Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Soviet resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 162.216.189.67 (talk) at 17:58, 10 May 2022 (→‎Preliminary brainstorming on title ideas: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 26 March 2022

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: moved to Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance. Rough consensus to move. It was a conflict involving the Soviet Union as a country, not just Russia. The name change fixes that problem. Since other countries participated in the conflict maybe a different name would be more appropiate. A new RM can be created to address that different problem. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:BADNAC is a WP:SUPERVOTE, it is not an assessment of consensus (rough or otherwise). Generally, non-admins should close requests involving WP:ACDS-covered pages very cautiously, if at all. Contested moves usually should have fairly in-depth closing summaries (diff). This close would be subpar under any circumstance. No objection to another move request, but I'm move protecting the page at admin level (will log), so that only admins could move it. I don't have an intimate familiarity with the historiography, but probably Soviet should supplant Russian if the current title is kept (?). Or maybe there's a better a title, I dunno. Either way, no consensus and back to the status quo ante, for now. P.S. Multiple editors participated who do not meet the WP:500/30 requirement, but I don't think this really alters the outcome. El_C 20:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation → Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance movement – Although I have always liked to recognize the Soviet Union for what it was, a Russian empire, referring to it as such on Wikipedia is too informal. Occupation here is also a POV term. Another title is needed, and since per this article's own infobox not only the UPA participated in this conflict, I am proposing "Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance movement". Maybe "movement" can be dropped. Super Ψ Dro 21:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Soviet refers to pre-1991 Soviet Union, so the page move doesn't have any relevance of it. 180.254.173.13 (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Soviet refers to pre-1991 Soviet Union" yeah, that's what the article is about. Super Ψ Dro 09:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance movement was from the beginning of occupation in 1917 to the end in 1991. This article is only for Ukrainian Insurgent Army resistance 1944-1950s. --Sakateka (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Were there more instances of armed resistance against Soviet domination apart of this and the Soviet–Ukrainian War (which shouldn't be included into this article)? If so, we could just add them into the article and expand its scope. Super Ψ Dro 13:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Also consider Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance or the like to allay User:Sakateka's concerns. At a minimum, "Russian occupation" in the current title should be changed to "Soviet rule" per the nom's concerns. —  AjaxSmack  04:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It was officially the Soviet Union and historians, specifically from those areas will describe it as such. It is no different as saying the government of England instead of the Government of the United Kingdom, which is as the country is known as. Also many in Ireland would like to view their period under British rule as occupation. It's too informal, too loaded and needs to maintain a neutral stance 79.155.36.178 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, not to mention that the current title is a violation to WP:TITLE and in particular to its sections Neutrality in article titles or WP:NPOVTITLE, and Precision and disambiguation or WP:PRECISE. Leaving it as it is would create a precedent that others could avail of to push their POV which violates WP:NPOV. The article makes it clear that the Ukrainian resistance came up against Soviet Union forces in multiple parts of the article by mentioning Soviet Union. Clearly this would indicate that those Soviet Forces were more than just Russian but also from other parts of the Soviet Union, such as maybe Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldovia, or maybe even Ukraine, as not all Ukrainians were hostile to the Soviet Union during this period that the article is documenting and many were members of the upper hierarchy within the Soviet Union including those that were the leader of the Soviet Union. In the period this article covers, according to its editor, User:Sakateka, above, 1944-1950, the leader of the Soviet Union was Joseph Stalin and he was from Georgia and not Russia and so, while I sympathise with what is currently going on in the Ukraine at the moment, we cannot condone such slippery slope actions that would place the integrity of this project into disrepute. The title of the article should therefore be changed to a neutral, more precise title. 79.155.36.178 (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been some weeks and there has been no movement on the direction of this article. I question the neutrality of this article and it's viability considering pretty much what is covered here can be viewed on Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany, and the Stepan Bandera articles. However, this article, similarly to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany, has some neutrality issues such as skipping over negative actions associated with the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, such as the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia amongst others. Nonetheless, that is an discussion for another day and today we need to resolve the title to a more precise, concise and neutral title. There was a similar discussion on the Talk:List of wars between Russia and Ukraine and there is currently another similar debate ongoing on the [Talk:Russian information war against Ukraine] article.
@GizzyCatBella: I've read the section you linked to several times. Can you please tell me specifically what part you think "glorifies" the Holocaust because I don't see any part of that article as doing that. Thanks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t say the article glorifies the Holocaust but that it glorifies UPA. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella:I don't see any part of that article as glorifying the UPA's role in any genocide. Can you be specific and tell me exactly what part you think does? Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison - Ukrainian Insurgent Army was a Nazi-allied organization responsible for numerous war crimes including the mass murder of Jews and Poles. You can find more about it in widely available historical textbooks, films or even here on Wikipedia, sorry I have no time to educate you now. This article illustrates UPA as freedom combatants in a flattering light which was not what that group was about. The article has various other WP:NPOV issues, but I don’t think it is worth discussing at this point. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: you did not answer my question. Let's try again. You allege that this article "glorifies" UPAs role in genocide. I asked you to tell me what specific part of the article you think does that. So, do you mind answering my question? Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not allege that. You said that I wrote glorifies UPAs role in genocide So I’m asking you again to provide the diff's where said that or stop misrepresenting my comments - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Yes, you did allege it. Here's where both you & Thucydides411 said it (Both your comments are in green)
Thucydides411 wrote, "the article and its glorification of a genocidal fascist movement..." You replied "Yes, that was the first thing that I noticed. Perhaps we should nominate it for deletion instead." So do you mind answering my question now? You & Thucydides411 both want the entire article because you both allege it "glorifies" UPA role in genocide. Can you tell me specifically what part of the article you think "glorifies" UPA role genocide? Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I didn’t say that, correct? 🙂. Just let it go @BetsyRMadison - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: It's clear to anyone reading that you said it. And now it's clear that you can't support your allegations. Which means you've requested this entire article be deleted because you allege it 'glorifies UPA'; yet you can't point to any part of the article that does it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bingo! You finally got it, I said that the article glorifies UPA not glorifies UPA role in genocide - 👍 GizzyCatBella🍁 22:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: You're changing the original reason you said you want the article deleted. Originally you said the entire article should be deleted because of it "glorification of a genocidal fascist movement." Thucydides411, its glorification of a genocidal fascist movement..." You replied "Yes, that was the first thing that I noticed. Perhaps we should nominate it for deletion instead." I feel that when you make allegations against an article and request the article be deleted based off your allegations; the least you should do is prove your allegations, but here you've shown that you can't prove your original allegations. But, since now you say you want it deleted because you now allege it "glorifies UPA" - Can you tell me what specific part of the article you think does that? I don't think the article glorifies UPA, so can you please tell me specifically why you think it does? Thank you BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I’ll try later (a little busy now) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate it. Oh and remember, I'm asking about specifics within the article that you base your allegations on. Thanks again. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the people claiming a group was fascist need to do a little more to prove it than tell people to educate themselves. Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think people editing Wikipedia should have at least a basic understanding of the subject they're editing. The UPA's fascist ideology and its role in perpetrating the Holocaust are extremely well known. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, could you explain that statement a bit better? I could swear that you just said that people who disagree with you are ignorant, but surely I misunderstood, because that would be discussing editors, and possibly a personal attack Elinruby (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2022 (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.

