This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roman Shukhevych article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIESWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations (9 May 2021):
The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine 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.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Roman Shukhevych is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting
Greetings! I see the article is spoiled with misleading categories, like "Nazis". @AHI-3000, you've re-added the category, please provide a source and a confirming quote for it. Your justification for re-adding the category [1] do not categorizes the person as Nazi. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they "misleading"? The article discusses his role in massacring Polish civilians during WW2, and these statements are not unsourced. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The OUN-UPA-planned ethnic cleansing continued unabated throughout summer 1943. The crescendo came on the night of July 11–12, 1943 when the UPA planned a highly coordinated attack (known among Poles as the 'Peter and Paul action' for the holiday on which it occurred) against Polish villages in three raions: Kovel', Khorokhiv, and Volodymyr-Volyns'kyi. Over one hundred localities were targeted in this action, and some 4,000 Poles were murdered. Finally, the last wave of attacks came in December 1943 before Shukhevych decided to move the cleansing operations to Galicia where tens of thousands more Galician Poles were murdered. Following the killings in Volhynia, the UPA-North group gave the order to 'destroy all traces of the Poles' by 'destroying all Polish churches and all other Polish places of worship'" Carlp941 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're shifting the goalposts, and ethnic cleansing by massacre is a war crime. If synthesis is obvious, it is not original research. I am asking you again to engage with the material and research presented, instead of impulsively saying "nuh-uh" to edits you don't like. It's incredibly unproductive. If you can't do that, we may need mediation. Carlp941 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are just saying "nun-uh" to edits you don't like. Please demonstrate how I've judged or put my own non-obvious conclusion here. Ethnic cleansing is a war crime, people who do it are war criminals - so the category fits. Additionally, the article calls the actions a crime on page 654.
"Thus it was through a mix of coercion, ideology, and rewards that nationalist leaders were able to recruit average men to participate in heinous crimes. Without these thousands of participants, the ethnic cleansing campaign never would have reached its scale or magnitude."
Not only am I engaging in obvious synthesis (which is not original research), I am going above and beyond, quoting the article that describes war-time ethnic cleansing by force as a crime. Roman Shukhevych is a war criminal. The article states it, and it is an obvious synthesis verified by the source.
You should be able to explain what new synthesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't get to say "Of course it's original research. You prove it isn't" followed by this tedious mess. The burden of proof is on you, you are making an accusation of original research. Hiding behind "we don't judge" and demanding I prove a negative is disruptive. Are you going to engage productively, or should I request mediation? Carlp941 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented.ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the text you posted or are you blindly quoting policy at me to get me to drop this? Please review Wikipedia:Five pillars, you are misinterpreting the spirit of the policy by ripping context away. You are not being productive. I will post the part of the passage you may have neglected to read. I will underline the condition I satisfied.
Demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented.
I will state it again. I cited a reliable published source that directly supported categorizing Shukhevych as a war criminal. Go beyond "we don't pass judgement" and blindly quoting policy at me. I am not passing judgement, I am citing a reliable source.
This is your last chance to productively engage with me one-on-one on this topic without me requesting mediation. Please demonstrate how I reached non-obvious conclusions or synthesized multiple sources to reach a conclusion not supported by the text. I will ask some guided questions to move this discussion along.
What part of my conclusion was not obvious or not supported by the text?
What new synthesis am I introducing? Roman's participation in war crimes is supported by the text I cited. The sources calls them crimes, and definitively proves his involvement. People who participate in war crimes are categorized as war criminals. Which part of this do you actually take issue with?
If a source says someone commits a war crime, they are calling them a war criminal. That is not a new synthesis, but an obvious synthesis supported by the text. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. We're at a stalemate, so I am requesting a third opinion mediation.
