an ideological monolith, which it wasnot. Fascism, Nazism, antisemitism, totalitarianism, terror had both their sup-porters and critics in the ranks of the organization, yet the author carefully citesonly the supporters. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly said. Arorae (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rossoliński-Liebe is a recognised scholar. Some Ukrainian historians, mainly apologists for the OUN and the UPA, are of course opposed to his works because they reveal inconvenient truths. There is no reason to remove refrences to his works. @Arorae please self-revert, especially since you removed references to Lipovetsky also. Marcelus (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will not. Ukrainians are not always apologetic toward the OUN, just have a look to WPuk page about the crimes committed by OUN a members! nothing has to be revealed, even for Ukrainian historians. But definitely Rossoliński-Liebe has his own point of view about Bandera, and his work is not recognised by the majority of historians. Please, instead of inserting text in the intro, discuss first here. Arorae (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, the closer the author gets to the present and the more political his state�ments become, the shakier and more questionable his arguments. There is no doubt
that Ukraine (like many other post-Communist countries) has yet to seriously
address the difficult aspects of its history in general, and of collaboration in the
Holocaust in particular. I fear, however, that some of the author’s rather careless
generalizations will have counterproductive effects. These include his cryptic and
euphemistic mention of “political conflicts in 2013–2014” and the “civil war in
2014,” and the mistaken statement that “democracy and the concept of civil
society have not played any major role in Ukrainian cultural, intellectual, and
political life” (p. 556). Addressing critical historical issues needs time—as
Rossolinski-Liebe himself notes (p. 559) ´ —and a favorable overall climate. With
Ukraine at war and its economy under tremendous strain, the prevailing situation
is unfortunately not very conducive to engaging in such painful debates. [3] Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As correctly said by better scholars than me: “Despite the author’s [Rossoliński-Liebe] insistence on acknowledging his quasi-exclusive focus on the crimes committed by the OUN and UPA, as the two organisations associated with Bandera, at the expense of those perpetrated either by Nazi Germany or the Ukrainian police, by the Red Army, or by the Polish Home Army in its retaliation against the mass murder of Poles by the UPA, and in the absence of limited information beyond some dry figures related to the number of victims, the narrative necessarily appears rather one-sided and requires considerable knowledge on the part of the reader about the Holocaust in Ukraine to fill in the missing pieces of information. While it is difficult to imagine how this could have been avoided given the purpose of the book, which is to provide a biography of Bandera and the organisations he led in the course of his lifetime, the picture of Ukrainians as “both victims and perpetrators” in the course of World War II is significantly inclined towards the latter. Moreover, despite the acknowledgment of several factors other than “the nationalist and racist ideology of the OUN-B” that help explain the transformation of “ordinary men and women into murderers” (p. 279), some of these, such as the absence of a “strong administration in these territories at a time when the front was changing” (p. 280) are insufficiently explored, despite their proven significance in the history of the Holocaust (Snyder, 2012).” written by R. Cârstocea, a Romanian scholar.[1] Arorae (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, just found the same review Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are citing yet another review, that only says Rossoliński-Liebe should explore the topic broader, it doesn't exclude him as WP:RELIABLE source, and I once again ask you to self-revert. Let me remind you of WP:NOTCENSORED. Marcelus (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this response you are just ignoring what's been said by another scholar.
But we should not ignore. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As one of your fist edit was that one ([4]), you shouldn’t tell me how Wikipedia and history works, as I started here more than 10 years before you ever did. And I am a scholar myself (by the way even if it doesn’t count at all). Arorae (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the relevance on the edit you brought up? Marcelus (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the one concept that still remains problematic in Rossoliński-Liebe’s biography of
Stepan Bandera is that of ‘fascism’. ... Yet, despite a comprehensive overview
demonstrating his thorough familiarity with the main theoretical approaches to the concept
associated with the so-called ‘new consensus’ in fascist studies, the definition adopted by the author (p. 33) appears at once too broad and extensive and in some respects ill-suited for the case study under consideration. ... The frequent association of the concept
of fascism with anti-Semitism or ethnic violence in general is also a problematic one, as
considerable evidence (such as the aforementioned regime of Ion Antonescu) points to
numerous parties, movements, or regimes that displayed the latter without necessarily being fascist. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An indictment rather than a biography. Rossoliński-Liebe does not contribute to the understanding of why a substantial part of today’s western Ukrainian population supported Bandera and why he has become a symbol in the fight for independence. Before the Second World War, different nationalist, radical, right-wing, authoritative and fascist movements were on the rise throughout Europe. Therefore, their emergence in Ukraine is nothing exceptional.