NPOV

I've placed a notice at WP:NPOVN about this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[6]. Moxy- 22:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: I don't know if it's just my computer, but when I click on your link I get a message that says "The link you used is outdated." BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same here - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the editor didn’t paste what they intended to. But if you click WP:NPOV it’s there, towards the end Elinruby (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ahh... thank you kindly Elinruby! BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bad link.....[7] yes just a Master's thesis] .... but it demonstrates the point of view of the ukrainians on what many call an occupation. later expanded on.... culminating in a book Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe (1 October 2014). Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist. BoD – Books on Demand. pp. 545–. ISBN 978-3-8382-0604-2. OCLC 894134967..Moxy- 23:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically someone's schoolwork. A master's thesis does not carry much weight in the scholarly community. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I demonstrated it moves on from there as they become an academic professor of International affairs. Just a source for everyone to read.....over American media junk. Moxy- 23:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good Moxy. Thanks for the new link. I have it in PDF form now and will read it later this evening. Switching back to this article, I feel @Sakateka: did a brilliant job with it. Ukraine's history of gaining independence from Russia is very complex. Since 1917, with the formation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, Russia's been waging war to control Ukraine. In 1930s, Russia killed around 4 million Ukrainians in "Holodomor." Then, from 1933-1941, Stalin & Hitler were allies. In 1939, Stalin & Hitler together invaded Poland. Finally in 1941, when Hitler turned on his friend Stalin, and invaded Russian-controlled Ukraine. At that time, Germans promised Ukrainian nationalists that if they fought along side Germans, Germany would give them an independent state at the end of the war. So naturally, Ukraine nationalists felt they were more likely to get Ukrainian independence under Nazi occupation than under Soviet occupation. But sadly and sickeningly in the process Ukrainians felt forced to participate in the Holocaust in order to gain independence from Russia. So now the questions become: do we say Ukrainian nationalists were “bad guys” because they fought against the Soviets with the German army - or - do we say they were “good guys” because they fought for independence for Ukraine?
I feel Sakateka did a great job in both those regards by neither glorifying, nor demonizing the UPA and their fight for independence from 1944-1950s. I feel the piece is neutral, fact based, and used great sources. That's my 2cents & I look forward to reading your link :) Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainians felt forced to participate in the Holocaust: This is some really unbelievable historical revisionism. OUN-B and UPA were viciously antisemitic and anti-Polish organizations with a fascist ideology, and attempted to exterminate Jews and Poles in western Ukraine. I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm not talking about Ukrainians in general, most of whom opposed the Nazis. Far more Ukrainians served in the Red Army than fought for the UPA. I'm talking specifically about the fascist organizations that this article labels a "liberation movement". -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a simpler read [8]. Moxy- 00:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thucydides411: I gave factual history. And yes, the history of UPA & OUN is very complex and dates back to 1917. And to be fair, the history is complex for many groups inside countries trying to gain independence from brutal authoritarians, like Russia, who had murdered, slaughtered, and starved millions of Ukrainians in 1930s. Also remember, this article isn't about UPA during WW2, the article is about UPA's struggle to gain independence post-WW2. And the author of this piece did a brilliant job of not glorifying and not demonizing UPA. The author stuck the facts, was neutral, and used great sources. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, your "history" was very revisionist, whitewashy, and containing false information. Concerning, yes. Mellk (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still reading but this discussion could do with less foot stomping and vitriol. Elinruby (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check of the articl raises eyeborow as it totally ommitts the term "collaboration" and generally minimizes any extent in which the struggle against USSR was aided by and helped the Nazi Germany. So there are certainly NPOV issues here. That said, I do think the topic is notable enough. For example, we have sections about Polish resistance relations with various groups (Home_Army#Relations_with_ethnic_groups) that could be split into a similarly themed subarticles. Btw, there also is Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its in there but it's pretty buried. Ok, probably not the word itself come to think of it, but the article has weasel on several sides of the issues. Forced conscription is referred to as "recruitment", for example, and there is a cheerful remark somewhere about how, obviously, the Ukrainians had to be liquidated to protect the rear of the 1st Ukraininan Front of the NVKD. But yeah, there are almost certainly some due weight issues. The early part of the article is all about casualty statistics, which makes it a fairly normal and boring military history article. I just got done doing a copy edit on the part (way way down)about how in the various resettlements of the period Polish settlers wound up on land that the OUN considered to belong to Ukrainians. I still haven't found a mention of massacring women and children, which obviously needs to be included if it happened, with at least as much weight as why they thought they had to do it. Any constructive suggestions on how to remedy this are welcome. One thing that occurs to me is that while the current structure (chronological) seems innocent enough, this does have the effect of putting the Stalinist excesses further up and their own further down. My own expertise in World War 2 is about a different part of Europe, which is good and bad; I have no preconceptions, but may not see important omissions. So far I have concentrated on fixing the evils of machine translation, wikilinking as much as I can identify in the interest of clarity, and deleting or tagging some of the more obvious excursions into editorialization. Which doesn't mean I have got it all, but I am confident that it is possible to cite, for example, the mass deportations (referred to as "evictions") as we already have, for example, an article about this taking place in Crimea and I see a good reference for the Caucasus. Off-topic for this article, or course, but strong circumstantial evidence for the MO. As for collaboration, yeah, the closest it comes is the mention that they accompanied the Germans into Ukraine on the concept that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend who wants to liberate me, but soon found out that they were wrong and the whole independent Ukraine was just not going to happen. I do think that all of the displacement of the various populations should probably be in the background section, but haven't yet thought too many deep thoughts about this. I seem to recall that you speak Polish. Are you interested in verifying the Polish references? They look RS to me but you would know better and also be better able to assess whether they are misquoted. Xx236 might also we willing to help with this, come to think of it. Elinruby (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the refs here is a big task. A quick check for the Polish ones shows that some, at least, are reliable (there are many cites to Grzegorz Motyka), but whether they are used correctly (i.e. whether the content within supports the text added) is an entirely different story. Some are unclear - I have no clue what this is supposed to be (a primary source, an article, a book chapter?): "RGWA, z. 38724, op. 1, t. 9, k. 136-137, Opis działań bojowych samodzielnego oddziału do walki z bandformacjami UPA 29-30.08.44. (Polish)". There are instances of a Polish text repeated in English, ex: "Patrz też: R. Brzozowski, Tarcza na niebie, Warszawa 1978, s. 88–104... See also: R. Brzozowski, Shield in the Sky, Warsaw 1978, pp. 88–104.)". This reference is likely mangled by machine translation: "A. Kentij, Ukrajinśka Powstanśka Armija w 1944–1945 rr., s. 172–173. (Polish)(A. Kentij, Ukrayinskaya Powstanśka Army in 1944–1945, pp. 172–173)" - neither of the titles is proper Polish, it all sounds like Ukrainian rendered nto English (possibly it was machine translated from Polish to Ukrainian first?). There is a major problem with repeated citations (same work cited numerous times with slightly different page ranges), and their formatting (cite templates are not used, which among others make it time consuming to check all Polish citations, since the lang= parameter is not used). In some cases Ukrainian(?) references are provided in Latin, not Cyrillic (someone could be confused and think that's Polish - no. Ex. "UPA w switli dokumentiv z borotby za Ukrajinśku Samostijnu Sobornu Derżawu 1942–1950 rr., t. 2, s. 83; Desiat buremnych lit. Zachidno-ukrajinśki zemli w 1944–1953 rokach, s. 176."). So, errr, if you asked for a ref review, the short version is that this is a major mess, this could have a ton of hoaxes, although AGF it's probably not so bad, but fixing the refs, not to mention verifying the information, is a major task that I doubt anyone here feels like doing (which means there remains a small chance the refs are fake or don't support the text written). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the repeated sources in the Ukrainian sources also when I was Google-translating the titles. I will fix that, been tied up in wiki proceedings. I remember being puzzled by the "UPA w switli dokumentiv z" one, and since I am being told that some sources are labelled as Polish that are not, I suppose I will have to revisit those. I merely reported what Google Translate said the language was, and have subsequently realized that auto-detect doesn't always work, possibly in cases where you have previously manually selected a language. But ok. I mainly wanted to be sure there were no known Holocaust denial screeds. I will take these critiques on board and will likely have more questions later if you are willing. I will try to limit the questions to verification. The current format is what they use on Ukrainian Wikipedia, and I don't like it either. The parentheses are what Google translate makes of them, but will not remain -- they are just there to help assess, and to provide a language parameter and the month, which will cause a ref error if formatted into cite format without translation. Since one of the big critiques of the article is that it omits parts of Polish history, I should probably prioritize formatting those references Elinruby (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sakateka I have just established that you are allowed to answer questions in this section : what's "RGWA, z. 38724, op. 1, t. 9, k. 136-137, Opis działań bojowych samodzielnego oddziału do walki z bandformacjami UPA 29-30.08.44"? I thought it might be an archive, since there are some Ukrainian ones, but Piotr doesn't recognize it. LMK Elinruby (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakateka:@Piotrus:(fyi) The title still translates as Polish. I see reason to infer that the acronym means Russian Military Archive, but if so where? The Russians seem to have blocked their main archive (getting Error 403:Forbidden at the url reported by Google). There are several collections with this name in other countries, partial I guess, but the citation does require clarification. Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakateka: also, t. usually means volume in most languages, and from context k. would appear to mean pages, but what is op.? For now I will include it in the title Elinruby (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of googling confirms RGWA is some Russian archive (Rossijskij Gosudarstwiennyj Wojennyj Archiw), probably ru:Российский государственный военный архив, unless there is a similar named entity that's confusing the translations. In English I think it is translated as "Russian State Military Archive", and less often as "Russian National Military Archive". Anyway, it's a WP:PRIMARY and a such, needs to be backed up by a proper secondary source, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks for the Russian. I seem to recall that "Russian Military Archive" turned up some university collections (copied subsets?) in addition to the .ru link I am talking about above. I agree that is a primary source, and I suspect you are right about the secondary backup, but more to the point, if we can't be sure what the abbreviations mean it isn't specific enough. I am guessing z.=item number and op.=folio, but that's a guess and pretty far beyond what I am willing to impute. I need Sakateka to tell me what she is talking about. I also question whether she has been in Moscow lately. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ Piotrus - Yes, another problematic article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL @GizzyCatBella. It does discuss Stalinism, yes. I know you've told me it was "dandy". but we're gonna go with the soources on that, k? I asked for *constructive* suggestions from somebody who has been known to give them. Elinruby (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are talking about, my comment wasn't to you.
PS - keep in mind that you are taking responsibility for all the alterations you are making to this article, including the usage of references. See notes above table of contents. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this will refresh your memory. [9] AGF, Just possibly I was fooled by the fact that you were on my talk page, where I wasn't talking to you either, or *about* you for that matter either. I don't take kindly to threats from an editor who thinks totalitarianism is "dandy". Check yourself. I asked for an opinion on the Polish references from somebody whose opinion I respect. I now just put in the effort to get this article to where people who are here to build an encyclopedia can talk about it. If you want to fling feces, please do it in another thread and preferably on another page. I am now signing out and will not be in Wikipedia for several hours.Elinruby (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: You've done an excellent job editing! Thank you for all your hard work on this article!! It's unfortunate that some on this talk page are spending their time posting rude/disrespectful comments & unfounded allegations as opposed to spending their time improving the article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree good job. Hard to move forward when the NPOV complaint is so generic and not backed up by any contradicting sources for any type of comparison or analysis. In Canada we have many Ukrainians and are much more aware of the struggles and its contentious history during Nazi occupation.... and subsequently struggle for Independence. I don't think other countries learn about this part of the world much. Moxy- 04:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petro "Aeneas" Oliynyk [uk].

An IP is edit warring over this. Elinruby (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry I didn't mean to come across like that (I only reverted you once anyway). Your suggestion is an improvement over what I did, I mean including his nickname instead of just calling him a fighter. The problem was that before it was linking to the politican who was completely unrelated to this. Have a nice day. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no sweat. I did see that English Wikipedia has a different politician with this name, so I put the guy’s nickname in there to keep the ILL from going there. The Ukrainian page is the right person, according to wiki data. I mean to change it to this but lost the place in the article. If you are feeling helpful you could make the change?

As for edit warring, I dislike scolding people but let me explain that. It was ok (even good) to edit the link originally. This is the BOLD part of BRD. Your change was definitely better than leaving it linked to the wrong thing, so yay you. But I had already found the Ukrainian page and had that ILL elsewhere in the article. Not sure if it was before or after but with something this dry I don’t usually worry too much about that until the final polish. But bottom line, I had a better idea, I was pretty sure, so I reverted. At that point you were supposed to come over here and ask me what the heck I was thinking, since you are right, I didn’t implement it. Since this is a discretionary sanctions article, policies can be interpreted pretty strictly—-not that I am calling for anything of the kind at all—- and in particular that standard is really one revert not three. Which neither of us exceeded, so yay us. But see how we both would have been less grumpy if your next move had been DISCUSS? I am explaining all this because I can’t tell how new your account is; pardon me if it is coming across as patronizing or whatever, as this is not my intent. Thanks for reaching out. Elinruby (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and input. I've been editing here intermittently for almost 2 years now? (across multiple, dynamic IPs), and usually on niche subjects where there is unfortunately little active discussion (or other editors for that matter), so I was abit too impulsive here. You have made a good point, I appreciate it. Next time I'll definitely discuss it when a disagreement or confusion comes up. And thanks very much for your efforts on this article, its gotten MUCH better in the past few days. Have a nice weekend 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