I should be clear, this process is voluntary. You are welcome to ignore these requests but it would show good faith to abide by them. Carlp941 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For adding a category like "War criminal" to an article I think it's better to have a reliable source that actually explicitly says the person is a war criminal. I don't have a very strong view on this either way but I think that's the best approach in terms of adhering to policies like WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT, and eliminating subjectivity in the application of categories.
hmmm, i can live with that standard for adding him under the war criminal category previously mentioned. thank you for weighing in! Carlp941 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good enough for the "war criminal" category. I'm not sure whether a statement about the battalion he commanded is good enough for the "holocaust perpetrator" category though. Depends on what exactly sources (and the article) say about Shukhevych on that Tristario (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is plenty for him to be placed under both categories you mention. Thanks for finding this source! i'll likely give that book a read. Carlp941 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Manyareasexpert, do you have any objections to re-adding Roman to the war criminal category? an oxford history book calls Roman a war criminal directly. the source is reliable. i also believe this is enough for the holocaust perpetrator category, but our 3O isn't completely on board so i am open to discussion on it. Carlp941 (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits are unrelated to the discussion we're having here. Would you please revert those changes and discuss the categories at issue? Carlp941 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Ruling saying Shukhevych’s critics portray him as a war criminal; his admirers either overlook this episode or regard his collaboration with Nazi Germany as unproblematic. ... As the polarized discussions regarding the legacy of Shukhevych and other OUN leaders show, this process is not without its difficulties is unrelated. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is unrelated. The title of this discussion is Misleading Categories, a discussion you started after you reverted changes to the categories. You are adding content to the Legacy section. Do you have a problem with the source that @K.e.coffman used to justify Shukhevych's place in the war criminal category? I feel we've met the threshold that both you and our 3O asked for, which is a reliable source directly calling Shukhevych a war criminal.
If you don't have a problem with the source, would you please re-add the category for war criminal? If you'd rather I'd do it, I can open an edit request, or do it when I reach the threshold.
You are now adding content that we are not discussing and are stomping over consensus building processes. Please don't do that. If you want to discuss the Anders Ruling letter, please revert your changes and open a new discussion. I'm not completely opposed to your edits, but I have some stylistic and content changes I'd like to include. I appreciate your boldness, but on contentious topics, let's avoid discussing a bunch of things at once. Carlp941 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at not just one but at a range of sources to decide on a category. Ruling says the opinions on characterization of Shukhevych are polarized. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason for you not to make unrelated edits without consensus. Please, as a showing of good faith, revert the unrelated edits and discuss the category issue at hand. Carlp941 (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can apply stylistic and content changes, no revert needed. My notes are on a category. Ruling Rudling says the opinions on characterization of Shukhevych are polarized. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also supports the category Category:Holocaust perpetrators in Poland by discussing that the Nachtigall Battalion under Shukhevych's command participated in the massacres of the Jewish populations in Western Ukraine (Eastern Poland). Our article reports that It is estimated that in June–July 1941 over 4,000 Jews were murdered in pogroms in Lviv and other cities in Western Ukraine. There is controversy regarding the extent and scope of the participation of the Nachtigall Battalion and Roman Shukhevych in these atrocities, as well as in the Massacre of Lviv professors. The Polish historical consensus is that the battalion, as a unit, participated directly in the pogrom, giving and receiving assistance from the Nazis. American Historian John Armstrong questions this consensus, asserting that the Ukrainian perpetrators present were likely interpreters, and that the allegations of the Battalion's involvement were politically motivated. Conversely, historian Alexander Dallin described their participation as "obvious" to the German occupiers, who observed the "considerable initiative" of Bandera's followers, including members of the battalion. [38] Roman Waschuk, a Canadian-Ukrainian scholar at the University of Alberta, dismisses allegations of Nachtigall's participation as "Soviet propaganda." [39] According to Bernard Wasserstein, members of the Nachtigall Battalion were among those who participated in the pogroms of Lviv against the Jewish population.[37] According to Per Anders Rudling, members of Nachtigall Battalion was directly implicated in the Lviv pogrom, but their presence as an organized unit is unclear.[40]Therefore, the categorization is questionable and should not be included. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, records show that the Nachtigall Battalion subsequently took part in the mass shootings of Jews near Vinnytsia in July 1941.[38] During the march at three villages of the Vinnytsia region, Jews were shot en masse.[39]
Sincerely, are you fluent in written English? I do not mean this as an insult, you are failing to comprehend paragraphs of English text.