Unfortunately, the first academic bi�ography of Stepan Bandera is a failure. The author has based his work on the conviction that his character and object of scientific research is a condemnable criminal. As for those who have recog�nised him as a national hero and a mar�tyr (since 1959), both in Ukraine and in exile, for nearly all of the 20th century, they have merely covered up and legiti�mised his crimes. Ukrainian nationalism is evil and Ukrainians should give it up. Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe’s book is a somewhat monotonous 600-page long indictment, not a biography.
For Rossoliński-Liebe, Bandera was and ap�parently remains a condemnable symbol of Ukrainian fascism, antisemitism, ter�rorism and an inspiration for anti-Jewish pogroms and even genocide. However, as a historian, he should not be commit�ting such an abusive oversimplification, uprooting events and people from the context of the era or using harsh, un�founded and emotional judgments. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=459570 Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go to WP:RSN, it's not a place for this. Rossoliński-Liebe is reliable unless proved otherwise on that forum. You need to understand that even negative review doesn't make the book unreliable. Marcelus (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok to discuss latest edits here. Here, another historian, Zaitsev, specifically criticises Liebe's
Hesees fascism everywhere, even in the greeting ‘Glory to Ukraine!’, groundlesslyattributing its invention to a small and little-known Ukrainian Union of Fascists(34), when in reality it had been widespread back in the time of the UkrainianRevolution of 1917–1920, several years before the formation of the Union of Ukrainian Fascists. [5]
Also, nobody says Liebe is not reliable. Please do not raise false argument. It's that the specific critique of his work that should be taken into account. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His opinion was already mentioned. You can of course post it here, but if you want Rossoliński-Liebe to be regarded as unreliable you need to achieve it on the proper noticeboard. Marcelus (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, this author seems to be controversial, so we shouldn't repeat his claims blindly in wikivoice without also representing the prominent opposing arguments and criticisms of his analysis. HappyWith (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my edit, reverted by @Arorae, I was trying to present four the views of four historians, among them Rossoliński-Liebe. Marcelus (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have read the diffs more carefully. HappyWith (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using some of these sources maybe reasonable, but it is not clear what exactly change in the text was suggested. You guys are making a lot of changes at the same time and revert each other. If you can all agree about something, I will probably agree with any version you all agree with. Speaking on specific diff [6], I would oppose to such massive changes because they heavily rely on a few cherry-picked sources and make an impression of promoting certain POV. More modest changes in this direction might be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes if you would allow me to work on the article instead of reverting every change I made without any proper reason, you would see that I was trying to write actually balanced article, which it isn't right now sadly. Marcelus (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to reach the consensus first. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Manyareasexpert Consensus about what exactly? I don't see any attempt of the discussion about content, I don't really know what is wrong with the content I propose Marcelus (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors presented you scholars criticizing your addition of Liebe's origins of the slogan. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Manyareasexpert and I acknowledged that, and in my next edit I included information about the controversy surrounding the origins and presented other views about the greetings origins, not only Liebe's. But then I was accused of reverting other's changes and not listening to others. I'm now under impression that nobody is actually reading my edits and just being against it out of principle Marcelus (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page discussion has been cited in another article's talk page, where Rossolinski-Liebe has also been questioned as a reliable source, so I am commenting here even though the debate has been dormant for three months. With history, there are legitimate disagreement on interpretations, and their are errors or dishonesty about facts, and these are not the same. Other scholars have disagreed with Rossolinski-Liebe's interpretations, as he would no doubt disagree with those, and where there is any disagreement we should attribute interpretations to their authors. For example, if Rossolinski-Liebe say "Bandera is a fascist" and reputable historian X says "Bandera is not a fascist", we should cite both with attribution. However, there appears to be no evidence here that Rossolinski-Liebe is an unreliable source for facts or so unreliable that his opinions should be excluded. He is a widely regarded historian, heavily cited, published in peer reviewed outlets. There is no reason to infer from this discussion that he should be considered anything other than an RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bandera is not a fascist, that's a WP:FRINGE view shared by few Ukrainian historians. Marcelus (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted removal of the paragraph about the response "Death to the Poles" and abandoning fascist salute by UPA

WP:NOTCENSORED. @My very best wishes, I give you the opportunity to present compelling arguments for the removal of this paragraph. And the "hardly that much relevant" argument is not sufficient. This is source-confirmed information, directly relevant to the topic of the article. If you fail to do so they will be reintroduced. Marcelus (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now seen the discussion, I have already restored it. What is the point of removing that part? The Polish point of view is interesting and relevant to the topic. Mhorg (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pushing new changes through edit warring and reach the consensus first. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see.