If you want to question the sources, please specify which and why. I am removing the tag. I just got done writing out a request for feedback on the sources. Elinruby (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby is this [10] a RS for this topic area (for example)? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS - or what’s this -->[Litopys UPA. Nowa serija, t. 4, s. 191.(Polish)(Litopys of the UPA. New series, vol. 4, p. 191.] ? In Polish? This is not in Polish. You listed a website [11] I’ll not waste time pointing out all other problematic sourcing until it has been decided if we keep this article or not. You can ask an editor who originally placed that tag if you want or refer to discussion regarding the issue. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the context. What's your objection to it, and what text is it supporting? Please stop wasting my time Elinruby (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that this article is under DS? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby read this again please - [12] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support tagging this for problematic sources. As I noted above, listing some sources, some sources used may be primary, and some are so badly (re)translated that they are little better than hoaxes (ex. a source claimed to be Polish that is written in Ukrainian). The {{unreliable sources}} used here is quite correct. Before this tag is removed, please convert all references so that they use citation templates, and ensure that each book has an isbn and page range, and each article, DOI and/or a URL. For articles that remain, we should identify the publisher and author and then we can discuss if they are reliable or not. In the current mess that is references here, it's hard to distinguish a likely reliable academic articles from what may be blogs or newspaper pieces. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but which specific sources are problematic? I ask ask as someone who would be happy to remove them if they are. Ditto the source tagged as Polish that is in Ukrainian. That would be an error I made when running the sources through Google Translate for the month and trans-title, and I would like to correct it. Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it's hard to quickly say which since they refs are are a mess. Do let me know once they are all converted to citation templates, with duplicates removed, etc. and I'll take a look again. Please note that I strongly recommend combining all references to the same work into one, and using {{rp}} in text to indicate the page range. See how I do it for example at Hyperspace (which means there are only ~30 footnotes instead of a 50-100). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I can see that it imposes less on your time, which is A Good Thing. This will probably take a couple more days as I am definitely taking care of RL today Elinruby (talk)

Hey Elinruby post your comment again, see this [13] and message on your talk page -->[14] GizzyCatBella🍁 03:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say that like it's supposed to scare me. As far as I can tell you are breaking fundamental rules of wikipedia and waving that decision around like a threat. Please pick a source and tell me why it isn't RS in context. And FYI, Litopys is described in the academic literature as a well-respected literary magazine, since you ask. Elinruby (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s not a threat. Stop it please. These are not RS’s because they are not articles in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution and this is required for this topic area. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah and this is what Litopys is [15] not a RS for this topic area - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL really...Peter J. Potichnyj, a professor emeritus of political science at McMaster University in Canada? Can you name an author or any source for that matter we can review. Moxy- 03:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Where do I discuss Peter J. Potichnyj? You brought it up. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google..../me fades back out again Elinruby (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC):[reply]
The Litopys UPA source. Moxy- 03:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for constructive feedback. This is not that. It's simply not the case that none of the sources are reliable. (@Xx236: are you available for this Litopys question?) Walking away for a while. If there are sources that shouldn't be there, explain why. Meanwhile this is not a discussion that we've been having here. I suggest you go work out or take a walk or drink a glass of wine or something. Where there are languages mentioned, this is what Google translate reported. Cut and paste errors are a possibility, sure. You mentioned somewhere that something isn't Polish. Very fine then. What was it again? This is why there is an edit button, as somebody said above. If there is a source that is indeed not RS, then we will remove it, of course. Meanwhile I have spent an entire day trying to keep up with your antics, the sourcing needs to be restarted because you unilaterally overrode an RfM, and I am really freaking tired. I am going away now. Have a good night. Elinruby (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby If this article is going to be kept then I’ll help you. Not now, in case it gets deleted. - GizzyCatBella'🍁 03:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you say that like you aren't the one trying to delete it and prevent the author from protesting its deletion. Elinruby (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. Complain to ArbCom if you object. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Since you mention it, as an involved editor you should not be enforcing the decision, especially against somebody you disagree with. And ArbCom is not the author of this AfD, you are. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Further Reading" was deleted & should be reinstated.

@Moxy: added an article from the Kyiv Post by journalist Mark Rachkevych under "External Links" in the main article. The stated reason for deleting the article was "Stop posting non RS’s opinion pieces written by non-historians for some press" (here [16]). However, the person who deleted it is mistaken. The Kyiv Post is an RS and is "the oldest English-language newspaper in Ukraine" (see here [17]). The journalist who wrote that piece is Mark Rachkevych. From his bio [18] "Mark was a reporter and editor for the Kyiv Post from 2006 to 2016 and still contributes as a freelancer. The native Chicagoan has bylines with the Financial Times, Bloomberg News, Associated Press, Ukrainian Weekly, Irish Times, and Ukraine Business Insight, among other publications. He is a former U.S. Peace Corps volunteer, a graduate of St. Norbert College in Wisconsin, and fluent in the Ukrainian and Russian languages." I feel "Further Reading" should be reinstated because it seems the editor who deleted it made a mistake.BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was an odd deletion reason...as Its not used as a source. They like the Soviet narrative over others I guess. Moxy- 15:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. After all, that same person did recently say that under Stalin's brutal & genocidal [19] reign over east Berlin & Eastern bloc the "Soviet Union...was exceptionally well and dandy." [20] BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison: I must protest these brazen personal attacks and insinuations. The comment you refer to was not a glorification of the Soviets, but a statement that the Soviet Union existed from 1944-56, so talk of Russian occupation is incorrect. I find the deliberate twisting of those words unacceptable.Marcelus (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh bosh. She said what she said. And afterwards she came onto my talk page and made really offensive jokes about all the territory they took over. I don't know about you, but I don't make jokes about genocide and I don't defend the people who do. Personal attack. Spare me. Elinruby (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was the most ridiculous source ever -- and I emphatically do not agree that it is -- that's no excuse for deleting an extensive list of journal articles that I compiled from Jstor the other night. I am all out of AGF at the moment and therefore should take a break, and also have pressing RL matters that I need to attend to. I opened a separate case at WP:RSN about the Kyiv Post, but I am pretty sure I've been previously told there that it was a really good source. Meanwhile, let's encourage Sakateka to make 150 more edits to English Wikipedia, because I don't think she understands yet that this is the pretext for not allowing her to speak. Elinruby (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see the Bibliography itself is there. Was only the one item removed? If so this is one more reason I need to go see some sunshine :) but there are a bunch of reverts right there, and I just can't right now. There is a post at WP:RSN about the Kyiv Post Elinruby (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FURTHER suggests that the section should be reasonably short. "an extensive list of journal articles that I compiled from Jstor" likely goes against MOS preference for "a reasonable number of publications" and "This section is not intended as a repository for general references". If someone wants me to opine on this further, please list the diff removing/adding the section, so I can look at it's length, but rule of thumb, anything more than 5 is likely too much, and if it was 10+ it was certainly too much. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but it won't stay that way. The plan is to use the sources listed there to a) add English-language references b) build out what isn't here once we get some consensus on what should be but isn't. Please don't remove anything right now, as finding the proposed sources there was work that I would rather not do again. Elinruby (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia. It allows readers access to researchable material and facilitated the expansion of articles. Canada#Further reading ..Human evolution#Further reading etc.....and if we are lucky we can get whole articles for just research purposes like Bibliography of anthropology. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is the starting point for general facts and to gather references and bibliographical pointers.Moxy- 15:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 April 2022

Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation → Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance – There is "Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance" in the lead and infobox. Eurohunter (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Elinruby (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I just saw that page moves are restricted to admins. This was a good idea, but done after I did a lot of research based on the "Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance" name, and for that reason I support a move back to that page name, which I suppose an admin could do if the move had consensus. I need a break from this article but if the move does not gain consensus I suppose I will go back over the research and expand its scope to the new title, since I have said I will fix it. Elinruby (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments above. I'd support a quick technical fix by a move to Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Soviet occupation (I think almost everyone in the previous RM agreed Soviet>Russian in this context). But the proposed name ("Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance") changes the scope of this article from Ukrainian insurgent Army to "all Ukrainian formations", and I am not sure this reflects what the article is about. So Ukrainian Insurgent Army anti-Soviet armed resistance would be another option, I guess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a title more like "UPA insurgency against the Soviets" or something along those lines. The proposed move is still better than the current title, though. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s a good one too. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunutubble: With all due respect, I don't see a need for such a change because the current title "Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation" means 'UPA insurgency against the Soviets.' Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison: how can you claim that two different things mean the same thing? Marcelus (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Russian occupation" is a POV terminology. The UPA was also fighting against the Soviets, not the Russians in general. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPer my post later on, I would suggest first deciding on the scope of the article and then on a title. Trying to do both at once makes it harder.North8000 (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Please comment here -->[21] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: See my comment in "Suggested next steps" section, here [22] Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This sort of bundles three different question. My navigation efforts below suggest first dealing with them separately. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference work

Some work happened on these last night. This work is by no means finished but if anyone is feeling helpful I'd like to know if trans-title is wrong anywhere. I am particularly concerned about "Polish Spring", which possibly should be "Polish Sich". Also, I notice that somebody converted my MLA "Further reading" entries to cite format. Thank you for that, and if you have a handy script for this, there are a few more. If not I will get to this. Anyone else: "Further reading" is composed of proposed sources. If you want to object to one as not peer-reviewed or whatever, please do it now and not after I comb through the entire source. Thankyouverymuch. Elinruby (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: it's not Polish but Polissian Sich, it's quite obvious for anyone who is accustomed with the topic Marcelus (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks; this is why I asked for the reality check. I will fix that now. Elinruby (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol note

The moves put it into the list for NPP review. An article going to AFD is considered to be disposition from a NPP standpoint and so I marked it as reviewed (only) on that basis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not familiar with that, but I trust you Elinruby (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's about Wikipedia:New pages patrol and I'm one of the folks that does that. My post was explain what happened but more importantly to emphasize that me marking it as reviewed was solely for that noted procedural reason, and means nothing other than that. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

weird sentence

the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) called Red partisans and described as agents of "Stalin and Sikorsky" and "the vanguard of Moscow imperialism."

Stalin and Sikorsky? What does this even mean? Volunteer Marek 04:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they signed a treaty. I wikilinked them. It will be easier to find it under Sikorsky. That isn't the whole sentence though is it? The OUN calls somebody that. Isn't there text in front of that? Elinruby (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find it? I was being scolded. Should I look? I may have accidentally deleted something last night. I was tired and was working on that sentence.Elinruby (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So.. it's there, the sentence structure was a little awkward though, so see if what I just did makes it better. Elinruby (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a quote from the source so we can figure out what this is about? Volunteer Marek 07:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not tonight, especially since I didn't write that and don't recall offhand what the source on that one is. And I am not going to look right now, it's zero dark thirty here. In general, yes, although I may have to ask the author who isn't allowed to work on it. Maybe tomorrow if it has a link. Meanwhile the text you reverted at the start of this conversation as an obvious POV fork is cited to a highly reputable source, see section below, so please revert yourself. I am going back to sleep now. Elinruby (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move the article to WP:DRAFT

Article is clearly unfinished and because it's machine translation the number of errors is staggering. There is no place for it in the mainspace, at least for now Marcelus (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the perils of machine translation since I work with it all the time. The problem with draft is that the author has been told she can't talk about this article, and it hasn't been properly explained that this only applies to the AfD. not the talk page. I wouldn't blame her a bit if she never came back after that. If we can work through the logistics then maybe, but if she hasn't mentioned the Polish history perhaps she is unaware of it, hmm? Meanwhile if you were to mention one or two of these problems possibly they could be addressed as I am right here playing guess the problem with VM here. Please. If you aren't going to help then fine that is your choice, but the person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person who is doing it ;) Elinruby (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the move - the number of errors is massive but further potential errors are being added continuously. For example this recent edit --> [23]. Quote: Unlike in Western Europe, mass murders of Jews were carried out not in extermination camps but mass shootings organized by their neighbors.