I wrote most of that preceding paragraph. I am aware of its content. the march at three villages of the Vinnytsia region is a different event. Vinnytsia is not Lviv. isa.p (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find or verify your source, and English language wikipedia has a strong preference for english language sources. Please provide a link to the full source. isa.p (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me to engage in Holocaust denial for neutrality's sake? Might want to go back and reword that question.
First off, your source is 20 years old. The historian references the same diary my reference does, and draws the same conclusion - that the Nachtigall Battalion was part of those shootings. It provides no evidence that the leadership did not approve of the participation in these shootings, even stating that battalion members took orders from OUN-B to shoot individuals. Additionally, your source engages in Holocaust revisionism, stating that the Battalion "sought to take revenge on the Jews for the many years of injustices and crimes committed by them against Ukrainians." Multiple times the source goes on tirades accusing Jews of oppressing people throughout history. Per WP:NONAZIS, I think the correct course of action here is to discard it in favor of the more recent english language source that draws upon the same primary sources.
I think we're done here. I'm not replying to anything else from you until we get a third party involved. Expect a notice soon. isa.p (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me to engage in Holocaust denial for neutrality's sake? ... Additionally, your source engages in Holocaust revisionism, ... Per WP:NONAZIS, I think the correct course of action here is to discard it Let's see. So now both Iwan Patrylak – Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia and yours truly are engaging in "Holocaust revisionism" or such?draws the same conclusion - that the Nachtigall Battalion was part of those shootings Not in source. Anyway, fixed per source. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If what is said in wikivoice in the lead is true, that "Shukhevych was one of the perpetrators of the Galicia-Volhynia massacres", and if the Nicholas Doumanis source is reliable and "concludes by calling him a "politically motivated war criminal"", then it seems pretty clear that Shukhevych can be considered a war criminal and that the category "war criminals" can be added to this article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Also I've reviewed the Rudling source and believe it supports adding the category. Rudling is not saying there is a controversy over whether or not he committed war crimes, but a controversy over what those war crimes mean for his legacy.
"The disagreements regarding Shukhevych’s whereabouts in 1942 concern not only the interpretations of the events, but also about basic facts surrounding the German occupation of Belarus. Shukhevych’s critics portray him as a war criminal; his admirers either overlook this episode or regard his collaboration with Nazi Germany as unproblematic."
One might say, but look! There are disagreements regarding his whereabouts in 1942 during the occupation of Belarus! Which, fine, there are! But this is irrelevant to the allegation of war criminality - the allegations in reliable sources are referring to the uncontested history of his participation in pogroms in Poland. And Rudling refers to this as well, in his conclusion:
"The professional historian would also raise the question of whether it is possible to turn Shukhevych into a national hero without legitimizing the ideology of the organizations he led. ‘Ukraine for Ukrainians’ was implemented as brutal policy. Members of both wings of the oun engaged in pogroms in 1941 and ethnic cleansing in 1943, in the ranks of the Wehrmacht, the Ukrainian police in occupied Ukraine, the upa and Waffen-ss Galizien. The ideology of the oun(b) was not static. Yet, at the same time as the oun(b) officially moderated its political positions in the summer of 1943, the upa was systematically massacring the Polish population of Volhynia, expanding the ethnic cleansing to eastern Galicia in 1944."
@Manyareasexpert, I don't see a good faith reason to not add the category. People overlooking the war crimes or outright praising them does not make them not war crimes. The reliable sources are pretty clear. Roman is considered a war criminal. You have not stated a single objection to the source @K.e.coffman presents that directly calls him one. You have not demonstrated that reliable sources actually contest whether or not he committed the actions described as war crimes. I believe we have reached a consensus that the war criminal category is appropriate. I believe you know that, and are wanting to move the discussion to what that means for reliable sources' view of his overall legacy. Let's re-add the categories, then open a new discussion. Does that sound agreeable? If so, please re-add the categories, or I can open an edit request. Carlp941 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the quotation of cited source, describing disrespect towards the nationalist narrative of collaboration as effectively illegal. I used that wording to avoid making that section a block of quotations. I'll try different wording.
If you require more context on the nationalist narrative, read the source further.