Your sentence According to press reports, during the trials of OUN members after the assassination of Bronisław Pieracki, the accused performed fascist salutes to the words "Glory to Ukraine!".[11][1]
is sourced to Liebe's
During the trials the OUN tried to use the court as a political stage; the defendants presented the organization as a movement that was driven by idealism and deeply patriotic feelings and sought to liberate the Ukrainian nation from the Polish and Soviet occupation. The defendants and witnesses frequently performed fascist salutes to the words “Glory to Ukraine!” (Slava Ukraїni!) in front of the court and the press, for which they were punished by the court. The defendants demonstrated that they regarded Bandera as their Providnyk and implied that he might become the leader of the Ukrainian people after a change of political circumstances. Ukrainians followed the trials, reading reports in newspapers, discussing them, and writing folk songs about them and the brave Bandera.
This part describes OUN members on the trial, not the slogan.
At that time, the group adopted many symbols modelled on fascist ones, including the red-black banner, new emblem, and new fascist salute with calling "Glory to Ukraine!" and responding "Glory to the Heroes!".[17][18][19][20][21]
sourced to Liebe's
In April 1941 the younger generation of OUN members organized the Second Great Congress of the Ukrainian Nationalists in Cracow. At this congress Bandera was officially elected leader of the OUN. The congress introduced the Führerprinzip and officially introduced a number of fascist principles, symbols and rituals, including the authoritarian principle “one nation, one party, one leader” (odyn narid, odyn provid, odna vlada), the red�and-black flag symbolizing blood and earth (Blut und Boden), and the fascist salute while calling “Glory to Ukraine!” (Slava Ukraїni!) and responding “Glory to the Heroes!” (Heroiam Slava!”) The fascistization of the OUN reached its peak at that time.
This describes OUN and its congress.
After the creation in the second half of 1942, the the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) took over the salute from the OUN-B, but dropped the fascist-like raising of the right arm above the head.[25] - okay, so UPA dropped arm raise, is it important?
Should we give more attention to it? Should we also mention, for example, that However, for the sake of eventual cooperation with the Allies, the leadership of the OUN-B emphasized that it was struggling against two imperialisms: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.[1250] For the same reason, the OUN-B decided to break away from fascism and to “democratize” itself, but the term “democracy” still had a very negative meaning among the OUN-B and UPA leaders.  ? The OUN-B preserved the idea of the “Ukrainian National Revolution” of 1941 but it abandoned the right-arm fascist salute.[1251] In May 1943, the OUN-B theoretically abandoned the Führerprinzip and established a triumvirate of Zinovii Matla, Dmytro Maїvs’kyi, and Roman Shukhevych. ? Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This part describes OUN members on the trial, not the slogan, it describes both? This describes OUN and its congress, and the greetign they adopted among other fascist-like symbolism?, okay, so UPA dropped arm raise, is it important?, yes because it symbolises abandonment of fascist symbolism, so exactly the thing you are proposing? Marcelus (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it describes both? - how it describes the slogan?