They referenced that to Piotrowski [1]:230

Yes, "neighbours organized" mass shootings of Jews in occupied Kresy.🤦🏻‍♀️ - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to real historians (like Timothy Snyder, Robert Gellately & Yehuda Bauer) it is true: the mass murders of Jews in the kresy were carried out in the streets, not only concentration camps. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that, and it is wikilinked and cited. Let me know if you have a problem with Oxford University Press as a source, but I am pretty sure it's both a book and a reputable institution and may possibly even be peer-reviewed as well. On the eastern front they didn't send Jews to camps, at least not usually. They marched them out to the edge of town and shot them in the woods. Yes, it is shocking. It did happen. Read the source. On the other hand I wikilinked the name of the town not the region, sigh. Let me go see if somebody changed it.

Oh yeah, that's the text @Volunteer Marek: reverted because it was so obviously POV pushing. And off topic. When I went to look I found a cut and paste error, which I fixed. Meanwhile, it's there [24] page 230. VM, I need you to revert yourself please Elinruby (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I do. It's still off topic (nvm that passing mention in that source is contradicted by multiple other reliable sources).
Produce the reliable sources. You woke me up to show you mine. You are seriously saying that that the Oxford University Press is wrong??? LOL. Obviously this is a ridiculous dream. Zero dark thirty nine. Good night.Elinruby (talk)
BTW, it seems the "cut and paste error" was yours. What did you copy/paste it from? Volunteer Marek 07:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: the person you talk about only badly translated the article from Ukrainian wiki, so her stance of thing she is unaware of aren't really significant, because the article is what it is, badly written. I mentioned only one or two problems, but the number is much bigger, you basically need to go word by word and fact-check everything. You can still work on the article in the Draft area. Also I strongly advise you to use Sfn template and Harvard references, also always give page number. Marcelus (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I use cite web and of course a complete reference includes a page number. It's the middle of the night here and I am going hack to sleep. Rehabbing machine translation implies word for word and fact-checking; it's a given and I have been doing this a long time. Good night. Feel free to mention any specific problems, or you can just let me guess, whatever, but I just got done with showing one guy that his obvious POV fork is right there on page 230 of the Oxford University Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, and it is now zero dark thirty-four, so I am done for the moment. I asked for constructive suggestions and this is not that. Good freaking night. Elinruby (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment here -->[25] What did you copy-paste this [26] from Elinruby? GizzyCatBella🍁 07:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This proposal is not proper at this time while there is an AFD running on this article. Draftifying is one of the possible outcomes which AFD's consider. North8000 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Piotrowski1998 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Background

In the 2nd paragraph, I replaced the word "collectivisation" with "Sovietization." While soviet-collectivization is an economic/agriculture part of Sovietization, the Ukrainians arrested were not sent to work on farms. Of those Ukrainians arrested, according to Timothy Snyder, "Sovietization did not end with the shaping of society... Terror was an integral part of Stalinism ... Prisoners were tortured, beaten, forced to live in overcrowded prison cells, and subject to long bouts of hunger. Many were shot, others kept in prison or deported to labor camps in Russia." (source: Snyder Timothy. Brandon, Ray. "Stalin and Europe: Imitation and Domination, 1928-1953." 2014. Oxford Press. pp 148-149).
Also I think the "5,500" arrested was a typo and, according to Timothy Snyder, the actual number of Ukrainians arrested through May 1941 is "5,418." BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I undid revision 1085767592 because it appears to have copyright problems in the Background's 1st paragraph (here [27].) I feel that since this may be a copyright issue, this should be discussed before anyone reverts it. Below are a visual of the potential copyright issue

From 1085767592 revision: 1st sentence:
"In August 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which preceded the joint invasion of Poland. The territory of eastern Poland was occupied by the Red Army on 17 September 1939.
The 1st sentence looks like it copy/pasted directly from United States Holocaust Museum Memorial (here [28]) and reads,
"The German-Soviet Pact was signed in August 1939. It paved the way for the joint invasion and occupation of Poland by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that September."
From 1085767592 revision: Sentences 3 - 8
3. The territory of eastern Poland was occupied by the Red Army on 17 September 1939.
4. In order to legalise the annexation on 22 October 1939, elections were held to the quasi-parliaments of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus.
5. The candidates were appointed by the NKVD, the elections were held in an atmosphere of terror and the results were falsified.
6. The newly formed assemblies asked the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union Supreme Soviet of the USSR to incorporate Western Ukraine and Western Belarus into the respective republics of the USSR.
7. On 1 November 1939, Western Ukraine (i.e. Volhynia and Eastern Galicia) was incorporated into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
8. On 29 November, all inhabitants of these lands were granted Soviet citizenship.
Sentence 3 - 8 look like copy/paste from Museum of the History of Polish Jews (here: [29]) and it reads,
3. "the eastern territories of Poland were captured on 17th September 1939 by Soviet army.
4. The authorities in occupation tried to legalize this situation. On 22nd October 1939 took place an election for the People’s Assembly of Western Ukraine and the People’s Assembly of Western Belarus, which were quasi-parliaments.
5. The candidates were nominated by NKVD, the election was carried out in atmosphere of terror and the results were forged.
6. The Assemblies, which had been chosen this way requested the Supreme Soviet to incorporate Western Ukraine and Western Belarus into adequate Soviet republics.
7. On 1st November 1939 Western Ukraine was incorporated into The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the following day analogous decision was announced regarding Belarus.
8. On 29th November to all previous inhabitants of this lands – Polish citizens, were given Soviet citizenship."— Preceding unsigned comment added by BetsyRMadison (talk • contribs) . BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are paraphrases, within parameters. Only one which may be a close paraphrase is #5. Also, this looks like you copy-pasted the comment from somewhere? Also please sign your messages. Volunteer Marek 04:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"paraphrases"?? I don't know, I don't think so. I'm no copyright expert, but the underlined portions appear to be copyright violations. I do appreciate your input and I hope more editors give their input. Thank you & best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"paved the way for" vs. "which preceded the ". This is an obvious paraphrase. OF COURSE they're going to be similar seeing as it's about the same thing, but this is not a copyright violation by any stretch. Volunteer Marek 17:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two additional issues I just thought of moments ago are
1) @Marcelus: forgot to cite his source, and
2) I'm not sure the source are RS for this topic, given that this topic is under extra-ordinary discretionary sanctions and holds a higher standard for what wiki allows as RS for this topic, read here [30]. BetsyRMadison (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you would link to THAT particular case all of sudden. Volunteer Marek 17:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't the source reliable? Marcelus (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the sources are RS given the extra-ordinary discretionary sanctions, wiki holds a higher standard for what it (wiki) allows as RS for this topic. (Here [31]) Under wiki's discretionary standards/sanctions for this topic, the references used should be the highest quality academic quality sources. Those would include books by recognized scholars in the field published by university or academic presses, or articles by recognized scholars in reliable, peer-reviewed academic journals of Eastern European history.
But other than forgetting to source (which the edit button can easily remedy that), and finding out if they're RS for this topic, the biggest problem is the potential Copyright violation. Wiki takes Copyright infringement very, very seriously. So I feel that issue needs to be resolved first. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing stop us from resolving two issues at one time :) Also if you think there some "copyright issues" simply replace it with text that don't violate any "copyright issues". Marcelus (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: I did replace it with text that doesn't violate any "copyright issues". Then you reverted what I wrote with an edit that appears to still be a Copyright problem. Why did you do that? Copyright infringement is a big, big deal. You should "undo" your revert on that until other can weigh in, or better yet, until a Copyright expert can weigh in. BetsyRMadison (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After all, these are six sentences describing the same process, how different could they be? Change what you want just don't remove the facts.Marcelus (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: (For the 2nd time): I did change the sentences & did not remove facts. Then you reverted with an edit that appears to still be a Copyright problem. And you still haven't added the sources you used, & you still haven't checked to see if they're a legit RS for the criteria wiki requires for this topic. BetsyRMadison (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus:, 1) If you'd have read my comments in "Background" on this Talk Page above (here [32]), you'd have seen that you had made two typos that lead to you posting incorrect information. So you should "undo" the reverts you made that have erroneous (not factual) information. Per historian Timothy Snyder:

  • It was "Stalinization" (not "collectivisation") that lead to the arrests.
  • The number of Ukrainians arrested in 1941 are 5,418 (not 5,500).
  • My source for "Stalinization" & "5,418" is: Snyder, Timothy. Brandon, Ray. "Stalin and Europe: Imitation and Domination, 1928-1953." 2014. Oxford Press. pp 148-149.