"Not surprisingly, it neglects, ignores, or omits controversial aspects of the history and memory of the Ukrainian nationalist movement. For instance, it avoids discussions about the totalitarian and xenophobic nature of the OUN political program of the interwar period. It emphasizes the evolution of the nationalist movement towards “democracy and inclusion” since 1943 (forgetting that this evolution caused a bitter split within the OUN due to the stance of orthodox nationalists headed by Stepan Bandera, who did not accept this evolution). This narrative relativizes the collaboration of the OUN with Nazis, presenting it as an unavoidable necessity. It refutes the involvement of the OUN members in the extermination of Jews. It silences the killings of civilian Ukrainians by OUN and UPA members or justifies these actions as necessary. Similarly, it minimizes the role of the OUN and UPA in anti-Polish ethnic cleansing in Volhynia, relativizes it as a part of the Polish- Ukrainian war (Vyatrovych Reference Vyatrovych2011), and even justifies it as a Ukrainian response to the politics of the Polish state in the 1920s and the 1930s (Adamsky Reference Adamski2017)."isa.p (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlp941, some of the latest edits [5] are factually wrong. Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres - not all "Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government" have done so. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the sources cited. They describe Ukrainian nationalist diaspora, Ukranian nationalist academics, and the Ukranian government engaging in minimization, justification, and denial of the massacres. You are welcome to dispute that characterization with relevant reliable sources. Claiming it is factually incorrect without proper sourcing is off-base. isa.p (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the sources cited Ok, you sourced it with, for example, Kasianov. Where he does suggest the wording of yours - that all "academics, and the Ukrainian government have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres"? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I reading plainly cited sources to you? These repeated newly opened discussions, needling, and tedious objections are getting into the territory of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I am asking you to kindly stop, read the sources provided, and then ask questions. My edits are not so objectionable that they require new talk page discussions (with multiple pings to boot). A cursory read of the sources provide justification for the words used.
Minimization
"In the pro-nationalist rendering of history, the OUN’s collaboration with Nazi Germany, the anti-Jewish pogroms, and the massacres of the Polish minority in Volhynia and eastern Galicia are ignored, glossed over, or outright denied. The period from August, 1941, to January, 1943, is either downplayed or omitted from most Shukhevych biographies, the focus instead being heavily centered on Shukhevych’s role, from 1943 until his death in 1950, as commander of the UPA, the largest armed national resistance in the Soviet Union. Shukhevych’s defiant resistance to Stalinism has a powerful appeal to the patriotic imagination of many Ukrainians, particularly in the western part of the country. However, as Shukhevych was turned into an official hero of Ukraine and the organization he led presented as representing the Ukrainian people, questions also emerged in regards to the ‘missing years,’ omitted from the hagiographies." - page 45 of The Cult of Roman Shukhevych in Ukraine
"The major aim of this amendment was to whitewash the image of organizations whose collaboration with the Nazis and role in the Holocaust and other ethnic cleansings had attracted a lot of attention in public discourse." - page 305 of Memory Crash: Politics of History in and around Ukraine, 1980s-2010s.
"The issue of the political rehabilitation and glorification of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) became one of the central political issues in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution and the Euromaidan. It provoked major political and historical controversies and debates in Ukraine and other countries. Presidents Yushchenko and Poroshenko, their parties, far right organizations, and many Ukrainian historians attempted to recast the OUN-B and the UPA as parts of a popular national liberation movement that fought against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and to present the OUN-B and UPA leaders as national heroes. They denied, minimized or justified the involvement of the OUN-B and the UPA leaders and members in the mass murder of Jews, Poles, Russians, and Ukrainians." - page 25 of The OUN, the UPA, and the Nazi Genocide in Ukraine
Justification
"The issue of the political rehabilitation and glorification of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) became one of the central political issues in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution and the Euromaidan. It provoked major political and historical controversies and debates in Ukraine and other countries. Presidents Yushchenko and Poroshenko, their parties, far right organizations, and many Ukrainian historians attempted to recast the OUN-B and the UPA as parts of a popular national liberation movement that fought against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and to present the OUN-B and UPA leaders as national heroes. They denied, minimized or justified the involvement of the OUN-B and the UPA leaders and members in the mass murder of Jews, Poles, Russians, and Ukrainians." - page 25 of The OUN, the UPA, and the Nazi Genocide in Ukraine
"This book seeks to address this gulf. The status as a victim nation is politically attracted in that it serves the aim of obtaining a “moral alibi” by dislodging agency and responsibility in past atrocities, communist as well as nationalist. Moreover, this narration is often invoked to justify wrongdoings by the ingroup as defensive actions." - page 18 of Tarnished Heroes: The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in the Memory Politics of Post-Soviet Ukraine. I cited the whole book because the book is about this very phenomenon, the justification, denial, and minimization of OUN involvement in the Holocaust to serve the politics of memory.