yes because it symbolises abandonment of fascist symbolism - okay but this is not the article subject. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this falls within the subject of the article. The article describes the history of the greeting, the fact that for a while it was accompanied by a fascist greeting, which was later abandoned, is by all means part of this history. Marcelus (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t fall within the subject of this article, that is simply Slava Ukraini and not historical research on the use of it by OUN and other extremist groups. Stop pulling the blanket to yourself. Arorae (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arorae Your argument doesn't make much sense. if the subject of the article is Slava Ukraini, then historical use of it is very much part of the article Marcelus (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, every edit you make since 2 weeks is only one way, sorry to tell. Arorae (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What way? Marcelus (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two different issues here:
  1. I think the abandoning the salute can be included. I never said it must be excluded.
  2. As about "Death to Poles" (in relation to massacres "in the Lviv region by the UPA"), that was discussed already on this talk page [7], and I agree with those who said it should not be included on this page, simply because it is more about UPA rather than about "Slava Ukraine". I think you need to get consensus of other contributors for including this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishesI don't really need a consensus if the only argument is "we don't like this part so it should be removed", and I don't really hear much else. The rest of the arguments are really weak, like the one presented by you. How is the use of "death to Poles" in any way related to UPA if it was used by common Ukrainians in Galicia and ot by UPA members? Also how is that not related to "Slava Ukraini" if it was literally the response to it? It was part of the greeting at that time and very much part of the history of the greeting. Let me remind you again of WP:NOTCENSORED, there is no valid reason to remove content only because it's upsetting or puts a dark light on the subject. Marcelus (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Has this "Death to the Poles" response been covered by multiple other solid sources, and do they say for a fact that it happened? If that's the case I think I'm fine with including a brief mention of it, but I notice it's specifically mentioned as an observation that was made by the Home Army Tristario (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And when I say "it happened" I mean sources preferably say that it was a common/standard response, rather than just some instances of it Tristario (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure. This must be something notable and widely used as established by multiple RS, as opposed to a single biased source that refers to claims by another, even more biased source/organization. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still calling Rossoliński-Liebe 'biased' based on what you wrote above? That is, that extreme right-wing groups contested him? Or are there other sources that say he is biased? Mhorg (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the book reviews others mentioned above? Talk:Slava_Ukraini#Rossolinski-Liebe, Stepan Bandera Tristario (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it was mentioned above, the Rossoliński-Liebe's book isn't perfect, it has its shortcomings, but really nobody is questioning it's factographic correctness. Also what's more some of these reviews are coming from OUN-UPA apologists, who are doing everything they can to deny or soften the fascist face of OUN-UPA. What's more there a plenty of far more positive reviews of Rossoliński-Liebe. Nonetheless it's a first scientific biography of Bandera, that was groundbreaking in the approach and examination of sources, it certainly cannot be ignored by Wikipedia. Marcelus (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article on Bandera. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And? What does supposed to be mean? When did I say it's article about Bandera? Marcelus (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your collection of "facts" suggests a reader that the slogan is somehow fascist. This may be true or false, but the article should not be a collection of mere facts suggesting something. The article is supposed to be written using secondary sources, to use their interpretations and conclusions. If there are secondary sources elaborating on the connection you are trying to add - we can discuss them. But the article should not be a collection of mere facts suggesting something. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A baseless accusation, none of my edits are intended to imply anything, moreover they are based on solid sources. Previously, the article was based mainly on newspaper texts. Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's referenced by two solid RS: Rossoliński-Liebe and Zajączkowski, I think that's enough. It's way better sourced than most other facts mentioned in the article. Marcelus (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So Rossolinski-Liebe says the Home Army "observed" ukrainians using the response in July 1943. What exactly (with an exact quote, with any necessary context) does Zajączkowski say? Tristario (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full paragraph of Zajączkowski, deepl translated: On the territory of Galicia, attacks on the Polish population had already been taking place since mid-1943. They intensified in autumn of that year, first in areas in the immediate vicinity of Volhynia (Ternopil), but also in the Lublin region (Sokal). Although they did not have such a mass character as in Volhynia, the OUN-B and UNS militias killed up to around 2-3 thousand Poles at that time (including around 1.4k persons known by name). In any case, from July-August 1943, as we read in the materials of the Delegation of the Government of the Republic of Poland to the Home Country, it became increasingly common among Ukrainian nationalists in Eastern Galicia to say: "Glory to Ukraine, death to Poles". Marcelus (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poland Ministry of Justice:[8] "The shocking descriptions of the crimes are accompanied by historical information about Volhynia and Eastern Lesser Poland during the Second Polish Republic: about the mosaic of nationalities in these areas, and about the origins of Ukrainian nationalism, especially under Soviet and German occupation. The bloody cleansing of the Polish population was carried out under the slogans "Ukraine for Ukrainians", "Ukraine as pure as a glass of water", "Smert Lacham [Death to Poles] - Slava Ukrajini", which the exhibition also illustrates."
