Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

Galicia

Why not forking the Galicia part to a separate article. Has this been discussed ? --Lysy^talk 16:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed moving the article to "Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia." Hedviberit (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thet would be good as well. Keeping it all in a single article saves us having to duplicate all the background explanations and excuses of Poles and Ukrainians, as they would be the same in both cases. Has this rename been voted upon yet ? --Lysy^talk 18:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I support the split. If I am not mistaken, Galicia in this context would be the same as Eastern Lesser Poland, and pl wiki has a dedicated article on the subject: pl:Czystka etniczna w Małopolsce Wschodniej. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking Eastern Galicia was essentially Lwow/Lviv, Tarnopil/Tarnopol and Ivano-Frankivsk/Stanisławów, i.e. the three pre-war Polish voivodeships. Western Galicia would be more or less present day southwestern Poland up to Krakow or so, i.e. Eastern Lesser Poland. Most, but not all of the of "Galician" part of the conflict took place in Eastern Galicia. Volunteer Marek  15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a concensus to split off the Eastern Galicia section per the split tag. Is anyone willing to make the split? If no-one wants to make the split then I will have a go next weekend. The split tag has been there long enough now. Op47 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's some consensus to split off Eastern Galicia, or maybe just Galicia and Lublin region off to another article. Of course some info here should remain, since the two events were related. But the bulk of the info should be in a split off article. I think it's mostly just that peoples is busy and no one has had time to do it properly. So go ahead.VolunteerMarek 21:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to simply change the title? Practically all the sections (including the lead section) except the subsections 2.2 and 2.3 (Volhynia and Eastern Galicia respectively) concern both Eastern Galicia and Volhynia. Lublin region doesn't seem to be part of this article. Hedviberit (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I must confess that having thought about it and re-read the article, I am more inclined to agree that keeping the article intact and renaming it would be better. It would be easier for me and given how busy the article's regular editors seem to be, well with the best will in the world, if I did it then there would probably be a lot of cleaning up to do. How would Massacres of Poles in the Ukraine (1942-43) be for the title? I will leave it another week and go with that unless there are developments/objections.Op47 (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is correct to assign the territories in question (Volhynia, Eastern Galicia) to any country in the title, because they were neither under Polish nor Ukrainian administration, but under German occupation (still technically of south-eastern Poland) at the time of the massacres. What do you think about my proposition ("Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia")?Hedviberit (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Given how long this has been going on, it would be tempting to agree with you and do it. My concern would be that if Lublin (or another region) were to be added to the scope of the article then the whole issue may reccur. Also, speaking as someone who stumbled upon the article, I thought that the article was refering to a Nazi atrocity. It is not important to me to distinguish to be fair. Nevertheless, what do you think of these titles: Massacres of Poles by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (1942-43) or Ukrainian Massacres of Poles (1942-43)? Op47 (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I still think this way of doing things skews the fact that it was part of a greater civil war...and lets not forget that not only Pole were killed, and it was not only one sided. All I'm saying is something as complicated as this shouldn't be so tightly defined in the title.--Львівське (говорити) 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then what would you call it? Op47 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the correct years are 1943-44 (or 1943-45). The sources from the lead section confirm that the ethnic cleansing of Poles by UPA/'The massacres' took place in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia (Galicia, Western Ukraine). They don't state any other region. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a widely used codename for this operation (unlike in the case of Operation Vistula). That's why the territorial scope (Galicia/Eastern Galicia and Volhynia) is usually mentioned.

During the period 1939-1947, there were quite a few instances where Poles and Ukrainians opossed each other. Both sides have blood on their hands. Operation Vistula, for example, can be classified as ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians by Poles.Hedviberit (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia it is. To be fair, if needed, it is easy to rename an article. It seems choosing the name is the hard part.

Don't forget to put it through the page rename process, it is not as simple as deciding amongst yourselves that a new name will be better, you need to find consensus on it as well. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I put a request on Chaosdruid's talk page asking for clarificationOp47 (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Compared to Volhynia and Galicia, the Lublin part of the story is fairly minor, so I think it's ok if it doesn't get mentioned separately. Honestly, my view on this is that I don't care that much whether it's covered in one article ("Volhynia and Galicia") or two articles ("Volyhynia" and "Galicia") as long as it is covered well and neutrally. I do see some sense in having some kind of a disambiguation/meta/general page for ... "early 20th century" Polish-Ukrainian conflicts which would direct readers to this article, as well as to Operation Vistula and other related articles. But if we do that, we should be careful that we don't start POV-forking stuff.VolunteerMarek 04:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting source

[[1]] Bandurist (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, at first glance that source does not appear to be RS (is it a translation of Krwawym szlakiem stalinowskiej demokracji?) but most of the factual info in it is probably true enough. This is Zawadka Mochorowska/Zavadka Morochivska massacre (or in Polish "zbrodnia") and it has an article on pl wiki [2]. The info more properly belongs in Repatriation of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union (which I thought was going to get renamed but I guess there was no consensus for a batch move), or possibly Operation Vistula, though strictly speaking this happened before the commencement of that action (I think some sources lump it in with OV though).VolunteerMarek 20:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia → Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia – This article originally covered incidents in Volhynia (a region of Poland before WW2 and currently a region of Ukraine). The scope of the article has expanded to cover Eastern Galicia (similarly a former region of Poland and now Ukraine).