Denial
"V’iatrovych uncritically relied on the nationalists’ own doctored accounts while dismissing emerging scholarship as Soviet propaganda. Avoiding the sensitive issues in Shukhevych’s biography, he instead focused on the work of the KGB of the Ukrainian SSR to discredit the OUN , dismissing criticism of Shukhevych as a baseless political campaign against the UPA commander’s memory." - page 51 of The Cult of Roman Shukhevych in Ukraine
"In the pro-nationalist rendering of history, the OUN’s collaboration with Nazi Germany, the anti-Jewish pogroms, and the massacres of the Polish minority in Volhynia and eastern Galicia are ignored, glossed over, or outright denied. " - page 45 of The Cult of Roman Shukhevych in Ukraine
"The issue of the political rehabilitation and glorification of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) became one of the central political issues in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution and the Euromaidan. It provoked major political and historical controversies and debates in Ukraine and other countries. Presidents Yushchenko and Poroshenko, their parties, far right organizations, and many Ukrainian historians attempted to recast the OUN-B and the UPA as parts of a popular national liberation movement that fought against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and to present the OUN-B and UPA leaders as national heroes. They denied, minimized or justified the involvement of the OUN-B and the UPA leaders and members in the mass murder of Jews, Poles, Russians, and Ukrainians." - page 25 of The OUN, the UPA, and the Nazi Genocide in Ukraine isa.p (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have an organized discussion and approach one argument at a time. As we just found, Kasianov's "Memory Crash" does not support added content. Please either update the content so it would correspond to the source or remove the source. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words in my mouth. "We" found nothing, I am reading these sources, you are not. I directly cited Memory Crash, page 305. It describes a whitewashing campaign of OUN/UPA fighters by the Ukrainian government.
You are not reading what I post. A synonym of whitewash is minimize. Justify is also synonym of whitewash. It plainly supports the content. I am re-adding the content. isa.p (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but it does not confirm that all "academics, and the Ukrainian government have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres", as your added content implies, and Kasianov's work does not contain such a conclusion. It only confirms that 2018 parliament passed that amendment, characterized by Kasianov as such. Please don't edit war until issues are resolved. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have shifted the goalposts of the discussion, and are warping what my added text was. Stop that. I did not say "all." In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find that word there. Please read your initial post again, my original text was "Nationalist Ukrainian diaspora groups, academics, and the Ukrainian government have minimized, justified, or outright denied Shukhevych's and UPA/OUN's role in the massacres"
I have clearly demonstrated, by reading the plain text of sources cited in the article to you, that nationalist diaspora and nationalist academics have engaged in minimization, justification, and outright denial of UPA/OUN fighters (including Shukhevych) engaging in massacres. If that nationalist qualifier is not clear, I am happy to add the nationalist qualifier to academics as well. The sources are pretty unambiguous on that.
For Crash - the book is about the promotion of the nationalist narrative by state actors - which includes the whitewashing of the OUN/UPA role in the massacre.