  • Monika Agopsowicz:[9] "The worst, according to witnesses' recollections, were the periods of exchange of occupying troops after the passage of the fronts - in mid-September 1939, in the summer of 1941 and the most terrible, in the spring of 1944. Already in the middle of 1943, however, in Stanislawow, according to a secret Polish report, it was increasingly common to hear on the street the greeting: Smert' Lacham [Death to Poles] and the reply Slawa Ukraini."
  • Radio Lublin:[10] "Several hundred Ukrainians were killed during the attack on Sahryń. [...] Representatives of Ukrainian circles commemorated the dead [...] It was also shocking that both his and every subsequent speech ended with the cry "Slava Ukrarajini" ("Glory to Ukraine" - editor's note), and the participants in the ceremony thundered "Herojam sława" ("Heroes glory" - editor's note). This was the call which was the slogan for attacking and slaughtering Polish villages there. There is a third part to this call - "Smert Lachom" [Death to Poles]"
I think it is enough to include it in the article. Mhorg (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources seem weak for a claim like this Tristario (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also found another source, which quotes a broadcast from 3 August 1943 by the London-based Polish radio station Świt on Polish-Ukrainian relations, probably based on the same Polish underground report: We understand your conciliatory tone towards the Ukrainians, nevertheless they must be threatened. There is a fear that the murders will spread from Volhynia to Lesser Poland. In Lviv, an intelligent or a Ukrainian worker greets one another with the words: "Death to the Lachs, glory to Ukraine". The Ukrainian question comes before the German question there. Hatred of Ukrainians is terrible. This was said by the head of the Civil Struggle from Lviv at our rally. Stigmatise the participation of the Ukrainian police in the pacifications in the Lublin district [p. 77] Marcelus (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at sources and quoting that paragraph. So, we know that in one (or two) particular month in 1943 the Home Army reported an unspecified number of ukrainians using "Death to the Poles" as a response to "Glory to Ukraine". I'm still not sure about this - don't you think that's quite a specific and uncertain piece of information to be including on this page? Tristario (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, because Rossoliński-Liebe is referencing to the report of Polish underground from Stanislaviv. The Świt report is made by the head of the head Directorate of Civil Resistance from Lviv, and Zajączkowski is referencing to the Government Delegation for Poland materlias. So there are three different bodies, which reporting that in Eastern Galicia the genocidal climate is so tense that regular Ukrainians are greeting themselves with "Death to the Poles". This is not "uncertain" piece of information.
Besides, we are talking about an article that is based on circumstantial evidence and not very reliable sources that push back the origin of the salute as far into the past as possible. Compared to them, the information about the "Death to the Poles" reponse is very solidly grounded in sources. Marcelus (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the "materials of the Delegation of the Government of the Republic of Poland to the Home Country" is also referring to the Home Army since the Home Army answered to it, and it refers to the same month (or two). As for the radio report - that's just what appears to be a conversation on a radio station
It doesn't look like we have the sourcing to support that this was significant enough for this article. And the difference between this and other details in this article (and maybe some of those other details don't belong either) is that they are based on sources that are specifically focused on the topic of this article - whereas this is based on passing mentions in the context of something else. Tristario (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not evaluate reliability of Polish language sources, but it seems that yes, some (a few?) Ukrainian nationalists in Eastern Galicia long time ago were saying: "Glory to Ukraine, death to Poles". OK. Now, should this be included on this page or it is undue? I would say it is definitely undue on this page. If you think otherwise, please start a poll in a separate section or an RfC to achieve consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to start an RfC just because you don't like something. There is no rational reason not to include this form of greeting, since the article contains information about other forms that were used by small, isolated groups (Black Cossacks, students in Kharkov, etc.) What is more, the mentioned discussion ended with the conclusion that there is a lack of solid sources, now such sources have been found, so the previous discussion has no importance for us. Marcelus (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a rational reason. A slogan officially accepted and used by a notable organization, like OUN? Yes, that needs to be included. A few nationalists individually using it as a slogan of hatred? No, this is something debatable. And it was not only me. Now, if you start an RfC or just new section and count votes, you will see how many will support your recent addition. If only I will be opposed to this inclusion, then you will have consensus to include, and it will be documented. I will not fight with any consensus for inclusion, but you must have one. If you wish, I can make new thread myself. My very best wishes (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely do not agree with this, it is solidly grounded in the sources. There is no reason to start an RfC. I remind of WP:NOTCENSORED. I have my doubts about the quality of your edits in this article, which are not, in my opinion, out of concern for the quality of the article, but the censoring of inconvenient information and the removal of those that may cast a shadow over the greeting history. I regard the demand for an RfC as WP:STONEWALLING on your part, which has no rational justification. Marcelus (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> If only I will be opposed to this inclusion, then you will have consensus to include