Options considered have included:

Splitting the article into Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Massacres of Poles in Eastern Galicia. This was discounted because the 2 articles would be largely identical apart from small sections pertinent to the regions being discussed.

Renaming to Massacres of Poles in Ukraine. This was discounted because the regions were neither Polish nor Ukrainian at the time of the incidents.

Renaming to Ukrainian Massacres of Poles (with dates). This was discounted because (considering the bigger picture) it would cease to be NPOV.

There is no need to further oppose the above options. If you oppose this move, please state your propsed solution. Op47 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest "Massacre of Poles in Western Ukraine" It is shorter and more understandable to the English speaker. Bandurist (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That was already objected to above I believe.VolunteerMarek 17:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak support - I think it makes some sense, barring someone is willing to devote some very significant time to creating to separate dedicated articles. But like I said, in this case the actual content is more important than the title.VolunteerMarek 17:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Title

OK, now that is sort of over, I have realised that this is possibly a largely POV page. Unfotunately I did not have much spare time, as well as having no electricity for 4 days, and did not get here in time to comment.

"Ukrainian casualties at the hands of Poles during the conflict range from 2,000 to 20,000 in Volhynia,[14][15] and 20,000 for the two regions combined."

Is there a corresponding "Massacres of Ukrainians in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia" article?

If not, then can we not name it something more neutral as this seems to cover both sides. I believe it should be something like "Massacres in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia 1943-1944" Chaosdruid (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be Ukrainian-Polish civil war...but then the whole ethnic cleansing angle is so big that it would result in a split to another article - so I think this article should focus on the Ukrainian operation (as it were) and a larger article covering all aspects of the clash should remain separate.--Львівське (говорити) 01:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I haven't looked at this article in awhile, but now that you mention it there does appear to be the problem with the lede, in particular that sentence and the one right next to it.

The first sentence: The actions of the UPA resulted in over 35,000 Polish civilian casualties in Volhynia - it's a bit POV to give just the lower bound on the casualty estimates here. In fact, this is not just any lower bound but a lower bound found in a single source, which may not be representative. If you look at the table we were working on, it's clear that most other lower bounds are at least 40k. Also, the upper bound should be given as well. Again, based on the table, the sentence should be changed to "between 40k and 70k Polish civilian casualties". If we are going to refer to "regions combined" then it should be "60k to 90k".

The second sentence: Ukrainian casualties at the hands of Poles during the conflict range from 2,000 to 20,000 in Volhynia,[14][15] and 20,000 for the two regions combined. I'm ok with giving 20k for "regions combined" as that's at least feasible though most definitely an upper bound. However, it should not say 20k for Volhynia alone. As far as I can tell this is, again, a single source, which is probably confusing Volhynia with "regions combined". Even the Snyder number of 10k might be talking about both regions. This would be like including some of the Polish casualty estimates that go up as high as 150k.

Personally in this I would go with the most reliable sources and leave the "outliers" out of it. That would mean Snyder and Motyka.

So yes, there is POV here but perhaps not in the way you think.

As to the "massacre" name - this is the term used in reliable sources. Are there reliable English language sources which talk about "massacres of Ukrainians in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia" out there?VolunteerMarek 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the massacre wording is just translated from Polish, no? In english it would just be ethnic cleansing, or for snyder, civil war & ethnic cleansing? I'm personally opposed to the "massacres" title as it's a bit emotive--Львівське (говорити) 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, Snyder does use "massacres" [3]. So does Marples, Copsey and many others.VolunteerMarek 02:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of a proper title, not that massacres didnt happen or one wouldnt describe them as such. Snyder calls it the Ukrainian-Polish civil war several times in Reconstructing; Marples calls it " The Ukrainian-Polish Conflict", and Copsey also calls it the 'Volhynian conflict'--Львівське (говорити) 02:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see, the lede was changed just recently, right after the move. Ay, come on Lvivske!VolunteerMarek 01:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the matter? I haven't read over the article in a bit, without getting long winded here, I just repeated what's said in the article. 35-40k is the accepted western view, I said 35+ to keep it neutral. Second, I don't think we can count the 20k figure to the hundreds of thousands on the other side...I mean, several of the sources say 20k for the combined, and motyka says 2-3k for volhynia and 20k combined - that would mean 15k+ for Galicia unless I'm reading that wrong? I'll try to stay available/online to hash this out --Львівське (говорити) 01:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ay, ok. We've been through this. Fine, let's do it again. First 35-40k is NOT the "accepted western view". Take a look at the table that we both were working on above [4]. Let's look at it in detail.