2) Not only are you still forgetting to cite your sources, and not getting approval to know if they're RS for this topic.
There was no consensus on the Copyright infringement concerns when you reverted to your new edit (here [33]). Wiki takes Copyright infringement very seriously. It's no joke, it's no laughing matter. So it is not wise to revert a potential Copyright violation. I feel it's in your best interest to "undo" your revert until there is some kind of consensus, or until a Copyright expert can weigh in. This is nothing personal against you, this about the possible Copyright content in your edit. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. BetsyRMadison (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spare yourself the threatening and intimidating. If you think there are problems with the text, change it; if you think I'm the problem, report me. But you don't have to keep repeating it, because it looks like a petty attempt at intimidation. I gave a bibliographic description of Motyka's book, look at the bottom of the text. The book was already used in the text before I made any changes. Can you provide the title of the article from Snyder and Brandon's book? I have the epub version and the page number is not helpful. Collectivization didn't lead to arrests, it led to a decline in the popularity of Soviet rule in western Ukraine.Marcelus (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: 1) I did change it (the possible Copyright violations), and you reverted it. So you sound disingenuous when you tell me to "change it" -- but then you revert what I change.
2) Give me the exact quote from your Moytka source, because I looked and I don't see "5,500" anywhere in his work.
3) I gave you Snyder's book title twice on this vary Talk Page above (here [34] & here [35]).
4) I also included the direct quote from Snyder where he writes "Stalization" (not "collectivism"). See "Background" subsection on this Talk Page and you'll see the difference between them. Also, on this Talk Page, I quoted for you where Snyder writes "5,418" (not 5,500) (here [36]). This now makes the 3rd time I'm giving you the same information, on the same Talk Page. Please read my full comments to avoid asking me for the same things I already gave you.
To be clear, in Snyder's book: Timothy Snyder, Grzegorz Hryciuk, and Jaroslw Stocky report "5,418" (not 5,500). BetsyRMadison (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, if we want to talk about no consensus for RS sources, probably half of the sources used here are dubious... see discussions above. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Lol! But I'm more concerned about a possible Copyright violation & fact that Marcelus forgot to cite sources than I am about the RS. BetsyRMadison (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. A reason I'm more concerned about Marcelus not adding his/her sources than I am about whether they're RS is I think (don't know for sure) that if you copy/use other people's words/works and don't cite them, then that could be plagiarism. I'm no expert, and both Copyright issues & plagiarism issues are very complicated. I guess that's why there's a large legal field/discipline that deals with those issues. BetsyRMadison (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison: With all due respect, what are you even talking about? Stalinization and Sovietization are not the same thing, and neither are collectivism and collectivization. You are confusing basic concepts. Collectivization meant taking land away from private farmers and was the reason why the popularity of Soviet power declined among Ukrainians. Nowhere do I claim that arrested farmers were sent to farms. The Snyder book you cite is a collection of articles, so that is why I asked you to provide the author of the article from which you drew your knowledge of the 5,418 arrested in 1941. I checked page by page and it is about Christoph Mick's article, Lviv under Soviet rule, 1939-1941. He actually gives a figure of 5,418 arrested Ukrainians, citing Hryciuk and Stoćkyj research, but from January to May, whereas the German invasion occurred in June, which is why Motyka rounded the figure up to 5,500.Marcelus (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: No, I'm not confused. And apparently you didn't read my other edits on this Talk page cause if you had you'd know I'm not confused. For example, under the subsection "Background" on this Talk page, I was very clear when I wrote:
  • Using historian Timothy Snyder as my source: I replaced "collectivisation" with "Sovietization."
    While soviet-collectivization is an economic/agriculture part of Sovietization, the Ukrainians arrested were not sent to work on farms. Of those Ukrainians arrested, according to Timothy Snyder, "Sovietization did not end with the shaping of society... Terror was an integral part of Stalinism ... Prisoners were tortured, beaten, forced to live in overcrowded prison cells, and subject to long bouts of hunger. Many were shot, others kept in prison or deported to labor camps in Russia." (source: Snyder Timothy. Brandon, Ray. "Stalin and Europe: Imitation and Domination, 1928-1953." 2014. Oxford Press. pages 148-149).
    And as per Snyder's book "5,418" were arrested in 1941, not "5,500." So I replaced "5,500" with "5,418." Maybe you should start reading some of Timothy Snyder's books? He's a brilliant author & he really knows his stuff. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison: I read it and just responded to it. I really don't mean to keep repeating myself. And the text you quote was not written by Tim Snyder, but by Christoph Mick, and published in a collective work of which Snyder was the editor. That article also states that 5418 Ukrainians were arrested from January to May 1941. Marcelus (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Yes, that's right. And the reason they give 5,418 as the number of Ukrainians the Soviets arrest from 1939 - May 1941 is because in June 1941 Hitler invaded & ousted the Soviets in June 1941. Now that we agree, on that, you won't mind replacing the actual value, 5,418 with the erroneous number 5,500? BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Maybe it wasn't your intent to imply that "Collectivization" is why Ukrainians were sent to prison & tortured. But the way you wrote your sentence on the main page does give that intent. That's why changed that word. As for the "5,418" every single source I've checked has "5,418" (not 5,515). In Snyder's book, Table 6.1 "Arrests in Eastern Galicia and Volhynai, September 1939 to May 1941" has the 1941 number as 5,418.
Snyder's source for Table 6.1 is: Grzegorz Hryciuk and Jaroslaw Stockyj, [in their] Studia nad demografia historyczng i sytuacja religijna Ukrainy (Lublin: Instytut Europy Srodkowo-Wschodniej, 2001) [translated: Studies on historical demographics and the religious situation of Ukraine]
Do you mind giving me the exact quotes, tables, etc that your source uses to get 5,500? Thanks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to explain it as simply as I can: 1) this is not Snyder's text but Christoph Mick's 2) 5,418 is of course true, but as you yourself noted these are figures from January to May 3) the German invasion took place in June, so Motyka rounded the figure up to 5,500 people, I think this is reasonable 4) the source is page 75 of Motyka's book, as given in the footnote Marcelus (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: 1) The book is sold under Timothy Snyder's name (not Christop Mick's) name. 2) Christoph Mick is a historian on eastern Europe. 3) Timothy Snyder edited the book. 4) Timothy Snyder is a historian who used real data "5,418" not an erroneous data "5,500." 4) In mathematics, 5,418 is never "rounded up to 5,500" if anything it would rounded-down to "5,400." Those are rounding-rules of math. 5) If your source rounds-up or rounds-down actual arrest data, then your source isn't worth a darn.
Now do you mind giving me the quote your source uses to claim they "rounded up" arrest data. Thanks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison If a historian has the information that by May there were 5,418 arrests and the knowledge that these arrests were still going on, then he has every right to assume that by the German invasion this number had risen to about 5,500. Historians do this all the time, you would be surprised. And we rely on historians. If you want to enter 5,418 you can do so, just note that this is data for the period up to May 1941 and cite the source: Christoph Mick's article. Marcelus (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison Time to drop the stick, you are in disagreement with 3 editors plus me. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not in a disagreement with me. You're in a disagreement with two well-known historians: Timothy Snyder & Christoph Mick. See, when I quote them & use their data; and then the you disagree with their data & with their words in the quotes; then you're disagreement is with them (2 historians) not me. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subheading: UPA and UPA-B OUN-B

@Marcelus: I think it's a good idea to have those subheadings. And since the precursor to UPA-B is UPA OUA, do you think it'd be better to have, for example: "Creation of UPA" and then under that have additional subheadings: "UPA-B", "UPA-M"? "OUN-B" & "OUN-M" etc. I think that'd be a good idea. What are your thoughts on that? BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus, I see you're beginning to add the sub UPA-B etc headings and it's looking real good! BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison: There was never anything like "UPA-M". This question alone exposes your embarrassing ignorance. And if you think I did something cool you don't need to call me out and start a new thread on this topic. Marcelus (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also UPA was not a precursor to UPA-B. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BetsyRM talks about Melnyk's UPA group. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point Marcelus is making that OUN-M didn't have a UPA-M the way that the Bandera faction of OUN had a UPA. Volunteer Marek 21:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right @Volunteer Marek: I could & should have worded it much more accurately. My bad. I should have said: Since OUN is the precursor to all the UPA's the subheading "Creation of UPA" should begin with explaining that OUN was formed in Poland as a result of Polish forces defeating Ukraine forces in Polish-Ukraine war and taking the western part of Ukraine for themselves. Then explain how that grabbing of western Ukraine territory gave rise to the underground OUA in Poland wanting to be independent of both Poland & Soviets. Then explain that that desire for independence from Poland & Soviets gave rise to OUA, UPA wanting to help the Germans defeat Poland when Germans invaded Poland. Of course none of that desire justifies UPA-B waging mass murder on Poles & Jews. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison I don't understand what you are trying to say, what's OUA? Do you mean UVO? Marcelus (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OUA is my cat! Lol! It's my typo-cat. Hahaha! But in all seriousness, I meant OUN.
From Timothy Snyder:
The result of the cooperative German-Soviet invasion was the defeat of Poland and the destruction of the Polish state, but also an important development in Ukrainian nationalism. In the 1930s, there had been no Ukrainian national movement in the Soviet Union, only an underground terrorist movement in Poland known as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). It was little more than an irritant in normal times, but with war, its importance grew. The OUN opposed both Polish and Soviet rule of what it saw as Ukrainian territories and thus regarded a German invasion of the east as the only way that a Ukrainian state-building process could begin. Thus the OUN supported Germany in its invasion of Poland in 1939 and would do so again in 1941, when Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded the USSR. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested next steps

With the AFD closed as 'keep', with a pretty prevalent message that changes are needed, my suggestion that the following two step process is needed:

  1. Decide on the scope/subject of the article
  2. Decide on a title

Trying to do both at once makes it harder. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 👍. The next step after that would be to review and clear all not reliable and primary sources from the article (not peer-reviewed academic journals, not academically focused books published by a not reputable publisher, and sources published by a not reputable institution) following --> [37] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this page includes (or should include) anything about antisemitism in Poland or Holocaust. Hence, the DS sourcing restrictions do not apply to the page. If there are any claims specifically related to Poland during WWII, then such claims would be covered. No one objects to replacing "Russian" by "Soviet" in the title. Other than that, I do not see any solid proposals. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: I agree with you. You are absolutely right, this article isn't about anti-Semitism in Poland & not about the Holocaust so shouldn't have DS sourcing restrictions. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see one potential "scope" issue. Do the communist Polish government after WWII qualify as "Soviet"? Maybe (I am not certain), but it certainly does not qualify as "Russian" (current title). My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Polish communist post-war government certainly doesn't qualify as "Soviet", only Soviet units (mainly NKVD and Smersh) active in Poland count as Soviet Marcelus (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But then all Poland-related content should be probably removed from this page? My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we cleared everything about Poland, then I guess yes... but is this even possible since UPA fought the Soviets in Poland? What if someone adds Poland-related content in the future? I can see that easly happening. Will we start over again removing non schoolary sources, or we keep removong Poland related content? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the scope will be defined as "Soviet" rather than "Russian" (I think it should), then we probably can not remove Poland because it was a Soviet satellite state. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: The author of the piece already decided the scope & the title. Scope: Ukrainian insurgent Army (UPA) war against Russian occupation (both 1st & 2nd Russian occupation) of western Ukraine. 1st Russian occupation was 1939-1941; 2nd Russian occupation began in 1944. At the time of both 1st & 2nd Russian occupations, western Ukraine had been part of Poland as a result of Poland 'taking' western Ukraine for itself after the Polish defeated Ukraine in 1919 in the Polish-Ukraine war.) OUN was founded in Poland around 1929 because members of OUN opposed Polish rule. In 1942, OUN members founded UPA & they operated between 1942-1960. Given that's the scope, the current title makes sense.
By the way, as far as calling it "Russian occupation" - in 1939 New York Times article [38] "Occupation Complete," the article describes it as Russian occupation and writes, "the sphere of interest of Russia and Germany is reported to be complete." There are several other 1939 NYT articles that call Russia "Russia" and refer to Stalin & Hitler's invasion of Poland as "occupation." Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes Certainly there shouldn't be a separate section about UPA clashes with Communist Poland (same for Czechoslovakia), they should be mentioned only as a context for UPA-Soviet fighting Marcelus (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking logically, yes. On the other hand, one could object on the grounds that all these countries belonged to the Soviet satellite states (hence "Soviet"!). My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes Soviet referes to Soviet Union, communist Poland wasn't part of the SU. It doesn't mean it cannot be mentioned, but it wasn't Soviet so fights between Polish military and Ukrainians are out of the scope of the article. Of course it doesn't mean they cannot be mentioned or every mention of Poland should be purged Marcelus (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a reasonable argument too. If we mean "Soviet" in that sense, you are right. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union was led by Russia and at least in the US, the term "Russia" was commonly used to refer to both. But before we decide any terminology is it agreeable that the scope be?:

  • Time period: Resistance that happened approx 1939 - 1956 (maybe 1960) (with a pause during WW2)
  • Resistance to: Russia or Russia-led Soviet Union Russia-involved

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: yes, that is the same scope the author intended. But there was no pause during WW2. The UPA was created in 1942 and WW2 didn't end until 1945. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: But why Russian led? Was Stalin a Russian? 🙂 No.. Russia or Russia-led Soviet Union is not working in my opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have no personal opinion, I was just trying to gel something out of the conversations. My intent / meaning was to exclude resistance against occupation by other individual non-Russian countries in the Soviet Union, e.g. by Poland. North8000 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. We'll get the matter sort it out eventually.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I struck and changed in response. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stalin was born in the Russian Empire.
Also, during WW2, newspapers used "Russia" when discussing Russia invading Poland & occupying western Ukraine. From New York Times [39] on October 8, 1939 "German Army Completes March to Border Set With Russia"
The NYT is referring to the border Germany & Russia agreed to in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, also known as: the Hitler-Stalin Pact [40]. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just two points I have:

Point 1 Removing all things Polish in this article may be problematic due to land transfers between Poland and Ukraine. There are multiple wiki articles that cover the transfer of lands just during and after World War II (such as Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, Recovered Territories, Former eastern territories of Germany, Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union, 1951 Polish–Soviet territorial exchange, Potsdam Agreement). Lviv is an example where it was Polish before WWII and Ukrainian after WWII, similar to Wrocław which was Breslau in Germany before WWII but Wrocław in Poland after WWII.

It must also be noted that the article on the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia does not cover all the areas that experienced massacres at the hands of the UPA during the 1940s-1950s (Such as Janowa Dolina massacre, Hurby massacre, Dominopol massacre, Gurów massacre, Poryck massacre, Zagaje massacre, Budy Ossowskie massacre, Głęboczyca massacre, Wola Ostrowiecka massacre and Huta Pieniacka massacre) and some of the activities and these listed atrocities committed by the Ukrainian insurgent Army (UPA) were committed in what was Poland at the time but is now Ukraine. It is also essential for context that the article cover that many European historians find it an affront to humanity that Ukrainians do not accept these actions as atrocities but rather as natural justice, which differs markedly from other European states where atrocities have occurred, such as the Jedwabne massacre where two Polish Presidents have apologised unreservedly. Most notably in the article on Janowa Dolina massacre, (which is now Bazaltove in the Ukraine), there are images of monuments, which might be useful in this article. It is also worth highlighting in this article that some of people murdered by the UPA were Ukrainians trying to hide their Polish neighbours and that the monuments erected to remember this event are continuously vandalised. Norman Davies writes in-depth about these events in his book Europe: A History. Other academics that have touched on this are Stephen Wheatcroft and Robert Conquest, Norman Stone, and Robert I. Frost. Another souerce that should be looked at are the Soviet archives and in particular those of the State Archive Service of Ukraine.

Point 2 @BetsyRMadison it matters not if the 1939 New York Times articles uses Russia to describe the Soviet Union, that just shows their ignorance of geopolitics at the time. It would be WP:UNDUE weight when you put it up against historians, let alone, a slap in the face to WP:TITLE which looks for article titles to precise and concise. Just because the author decided on the scope and title of the article to reflect her POV does not mean that is how the article will be. There is a such thing as consensus through WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and as far as I can see from the discussions above or from the AFD, there is no consensus to move away from a NPOV. Likewise, the U.S. is just one country in the World and most Europeans, specifically, historians don't view Ukraine as part Russia during that period but as part of the Soviet Union.