There should be no rule of crowd and if even one person has substantiated objections against the edit there is no consensus. A vote should not change this. Manyareasexpert (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with those arguing against the inclusion in the article, for the reasons given above.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hence we do not have consensus for inclusion. One issue here: what exactly was suggested to include? This is not clear. Someone arguing to include should start new section, post exact text suggested to be included, explain why this should be included, and wait for responses and potentially votes by others. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes please articulate here your actual objection to the inclusion of the text about the response "Death to the Poles". A mere 'I disagree' is not enough. Don't repeat objection that were already refuted. Let me repeat: this passage is within the scope of the article, and is supported by several reliable sources. There is no reason to remove it. The article covers various uses of the greeting, in various forms, with various responses, there is no rule that says that only "officially accepted and used by a notable organisation" should be in the article. You have made it up yourself. Marcelus (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already did, and it was not mere "I disagree". Also see reply by Tristario I agree with.My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you repeat it here, because I think I missed it? Marcelus (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It appears that a few/some/many Ukrainian nationalists in Eastern Galicia were saying long time ago: "Glory to Ukraine, death to Poles". Should this be included to the page? First, this depends on significance of the claim itself. A slogan officially accepted and used by a notable organization, like OUN? Yes, that needs to be included. A few nationalists individually using it to promote hatred? No, this is hardly that much significant. Secondly, this depends on coverage in sources. (1) Polish language sources cited above have been already discussed on this talk page [11]. Based on that discussion, I doubt they should be used here. As of note, a user who started this discussion is indefinitely blocked [12]. (2) With regard to a couple of other sources, I think they are valid, but qualify as WP:BIASED (as was debated in another section) which should reduce their weight for using on this page. (3) Please see comments by Tristario above. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) The sources are saying that the slogan was widespread in Eastern Galicia, Stanislaviv and Lviv are given as particular examples. There is no reason to apply a different measure to this historical case than to the others mentioned in the article, the vast majority of which were used by much smaller organisations, groups of people and information about them are based on much slimer sources.
2) As I said already I'm not using insist on using sources discusses in previous discussion. So I don't know why you bring that up again. This is WP:STONEWALLING. Please don't repeat arguments that were refuted once already.
3) Finally something concerete: what sources are according to you biased any why? Please be precise, so I can answer to you in the same vein. We so far were only talking about Liebe, but he wasn't found unreliable. His claim are well sourced and referenced to historical documents. There is no reason to exclude him as valid source. Zajączkowski is excellent scholar, and afaik if he was accused of any bias, it was pro-Ukrainian one.
4) I'll answer to you and @Tristario here then.
The Government Delegation for Poland and the Home Army were two separate bodies working together. One civilian, the other military. Liebe cites Home Army information from Stanislaviv. And Zajączkowski on the materials of the Government Delegation for Poland (exactly the Department of Information; the Home Army had a separate Information and Press Bureau of the Home Army Headquarters) about the situation in all of Eastern Galicia. And the information provided by the " Świt" radio station came from the Head of Civil Struggle for the Lviv area (it was Adam Ostrowski "Gabriel" at the time btw), who was subordinate to the local Delegation and spoke about the situation in Lviv. Following this lead, we are certainly talking about two different sources, and probably three.
But this should not really interest us. If a researcher like Zajączkowski is saying that such a saying functioned throughout Eastern Galicia in this period, we are not here to enter into a discussion with him. And the reservation that information about it was given by the "Polish underground" is sufficient.
And the difference between this and other details in this article (and maybe some of those other details don't belong either) is that they are based on sources that are specifically focused on the topic of this article - whereas this is based on passing mentions in the context of something else, I don't recall any guideline that specifies such rule. Can you point it out for me? Marcelus (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall any guideline that specifies such rule. Can you point it out for me? WP:NPOV means we give more weight to coverage specifically focused on the topic of the article, for instance WP:MINORASPECT says For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.. WP:RSCONTEXT also says editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.