For your objection to the Nationalist Memory Narratives (stop starting new threads, please), the essay is about nationalist narratives being accepted at all levels of government. If you'd read the abstract "This article examines the memorialization and commemoration of the nationalist movement at regional and national levels (sites of memory, memorial dates, renaming of topographical objects, movies, TV series, etc.), policies aimed at the promotion of the nationalist historical myth, political controversies, roles of major actors, public debates on these issues, societal responses, and international disputes." Now from the conclusion: "The activity of OUN and UPA during the Second World War was embedded into the attractive and noble European image of the “Resistance” – this is how the OUN and UPA began to be interpreted in school history textbooks in 2018, when the representatives of the UINP revised the school programs. “Lessons of courage” (ironically, the name borrowed from the Soviet times) based on the heroic stories about UPA became a recurring event on October 14 in schools. President Poroshenko turned this symbolic date of the creation of the UPA (October 14) into the official Day of Defenders of Motherland, replacing the Soviet name and date of the event (February 23). Therefore, the whitewashing discourse has become bare. The textbooks’ stories of Righteous Among the Nations start with Greek Catholic abbess Olena Viter, followed by an apparent reference to her membership in OUN-b. In popular media, the organization with programmatic anti-Semitism turned into a body that arranged the “system of saving Jews.” (Ukrinform 2021). The UPA appeared to be an international brotherhood of combatants fought exclusively against two totalitarian regimes, as an anti-Nazi force (Romaniuk 2020), and its anti-Polish activities, if ever mentioned, were deliberated on in terms of negationism and whataboutism."
The source is plainly saying the Ukrainian government is engaging in whitewashing of the historical narrative by changing textbook descriptions of the actions of the OUN/UPA. Has Zelensky reversed this nationalist revisionism in schools? Have these various regions reversed the reverence of this nationalist myth? If they have, please supply reliable sources with those claims. isa.p (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is here for the reason your added content to correspond to what the sources say, so yes, please add all the necessary qualifiers, so that it would be clear it's not just "academics and the govt" have denied, but "nationalist academics" and "nationalist government". But only if sources do say so. Or better do it in talk, we'll review it first, as it has been found that sources do not support the content added.The source is plainly saying the Ukrainian government is engaging in whitewashing No, the only content which can be taken from it without engaging in WP:SYNTH is that Kasianov characterizes Poroshenko's creation of the Day of Defenders of Motherland as contributing to whitewashing discourse. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot engage with you anymore. You are not reading what I am putting before you, and engaging in tedious needling. I am asking for third party mediation. isa.p (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Slava Ukraini is not a phrase indicating Nazi collaboration, This article is not about efforts by the Ukrainian Government to whitewash history. I would suggest a subheading on the Ukrainian Nationalism page as a better fit Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it is a battle cry of banderites, who were Nazi collaborators.
My revision in the DFN was deleted last night, I wanted to explain why it was done to comply with NPOV. There is no reason to define Roman Shukhevych with a comment from Pe Anders Rudling about efforts of lionizing WWII Veterans.
I reverted your revision because you were adding content that was unsourced or was original research. Do you understand that if you add or change content on a wikipedia article, it needs to be directly supported by a reliable source, that you cite? Have you read WP:V and WP:OR?
I did not add the claim about him expressing regret. I did not want to delete it to respect older authors.
A DFN is short for definition, and technically the DFN does not need citations but should be a summary of the citations in the body of the article.
My issue with the PA Rudling quote was it was off-topic. This article is not about that, so it should not be in the definition of Shukevych.
Further I think one should balance out the use of PA Rudling given the potentioal bias. Folks like Marples acknowledge efforts to demonizes the occupation regimes in Ukraine while downplaying the atrocities committed by the OUN against Lviv’s Jewish population. I find them to be a more reliable source.
Here is another good source to balance out a PA Rudling:
Taras Hunczak, “Ukrainian-Jewish Relations during the Soviet and Nazi Occupations,” in Ukraine during
World War II: History and its Aftermath, ed. Yury Boshyk (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies,
University of Alberta, 1986)
Huncazk argues that OUN was more democratic than the Soviet narrative suggested, though Marco Carynnyk agrues Hunczak ignoreds that OUN has an internal message and an external message.
Still this article is a biography and not about Revisionist history or National myth building, so the discussion does not belong in the lede Jgmac1106 (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a WP:LEAD (or lede), not a "dfn". You added the claim that Shukevych expressed regret here, with an arguably pretty misleading edit summary. Who else, exactly, added that claim besides you?
And matters relating to the legacy of Shukhevych, including what PA Rudling says, are definitely directly relevant to the topic of this article. In fact what you're saying makes little sense, because you removed one sentence relating to the legacy of Shukhevych from the lede, and then you just replaced it with another, different sentence relating to his legacy.