I would not support Russia in the title just as the majority of editors above in the Requested move 26 March 2022 and Requested move 30 April 2022 have equally indicated.79.155.36.178 (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NYT is a RS and they say 'Russian occupation.' Also, historians (that I've read) call the period between 1939-1941 the "1st occupation" and the period beginning 1944 the "2nd occupation." Like it or not, good or bad, wiki editors have to go by what RS say, not by what you or I wish an RS says. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT also used derogatory (and sometimes racist) comments in their 1930s/1940s articles, so does that mean we now use those descriptions when writing about those people or countries because as you say "NYT is a RS...." and "Like it or not, good or bad, wiki editors have to go by what RS say, not by what you or I wish an RS says." No we go by consensus and policy and as pointed out in WP:UNDUE weight it states clearly:
Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
And in this case what historians write takes precedence over what NYT write since they are the professionals. 79.155.36.178 (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IP 79.155.36.178 Agreed. No need for further comments regarding NYT and Russian - Soviet. They were fighting against the Soviet Union not Russia. Russia did not exist at the time. It’s okay. 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. From 1917-1991, Russia did exist: "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic" (a.k.a. "Russia"). And, the RS says "Russia." You know the wiki rules, we have to go by what the RS says, not by what you or I wish it said. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be "against Soviet Union" or similar. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: You'd be wrong. UPA was against "Russian occupation," they weren't against the "Soviet Union." Keyword is: "occupation." Every step of the way, UPA fought to rid western Ukraine of Russian occupation -- UPA never fought to dissolve the Soviet Union. Do you see the difference? BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison: UPA never fought to dissolve the Soviet Union That's not true. OUN-UPA even organised in November 1943 a Conference of Enslaved Nations of Europea and Asia, which goals was to exactly dissolve Soviet Union. That was very much their goals since very early on. Do you know anything about the topic you talk so much about? Marcelus (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of the 1943 first (not last) Conference of Enslaved Nations of Europea and Asia. And 1943 goal was be free of Russian occupation And that 1943 Conference has nothing to with the scope of this article.
The scope of this article is outlining that at every step of the way & in every battle OUN-UPA fought to rid western Ukraine of Russian occupation, not to 'dissolve' the Soviet Union. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I strongly support Soviet vs Russian. Russian is a common but not precise description of the dominant ethnic group in the USSR. USSR was called Russia during the Cold War, but it was less Russian than Russian Federation is today. War against Russia implies war against just the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, whereas the war was against the larger USSR. Of course, we all know that realistically ethnic Russians controlled the state, just like they do today, but that's a detail that's less relevant here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! I don't think you can unilaterally mandate that NYT is suddenly not a RS just because you don't like what they wrote in their news feed. That's not how it works on wiki. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many people told you here so far that the Soviet Union wasn't Russia BetsyRMadison? 4-5? You know, believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. (copy/paste from WP:LISTEN) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RS repeatedly says "Russia." You know wiki's rules: We have to go by what RS says, not what wiki editors wish the RS had said. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Russia" was an informal term. The article however is Soviet Union. If NYT uses "Little Russia",[41] should it be used to refer to Ukraine at that time? Or "the Ukraine" in this article? Mellk (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk: From 1917-1991 "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic" (a.k.a. "Russia"). So when you say "Russia was an informal term" do you mean "informal" like people calling "United States of America" - America - USA?
Is that what you mean by "informal"
By the way, the article is about 'Russian occupation' and UPA's war against Russian occupation. BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why this article is POV mess. Many editors have explained to you why the term "Russian" has to go, yet for some reason you keep repeating it, as if doing so would make it a fact. M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Making the same argument over and over, to different people is called WP:BLUDGEON 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: The RS says "Russia occupation." Perhaps you should read the RS? BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. In fact they are pretty clear about Ukraine's attempt at changing history. M.Bitton (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
USSR and RFSFR is not the same thing. Calling USSR "Russia" and all its people "Russians" is considered incorrect. I noticed you said that Stalin was born in the Russian Empire as part of your argument, so does that mean all Ukrainians who were born in and died in the Empire and/or USSR are all in fact Russians? Anyway, it seems like others do not agree with this perspective and there is no point in repeating the argument, there is a reason why it is pretty much consistently "Soviet" and "Soviet Union" throughout the wiki. Mellk (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stalin was born in the Russian Empire.
I don't know what the Ukraine Constitution said about Ukraine citizenship in 1991 when they finally gained independence from communist Russia. If their Constitution is anything like US Articles of Confederation, then all Ukrainians got Ukraine citizens.
I'm very curious as to why anyone in the world wants to pretend that Joseph Stalin was not born in the Russian Empire, he was. That's a fact. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So famous Ukrainians like Taras Shevchenko are Russian then, you are saying? Mellk (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And last thing, at those times it was referred to as "the Ukraine" but we do not do that here. Mellk (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk: uhhh... I never said the USSR is the same as the RFSFR - so I don't know why are implying that I did. hmm...
Also, I don't make up the rules here - and you all know the rules. So I don't know why you think it matters to me if other editors don't like words used by RS. It makes no difference to me. None. I couldn't care any less. If any wiki editor doesn't like wiki's rules there are plenty of blogs that'll let you all post your original research: DailyKos, Facebook, etc.
Here's an idea: How about you ask the author of the piece why they use Russian occupation. Just a thought. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why bring up RFSFR? Anyway does not matter, it is based on WP:COMMONNAME and if you think "Russia"/"Russian" should be used, then you can attempt a WP:RM for Soviet Union (but expect snowclose). Anyway, this is pointless now, I do not have anything else to add. Mellk (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk: I only brought up the fact (here [42]) that Russia did exist from 1917-1991 when another editor (above) falsely claimed Russia did not exist in the period. That's the only reason I brought it up. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey BetsyRMadison, how about studying Wikipedia itself?
Take a look at the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article, quote:
During World War II, it was engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Soviet Union...
🤔 hmnn...and it's all sourced. Are you still going to argue with now up to 9 editors or you gonna drop the stick? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
umm... that's not a "quote" (evidenced by the fact that there are no quotation marks).
It's sentence written by wiki editors. It's not a quote so no, it's not sourced quote.
No offence to wikipedia, but wikipedia is not an educational source. There are many factual errors in many wiki articles, (due to editors 'voting' on what they claim 'facts' and 'truth'are) wikipedia is certainly not a reliable source for any real or accurate history.
NYT is a RS & they say 'Russian occupation.' BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...🤔 I see ... so that article is wrong then.. Why don’t you try fix it using your NYT source? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, let’s end it here BetsyRMadison - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. You said it was a quote, and it's not quote. In fact, you said it's a quote that's sourced, and it's not. Learn the difference between a real sourced quote versus sentence written by some random wiki editor. Lol! BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison in the last 4 hours 5 hours you repeated the same argument here 3times 4 times already:
1 - You know wiki's rules: We have to go by what RS says, not what wiki editors wish the RS had said. -->[43]
2 - the RS says "Russia." You know the wiki rules, we have to go by what the RS says, not by what you or I wish it said. -->[44]
3 - Like it or not, wiki editors have to go by what RS say, not by what you or I wish an RS says. -->[45]
4 - The RS says "Russia occupation." Perhaps you should read the RS? -->[46] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I probably failed to make it clear that I was asking about scope and not wording. So the remaining scope question is: Is there any resistance besides that against the soviet union that should be included in the scope of the article? North8000 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Yes, post-WW2 until around 1960, UPA (and other anti-communist movements)carried out operations in Poland & Czechoslovakia. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you BetsyRMadison as one of the key experts in help sort this out. But, as such, if you forgive me, let me ask you a tough question to help sort this out. What would be your proposed limits to the the scope of this article? By your "and other anti-communist movements" and in "Poland & Czechoslovakia" such would seem to advocate the scope being all anti-communist movements in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Ukraine during 1939-1960. Is that the scope for this article that you advocate? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome @North8000:. OUN-UPA carried out operations along with other anti-communist movements as described within the article here ( [47]) and for more information about the anti-communist resistance here [48] BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But to the specifics of my question, what do you advocate that the scope of this article be? Would it be all anti-communist efforts by UPN? North8000 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: - you're welcome - The scope of this article has been laid out by the author. The article, with it's scope, was put up for AFD Deletion and it is a "Keep." The article, with it's scope, is a "Keep." So I don't see any need to change the scope. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on many aspects although I might agree your preferred end result if you would only elucidate it. The AFD result was to keep the article, not to agree with every aspect of it. In fact, quite the opposite; there was widespread input (included in the close) that the article needs changes. Also, Wikipedia articles are a group effort, there is no singular "author" nor any special status given to one. So, why not help us move along by saying what YOU think that scope of this srticle should be? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: I agree with you on the "not to agree with every aspect." I apologize if my comment suggested otherwise. The changes have to do possible POV issues, etc., but not the scope. The scope of the article is: (1941-1960) UPA's war against Russian occupation. That's the scope. As I've repeatedly said, I think the current scope is beneficial & worthy. Best regards to you & yours, BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you are seeking input for my exasperated question of a few days ago, I don't have a lot of input except that this is still a question that needs to be resolved. There is a lot of POV deletion going on, but the material is retrievable so I have stepped away for a few days. I have said I would work on the article but I am a copyeditor/translator who sometimes rescues machine translations (where POV issues are common) not a subject matter expert. This doesn't mean that I don't understand NPOV or have thoughts about how it applies to the articles I work on, as when I read and edit I do take in information.
I see a couple of different possibilities: if the topic is "anti-Soviet resistance" then it seems to me that this means the period of Soviet occupation. There were two, but for purposes of editor sanity I think we should pick one, and the one that is closest the the way this is written is 1944-1960. There are also valid arguments that the scope is 1919-1960, but this is a lot of history that imho should be split up. One way to do this would be the Bolshevik upraising in Kyiv to the German invasion, Nazi occupation with its own article because there is a lot of material there, and 1944 on. Another would be trying to split it up by country, but I don't think this is a good approach for a period when several borders changed several times. If on the other hand the title is "war against Russian occupation" then this would seem to mean that 1941 should be expanded out of the background section and a lot of material needs to be added, including about that Russian occupation. Either way, I think that activities in the Baltic states with the Forest brothers and in Czechoslovakia tring to get to the American zone would be pertinent, but due weight would be somewhat different based on the article focus. Similarly, if the focus is activities post-1944 on, then the mutual massacres in Poland in 1945 are highly pertinent and so is their background including 1941. If the article is about nationalist movements resisting Russian expansionism, with a focus on the UPA and OUN, then you need to talk about the partition of the countries in question by the quote unquote Great Powers that fueled these nationalist movements. Either way, wikipedia readers are ill-served by hyperfocus on the attempt to infiltrate the Nazi occupation. It happened but so did the agreement between Stalin and Hitler, which has been removed from the article, and bludgeoning the reader with context-free and detail-free assertions that the Ukrainians were Nazis is undue.
As I have previously noted, we are supposed to start from sources, not preconceptions. If people were resisting Soviets/Russians then the reasons why are pertinent, so the partition of Poland should at least be mentioned and so should the famines, in addition to the Ukrainian police units. I am open to hearing that I am wrong about any of that but it should be based on more than an assertion that I am ignorant. That's a very insulting remark in english, which some editors here may not realize, and has a lot of negative connotations beyond simply "does not know certain things." Elinruby (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to be describing the content (which I support) then the scope of 1919-1960 is better. But given that this doesn't exist in the article yet, for now I think it would be fine to just write a bit about the early years in a small background section. As it grows, we can consider either splitting stuff out or changing the scope of the article. Which, right now, is very much (according to the infobox) August 1941 - April 1960.
The entire controversial aspect of fight with/against Nazi/Soviets is very hard to write about. There were many sides, short-term allegiance shifts, and betrayals by pretty much everyone. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "pretty much everyone". Maybe we could start with a timeline of events? This would allow some progress to be made on *what* happened, and then add in the adjectives and adverbs, with attention to referencing. Elinruby (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I agree with you. I feel it's a good idea to have 1 or 2 sentences describing the events of the early years in the background. If it's done the way you suggest, then that's the place where we'd put a short blurb on the reasons why OUN initially had an allegiance with Germany and were against Poland & then Russian occupation.
I also feel the current topic/scope/focus of Ukrainian insurgents in Poland taking their battle one step further by creating an armed militia, UPA, to battle against Russian/Soviet occupation between 1941-1960 is a historically beneficial and worthy topic/scope.
As with any article that highlights & focuses specifically on the battles of one military branch (even though UPA was underground military branch); then there's no reason to get into the weeds by including long paragraphs on things outside the scope of the battles.
If it's done properly, the way you suggest, then using a few sentences of the allegiance shift preceding & during those battles will come out inside subsections that discusses those battles. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are we supposed to move forward when you keep banging on about the Russian occupation? M.Bitton (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think we have a different view between ages....older editors will see a difference between the Soviet Union vs Russia because of nationhood.... as this how our contemporary historians would write about this aswell.... interesting to see people thinking the Soviet Union was a cohesive entityRoman Šporlûk; Roman Szporluk (2000). Russia, Ukraine, and the Breakup of the Soviet Union. Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 978-0-8179-9542-3. OCLC 1036653529. To understand why the USSR broke up the way it did, it is necessary to understand the relationship between the two most important nations of the USSR--Russia and Ukraine--during the Soviet period and before, as well as the parallel but interrelated processes of nation formation in both states. Moxy- 02:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Us old folks can put it even more simply than that. During the cold war, in common conversation in the US the word most often used to refer to the Soviet Union / USSR was "Russia". This is not due to some type of analysis, it was just common verbal shorthand North8000 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakateka: You are allowed to participate here, and you really should Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone that might be defined as an oldie, I think it is somewhat more than simply a difference between older versus younger editors’ viewpoints but rather geopolitical viewpoints and the availability of technology for research. Europeans did not and do not view the Soviet Union as just simply Russia. The clue is in the term Soviet and European nations were and are fully aware of this meaning. Also, I don’t think anyone views that the Soviet Union was a cohesive entity, just as I don’t think anyone views the European Union, the United Kingdom, or the United States as cohesive entities as they exist today. There seems to be political framing holdovers where some editors are trying to equate the present-day Russian Federation with that of the previous Soviet Socialist Russia and the Soviet Union. There are many wiki articles related to the Soviet Union and yet none refer to Russia in the title. I have seen a similar argument being put forward that refers to England instead of the United Kingdom or Germany in place of the European Union. While it is the case in all big states/nations/countries, there is inevitably a hierarchy of power, and this can be viewed in different ways, such as economic development or other means, but to define all the entities within that grand entity as the one that is perceived to be more powerful/important or aesthetically pleasing to the contributor, is just lazy and academically corrupt. It is also non-productive to what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be, and which Wikipedia aspires to be. Likewise, I don’t think it is essential for this article to understand the breakup of the USSR but rather understand the USSR during the period the article is referring to, which I believe the most favoured position is 1919-1960. It is also worth knowing were soldiers or battalions from other Soviet Socialist Republics present during any of the conflicts with the Ukrainian Insurgent Army? I am sure no-one here condones the actions by Russia on Ukraine, and with that in mind I hope we can get to a solution that leaves out all the emotion and gives us an article acceptable in any encyclopaedia.79.154.51.48 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the argument was at one point being unblushingly made that since Ukraine was an SSR and had joined voluntarily (!) there therefore had been no resistance, because there was no occupation. We do seem to have moved on from that, but somebody was just complaining the other day that Ukraine had since its independence removed symbols of the Soviets. I am not advocating that we take this view seriously, merely pointing out that it's been voiced in this thread. I think 1919-1960 comes from me, and I usually follow it by pointing out that the current article is long, and starts with the second Soviet invasion in 1944. The point has been made that excluding the German occupation excludes the collaboration with the Germans, which I find legitimate as an objection, as well as the exclusion of some of the bloodier events of 1945, possibly because of the focus on "resistance". I don't know and am no longer trying to speak for the original editor, since she is no longer excluded by anything but intimidation. But it does seem to me that this is also not the only thing that happened in the period. If we expand the scope to include the Nazi occupation, all of the mass deportations and killings by everybody in the period should be included, since at least some historians see a dispute over territory, and Timothy Snyder in particular discusses a nationalism rooted in ethnicity vs one rooted in land borders. Not unlike Israel-Palestine, perhaps, although the analogy is mine, but I think it is valid in that both sides are absolutely convinced that the actions of their countrymen are justified. I do not claim they were/are - I am against all murder, let alone mass murder - but in many times and places people have participated in it believing that this was necessary. Let's start with today's Russian army, for example. It's committing atrocities, but Russian citizens believe that they are saving their homeland from evil forces. Is this not part of history? I am myself in favor of a dispassionate telling of as many of the narratives as possible. Saying that the UPA were Nazis because they were Nazis is circular reasoning. Anti-Semitism was prevalent and part of the propaganda of the times, much like the Putinist narratives about evil Ukrainians are widely accepted in Russia today. People tend to believe what they have heard enough. So let's talk about the propaganda. Elinruby (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic Moxy- 20:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's one more phenomena in the US that you didn't mention. I'd bet 50% of folks in the US don't know what the UK is. And the same for maybe 40% for USSR during the cold war. And there are some in between. That knew the difference, but between being common shorthand and also Russia being somewhat dominant in the USSR they used "Russia" when discussing the USSR. I only mention this because you might see some less rigorous US sources from the era using "Russia" to refer to the USSR. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status and let's split the rest into questions

Although the term Russian vs. Soviet is being debated (lets temporarily call that Soviet/Russian), regarding the target of the armed action, there is little or no argument for including other targets (such as Poland) in the scope of the article.