As for the rest of what you're saying, what we are still left with is two sources attributing something, in passing, to the polish underground for one or two particular months of 1943. They do not say the slogan was widespread. Tristario (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paweł Markiewicz, The Ukrainian Central Committee, 1940-1945: A Case of Collaboration in Nazi-Occupied Poland, Kraków 2018, p. 436: A Home Army communique reported of increased, visible tension in Eastern Galicia as a result of the violence from Volhynia spreading south with many Poles fleeing to the GG to save their lives. This caused a state of fear and preparedness among them, causing some to even “sleep with axes under their pillows.”1931 In Lwów, the slogan “death to Poles” (smert’ liakham) became popular among Ukrainians; so much so that it was even used as an everyday greeting. In Stanisławów, it was used in response to the nationalist call “Glory to Ukraine.” Other Polish reports indicated of the imminent possibility of mass anti-Polish incidents looming as Ukrainians persistently spread such rumors. Marcelus (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a doctoral thesis? And it still doesn't say it was common or widespread in response to "Glory to Ukraine" Tristario (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the other sources I have mentioned say. Marcelus (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through this discussion and struggle to follow it. Onus is on those proposing inclusion to get consensus, as there clearly isn't yet. What addition is being proposed exactly, with which citations? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley this is the proposition with citations:

In mid-1943, just before the mass massacres of the Polish population in the Eastern Galicia by the UPA, the Polish Home Army noticed that many Ukrainians had begun to use the response "Death to the Poles" (Smert' liakham) to the greeting "Glory to Ukraine".[2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Rossoliński-Liebe 2014, p. 269-270.
  3. ^ Zajączkowski 2015, p. 169.
  4. ^ Markiewicz 2018, p. 436.
  5. ^ Stanek, Piotr (2012). "'Świt' - tajna polska rozgłośnia w Londynie, wrzesień 1942 - listopad 1944 roku". Przegląd Historyczno-Wojskowy. 13 (1): 77.

Or some version of that Marcelus (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"fascist-style" vs "fascist"

@Tristario can you explain the difference between those two? Marcelus (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They effectively mean the same thing - they're referring to a particular style of salute. But given the different descriptions in the sources, I think "fascist-style" is more WP:NPOV, and I also think it's clearer, since it makes clear we're talking about a particular style of salute. Tristario (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Fascist" is neutral and the actual name of the salute. I don't know why you are putting Zaitsev above Rossoliński, Zaitsev is a master at creating evasions. And this is the dodge of distancing the OUN from 'fascism'. Marcelus (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Katchanovski also says "fascist-style" [13]. And Zaitsev is as far as I can tell a respected scholar. He would not be telling Deutsche Welle about how the OUN used a fascist-style salute if he were some kind of OUN apologist. You should know that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages. Tristario (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is good correction to "fascist-style". That is what Roman salute is. As about "fascist", a typical reader would think this is Nazi salute, which is a variety of Roman salute, but still a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, people would think about fascist salute, because that's the wording used, not nazi salute Marcelus (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is ridiculous for you, but it is exactly what I thought: that the "fascist salute" is Sieg Heil. And I assume that a typical reader will think the same. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well we shouldn't adjust to the typical leader, also he wouldn't be that wrong, Sieg Heil imitates fascist salute. Marcelus (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do secondary sources describe this association between the salute and the slogan? Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Only extended-confirmed editors can request moves related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slava Ukraini → Glory to Ukraine – Per WP:USEENGLISH, according to Google Ngram viewer. 2001:4451:824F:B700:541B:9433:F4CB:52ED (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it was moved a year ago in exactly opposite direction for the very reason that the original Ukrainian version became very popular in English-speaking world and media. What happened that would justify reversing that move? Marcelus (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator, at least two reasons to favor the proposal. Killuminator (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Change Dutch Prime Minister to Dutch Demissionair Prime Minister. 2003:A:83B:6A00:319E:40F0:1B9C:5ADE (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The Prime Minister was not demissionair at the time of the cited speech. PianoDan (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slava_Ukraini&oldid=1223511935"