And in this edit, you add "Scholars debate". Where exactly in the source you cite does it say that? Again, do you understand that what you add to articles needs to be directly supported by reliable sources? Tristario (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying, because is it a lede to go for brevity. You can categorize the scholars into this area loosely as revisionist, Nationalist, or Analytical. Rudling, Berkhoff, Himka, Rossolinski-Liebe , and Carynnyk etc would fall in the revisionist camp.
On the Nationalist side you have folks like Hunczak and Potichny.
Somewhere in the middle you get folks like Marples, Snyder, and Molcyk.
It is a hard sentence to write, but currently this page, and that Lead relied mainly on Rudling. Creating a POV problem.
I will try again, and no I did not add the claim abut remorse, I moved it to fix sentence structure and parallelism. In the future you many want to think about the citation needed tag (though this lead has way too many citations already) Jgmac1106 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you think that is more balanced, Tristario.
I'm sorry, but you keep on adding unsourced content and original research to the article. For instance in this edit, this article doesn't even mention Shukhevych. And you added "historical artifacts show" to the lede which is a phrasing you seem to have invented.
Do you understand that by repeatedly adding content to wikipedia articles that is unsourced or original research you are violating the policies of wikipedia, as well as creating extra work for other editors? Tristario (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here you wrote that he died after being surronded by 700 Russian forces. The source says: "He died in a gun battle with a task force of the MGB of the Ukrainian SSR, which attacked his hideout in the village of Bilogorshcha (now part of the city of Lviv)." Which Russian forces are you referring to?
You have also introduced many grammatical errors. Here you wrote: Shuchevych individual responsibility for the massacres of Poles in Volhynia, but historical artifacts show Shukhevych directed the massacres of Poles in Eastern Galicia... Shukhevych legacy is contested". I don't understand this.
I will revert the changes to before this discussion. No point in blatantly unsourced information in the lede. Further discussion is required. isa.p (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for someone claiming to want brevity, you added a lot of unsourced, obsfucating language to the lede.
you're not really describing the POV problem you have with the lede well. you're just saying it's POV without a reason, giving unsourced categorizations of various historians. Rudling is a respected scholar of historical memory, so I'm not sure why you call him "revisionist." would you please describe your objections more clearly and with more sourcing? objecting to a reliable source requires strong evidence that they are not actually reliable. isa.p (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Revisionist is the label that Marples and his students have given to scholars who align with Himka's idea of a "victim narrative" being exported from the Diaspora community to Ukraine. It is not my word Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll be blunt - this user has already (2023!) been involved in attempts to whitewash Stepan Bandera, in the process of which he not only showed a disregard for basic historical facts but also blatantly violated BLP by suggesting Rudling's scholarship and integrity have been called into question (!), when in fact this was due to jgmac1106 complete misunderstanding an episode where Rudling called into question the work of a Ukrainian nationalist pseudo-historian who had been invited to tour Canada by Ukrainian-Canadian organisations (Rudling got his PhD from Alberta, home of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, and is acquainted with Ukrainian diaspora institutions). Jgmac was challenged over his attack on Rudling by me and also by Bobfrombrockley (repeatedly!) but he did not withdraw his criticism, despite it being explained to him that he had mixed things up. To my knowledge he still has not rectified. I believe he not only has an axe to grind when it comes to rehabilitating these far-right figures, but also seemingly has a personal problem with Rudling. Cheers.
PS. I will double down on the bluntness and add that I do not see this editor as a net positive in the area, and while I do not have time to engage in discussions these days, if such edits continue I will report him to the appropriate noticeboard. Ostalgia (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why Rudling gets a an inline citation in the lead about Roman Shukhevych. That does not seem to be a key momenet in the biography of Roman Shukhevych
Why not mention the perspectives of Hunczak, Potichny, Marples, Snyder, and Molcyk? You don't in-line mention one scholars perspective on the historiography without mentioning others Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rudling is included because he wrote a paper called "The Cult of Roman Shukhevych" about the mythmaking of his legacy. He is a respected scholar of historical memory. His words weigh heavy here, and it is actually a key moment in his biography. I'm happy to remove the qualifier and describe the broader scholarship of national memory on Roman - which has been tainted by a white washing campaign backed by the Ukranian government, but Rudling describes it directly, and it was consensus to leave it there.