@North8000: prior to Stalin collaborating with Hitler to invade Poland and wage genocide, the OUN was an underground organization against Poland occupying western Ukraine. And that's because Poland (not Russia) took western Ukraine for themselves in 1919 after Polish-Ukraine war.
Now fast forward to 1939 when Stalin collaborated with Hitler (Nazis) to invade Poland, illegally occupy western Ukraine, & wage genocide - that's when/why, in 1941-42 OUN formed their army, Ukrainian Insurgent Army (in Ukrainian: Ukrayins'ka Povstans'ka Armiya,) whose acronym is UPA. So in that regard, the OUN & Poland should at the very least be included the article's Background section & possibly others as well. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to say to exclude anything from the article. What I really meant was to exclude it from the article title decisionmaking.North8000 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were clear. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Soviet" vs. "Russian" in title

And in titles, whatever the official entity might be, the two strongest possibilities for naming the target of the resistance are "Russian" and "Soviet". Which of those do you prefer?North8000 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No question it has to be Soviet if woe focus on around the WW2 timeframe. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No question. That's not really a question. UPA waged the war against the troops of Soviet Union, they were also fighting Soviet Ukrainian troops. Just drop it. Marcelus (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is where it can actually get settled. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000 it has been settled already. I believe we have just one editor that seems to claim that Soviet Union is Russia. Did I miss anyone? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ukrainian insurgent army" vs. "Ukrainian" (armed)

Regarding the combatant in the title, these are the two lead possibilities (caps on "insurgent army" can be decided later). Which of those do you prefer?North8000 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No strong opinion on this one, but I believe covering the whole Ukrainian resistance makes more sense, we will not have to cover Banderites and criminal UPA that much. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) is literally the name of military armed wing of the OUN that was formed in Ukraine during 1942-1960. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army, in Ukraine: "Ukrayins'ka Povstans'ka Armiya," thus abbreviated "UPA." Therefore, it makes no sense to change their name to anything else and makes no sense to call them anything else. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could discuss the extent to which there were other resistance groups in Ukraine. Elinruby (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: If we are talking about the fight against the Soviets after 1944, it makes no difference whether we speak about "armed resistance of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army" or "Ukrainian armed resistance", because due to the fact that other organizations were broken up or incorporated (often by force) into the UPA, it remained the only significant underground army in Ukraine. On the other hand, if we wanted to add the fighting against the Soviet partisans (1942-45) or the first anti-Soviet uprising (1941) in the main part of the article, and not only in the "Background" section, then the term "Ukrainian Armed Resistance" should be used, but with the addition of dates (1941-1960). However, I would opt for the phrase "Anti-Soviet armed resistance of Ukrainian Insurgent Army" and focus on the fights of this organization, with emphasis on the events after 1944. Anyway, this is how the article is written at the moment (e.g. fights with Soviet partisans are almost not mentioned).Marcelus (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're right, I agree - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary brainstorming on title ideas

My idea would be to wait until the above two questions are answered. But both the prior proposed title change and the above feedback (so far) calling an antagonist "Soviet" and all discussion so far seems to agree on the other antagonist being the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (with caps). Some title possibilities that incorporate those are:

  1. Anti-Soviet armed resistance of Ukrainian Insurgent Army
  2. Anti-Soviet armed resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army
  3. Anti-Soviet resistance of Ukrainian Insurgent Army
  4. Anti-Soviet resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army

North8000 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, is the word “armed” needed? Was there an unarmed resistance? We don’t talk about the French armed resistance, and it was an analogous group. The title just seems awkward. If we are going with Ukrainian Insurgent Army post 1944 I suggest Ukrainian Insurgent Army anti-Soviet resistance or even Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance after 1944, if this was essentially the same thing (?) Elinruby (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. Probably because if we just said "By Ukraine" "armed" would be needed. But being by an army pretty much says that. I added 2 more. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby Quote from above French armed resistance, and it was an analogous group.
French armed resistance was not analogous group. French group was anti-Fascist did not commit war crimes, genocides or did not murder Jews as Ukrainian Insurgent Army. These two groups are completely different. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’re pretty wrong about the French resistance. It included a lot of people including the Marseille mafia, if they were getting paid. But I was thinking of it as an assortment of initiatives that definitely were at times both armed and organized. At times such initiatives intervened in the genocide, such as the SNCF strike to prevent deportations in Lyons, but it was fundamentally a nationalist movement, if you’re looking at the history rather than the Hollywood depiction of it. And I am pretty sure war crimes were involved, with shooting prisoners coming to mind as the most likely. Sorry to disillusion you.Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[49] [50] Elinruby (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I’m not disillusioned, don’t worry 🙂. French resistance was not the same as fascist UPA, but you are welcome to hold the view you want, (privately not in Wikipedia voice). - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL at the idea that you're the person to be policing what anyone says or where. Clearly you haven't looked at the links, but don't drag the French resistance into your delusions, please. Elinruby (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
🙂 You are the one who compared the French Resistance who fought the Nazis with a bunch of fascists Banderites, Nazi collaborators and slaughters of civilians called Ukrainian Insurgent Army, not me. Here is the diff [51] - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and I stand by the statement, lol. They fought *occupiers*. They welcomed people who invaded to *overthrow* the occupiers. Some of them were collaborators. The *mafia* was part of it. Don’t get your history from movies. See the links I posted, or take a look at Liberation of France. They were similarly decentralized and capable of violence. I do realize that you want to demonize the UPA but don’t do it by comparing them to the French resistance, because that won’t go the way you think. This is just an attempt at distraction though, I don’t have the time to argue with a wall today Elinruby (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1 - Don’t get your history from movies - no, I don't
2 - I do realize that you want to demonize the UPA.. - no, I don't
3 - This is just an attempt at distraction though.. - no, it’s not - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Welp. Coulda fooled me. You're still pretty mistaken about the French resistance though, and even if you aren't *trying* to be off-topic you are. 162.216.189.67 (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resistance may not be armed, that is rather obvious. A boycott, for example, is a form of non-armed resistance. That is why the phrase "Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance" is wrong, because such resistance existed until the fall of the Soviet Union, but we are focusing on the guerrilla fights that died out in the 1950s (the last group was broken up in the early 1960s). I understand the argument that since we are talking about the army then "armed resistance" is already implied. But still, "UPA" is just a name of an organization, an army can exist but not fight, it can also fight and use other forms of resistance. So I think "Anti-Soviet armed resistance of Ukrainian Insurgent Army" is the best possible option, even if a bit awkward.Marcelus (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same here - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
since I am here in spite of myself, yes, it is true that an army can exist but not be at war. But there is a lot of discussion in the article of propaganda fwiw. I am not necessarily opposed to "armed"; I just find the title awkward, and am throwing ideas around in a section titled "brainstorming" Elinruby (talk)

I guess "armed" makes it more direct / clear that it is that type rather than implying "armed" by being by an army. North8000 (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems redundant. But this is the least of the problems here. Elinruby (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motyka

Can someone provide a quote from Motyka for this sentence:

"At the third OUN-B conference (17-23 February 1943) it was decided to launch an anti-German uprising in order to liberate as much territory as possible before the arrival of the Red Army. The uprising was to break out first in Volhynia, for which purpose the formation of partisan army called the Ukrainian Liberation Army began there"

I have a bunch of Motyka books but not this one and I don't recall off the top of my head him writing anything about this. Volunteer Marek 18:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general it's concerning that a huge percentage of the citations in this article are from a single (Polish-language) text by Grzegorz Motyka that is not apparently online. While I have no reason to doubt the reliability of the source, the difficulty in verifying this content is a problem and it would be good to diversify sources. Here's a passage for which we cite Motkya (pp.98-99), but it would be good to know the status of the "certainly": The identification of Communism with Jewry led to a rise in antisemitism and a wave of pogroms that swept through the German-occupied territory. One of the biggest pogroms took place in Lviv. The involvement of OUN-B is unclear, but certainly OUN-B propaganda fuelled antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: Well Motyka is probably the biggest authority on this topic, not only in Poland but overall. The original Ukrainian article is also largely based on his writings. His books were translated to Ukraianian, and the translations are avaiable online: [52]. About the certainty that's what Motyka is saying (p. 98-99) in mine translation: We can also say with certainty that OUN-B fuelled anti-Semitic sentiments through propaganda. A certain "Levko", probably the local head of the OUN, issued an instruction on 1 August 1941, point 9 of which reads: "It is forbidden to greet Jews or shake hands with them", and in point 10: "It is forbidden to sell food to Jews and Poles; those who do not comply with this order must be boycotted; members of the organisation will be punished". Excerpts from the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Seniors, which took place on 19 July 1941, are also preserved. During the meeting, it was discussed how the nationality policy of the government of Yaroslav Stetsko should look like. From the minutes we can realise that in the Bandera environment the German policy towards Jews, especially their placement in ghettos, was looked upon warmly. There were proposals that the Ukrainian government should seek to deport Jews from Ukraine. As an alternative, the option of resettling the Jewish population from major cities to smaller centres, such as Berdycziv, was considered. The possibility of a partial extermination of the Jews was not excluded. Stepan Lenkvskiy (one of the leading Bandera activists) advocated the "individual treatment" of certain persons of Jewish origin, namely specialists, those valued by the Ukrainian community; those who had received baptism and those with family ties to Ukrainians ("quarter and half-breed Jews"). The protocol in our possession ends with Lenkavskyi stating: "As far as the Jews are concerned we will use all the methods that serve to destroy them". Whether Lenkaviskyi meant physical liquidation or rather expulsion, his statement sounds ominous.Marcelus (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Marcelus. That's really useful. Just to clarify, no issue whatsoever with Moytka as a source, but with the amount of the article sourced to one single source, and one which isn't online so can't be verified. I wonder if it is an idea to include more quotations in the footnotes to mitigate this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: Well I am not a big fan of quotations in the footnotes, we should use them only if necessary. If we are talking about the "Background" section then there is no any controversy there imo, these are very general facts, easily verifiable.Marcelus (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so let's verify them Elinruby (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want to verify Elinruby? What fact needs additional verification? Marcelus (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreeing with Bobfrombrockley’s suggestion. Elinruby (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK Elinruby, but what facts need quotations? Be more specifice pls Marcelus (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am out of Wikipedia minutes and will get back to you on that. Elinruby (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Soviet_resistance_by_the_Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army&oldid=1087152219"