I don't know Hunczak, but he is a Ukrainian historian, so maybe his work is worth considering. Potichnyj literally fought in the UPA, I don't think we can weigh his words on Roman's legacy when there is independent scholarship. I can't find anything on this Molcyk person. Snyder and Palmer would definitely merit inclusion in any kind of summary. If your goal here is to present "all sides" when one side is a state-backed whitewashing campaign, you're not going to find a friendly reception to that false neutrality. If your goal is to improve the lede by including all the relevant independent scholarship to describe the whitewashing of Roman's legacy, I am very interested in that. isa.p (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lede and the wording of that part in the lede probably could be improved, however for the moment it is acceptable has it essentially provides a decent summary. Rudling isn't the only historian that points to this whitewashing. For instance in this articleDavid Marples, mentioned by Jgmac1106, writes "this effort to rewrite the past is not conducive to accuracy or a deep and protracted survey of archival materials" and also mentions Shukhevych in passing in that article. He also discusses this topic somewhat here and here.
Rudling does, however, tend to use particularly strong language, so maybe the language could be toned down to be more encyclopedic. And we can include views of more scholars as long as they are reliable and accurately represented. But the substance would remain largely the same. Tristario (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing that Marples doesn't say many atrocities are ignored. I would even suggest adding examples of Volodymyr Serhiychuk museum as downplaying atrocities.
And I know Rudling wrote an article specifically on terms of "whtiewashing Serhiychuk." i am just saying the lead should be more representative of other perspectives on the emerging Ukrainian historiography and the role of the Diaspora community.
Maybe something like
Roman Shukhevych biography and legacy are contested. (Cite Marples, Snyder, and/or Kosyk) The Ukrainian Government awarded Serhiychuk the hero of Ukraine award, but this was later rescinded by President Yanukovych.( Cite here or numerous other articles) due to the controversy over the massacres. Historians claim scholars are "ignoring, glossing over, or outright denying" OUN involvement, (cite PA Rudling) while others argue efforts to highlight Shukhevych's involvement fit a larger narrative of defining Ukrainian Nationalists as Nazis.(cite Potichny, 1986 or Serhiychuk, 2009)Jgmac1106 (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could do something along those lines although I don't think that particular draft is well written for various reasons (it has fairly vague and unclear language). And in order to include a summary in the lede like this we would need to include some of those other scholars in the body of the article (and that content would need to be properly sourced and not contain original research).
Depending on what they're used for I think we should avoid sources from 1986 as that is prior to the analysis of archives which became available after the fall of the soviet union (see WP:HISTRH). I also don't know anything about Serhiychuk so not sure if they're reliable. Tristario (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is very vague and both-sidesy. Once again, I'm not against improvement, but this seems to be muddling basic facts in favor of a state-backed whitewashing campaign.
I really like tristario's suggestions. And if there's reputable scholarship about Roman from Ukrainian sources (please cite it, you have not done so yet) - I could see something like "Ukranian historians claim to pushing back against a narrative that all Ukranian nationalists are nazis" being added somewhere in the legacy section. To me, that seems out of place and undue on an article lede about a Nazi collaborator.
Further - you still haven't cited any specific sources. It would be a lot easier to make these judgements if we had some text to analyze. isa.p (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ihor Il΄iushyn did an early review of German archives, and didn't shy away from calling out the atrocities. The study is widely cited by folks like Himka, Rudling, et al
We know Roman Shukhevych gave the order to seize land from "Polish colonists" and from the archival work Il΄iushyn did was involved to some degree in ordering Polish massacres.
I am not trying to deny that Roman Shukhevych collaborated with the Nazi's nor that he has he been used in the creation of a historical myth that has downplayed atrocities (thus mentioning receiving and then having Hero of Ukraine retracted), but the very fight over his biography is a major part of the biography that should get mentioned.
I will spend some time collecting specific texts,with appropriate footnotes and add to the legacy section per your suggestion. If folke then think the details warrant inclusion in the lead we can revisit.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
.jpg)