For Volhynia alone:

The 35k number appears in the source by Ivan Katchanovski. First I don't think that's representative of "accepted western view". Second what it says is 35k-60k.

An "accepted western view" would be Snyder or Motyka (whom Snyder relies on anyway). This gives, again, for Volhynia alone 50-60k by Motyka, or 50k by Snyder in one source, 40k+ in just one month of 1943 in another, and 40-60k in just 1943. So the accepted western view is more like 50-60k. Rudling gives an even higher upper bound, but at this point, having noted the general sloppiness of his work, I'm not going to consider it.

The 20k number - like I said, that might be possible for Galicia, Volhynia and Lublin combined, and probably also includes the casualties from Operation Vistula. And that's what Motyka says (I can give the exact breakdown between Galicia, Volhynia, Lublin and OV later). Snyder's number of 10k includes Ukrainians killed by Soviet partisans and the Nazis. For Volhynia the number 2-3k is the generally accepted number, with 20k possibly being the number for ALL regions + Operation Vistula. But then, if we're considering other regions her, then obviously we should do the same for Poles killed by Ukrainians which would give 80-100k.VolunteerMarek 02:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It is quite simple, if there were murders on both sides of similar numbers, (40,000 and 20,000 are similar) then equal weight should be given. It is POV to have an article carry so much weight for one side, mentioning only the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians in passing, and yet state 2:1 killings.

I cannot help but be dismayed by an attitude of aggression; I am totally neutral here and want nothing more than neutrality in the article and title. If others cannot respect that then perhaps they should stop and rethink the way they are attacking and making snide comments? Reign in the rhetoric, calm down, put on your neutrality cap, bury the hatchet and discuss ... Chaosdruid (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Snyder definitely views it as an affair that went both ways, and once you add in the thousands more Ukrainians killed in Poland, and the ethnic cleansing that followed, and the political atmosphere that proceeded...it really takes on a whole 'nother light than what some editors intended for this article originally. I talked to Magosci and I agree with him/Snyder on the more neutral, 'civil war' take on the conflict.--Львівське (говорити) 02:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about Magosci, but I definitely don't think that Snyder portrays Volhynia as a civil war - because quite simply, it wasn't. It was one side massacring the other side, who then, to some extent, tried to defend itself. It WAS Hutus killing the Tutsis. Now, Galicia was different to some extent - which was actually part of the original reason given for not renaming the article. In Galicia UPA had less support on the ground (both because the Ukrainians weren't as dominant of a majority and because most Ukrainians in Galicia, unlike Volhynia, opposed UPA), Poles had heard of what happened in Volhynia and AK actually had a presence. So yeah there it was more "equal" but "more" does not mean completely so. The one region affected by the conflict that COULD be described as a civil war was actually the Lublin region which is why I kept bringing it up before. Now, IIRC Snyder does refer to the Galicia conflict as a "civil war" in some places. But he also talks of "massacres".

Basically, to even start talking about a "civil war" we'd have to rename THIS article back to its previous title, and THEN someone would have to write a separate article on Galicia.

And let me just point out that if what really happened (not just on this topic, but in general as far as Wikipedia articles are concerned, on various topics) *was* a massacre, then calling it a "civil war" is the non-neutral (and weaselly) term.VolunteerMarek 02:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"I definitely don't think that Snyder portrays Volhynia as a civil war" He does, very plainly in Reconstructing Nations. He refers to the conflict as mutual, and calls it the Ukrainian-Polish civil war over and over. There's nothing to even infer here.--Львівське (говорити) 03:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

First, there's no "attitude of aggression". Please don't make false statements like those. I have consistently been a moderating voice on this article curtailing some of the more extreme POV pushing from both sides. I resent your insinuations and I find the passive-aggressive tone irritating and insulting. And believe me, I can be aggressive if I want to and that usually happens when somebody insults me with false remarks in a way seemingly designed to irritate.

Ok, as to the matter at hand - it is simple but not in the way you say. By saying "40,000 and 20,000 are similar" what you are doing is picking a lower bound on one side of casualties (Poles killed by Ukrainians) and then picking an extreme, unreliable upper bound on other side of casualties (Ukrainians killed by Poles). Why not compare, 400,000 (Poles killed by Ukrainians, according to some sources) to 2,000 (Ukrainians killed by Poles in Volhynia, according to most reliable sources)? You can make all the protestations of "total neutrality" all you want, but when somebody comes in to a controversial article, picks the lowest possible number on one side, and the highest possible number on the other... well, sorry but that don't look all that neutral from where I'm sitting.

So there's your problem right there. You are making an obviously skewed, biased comparison, and then, because the article does not reflect that bias and skewness, calling it "not neutral". Sorry, but that's backwards.

But like I said, as far as the title and coverage of this article, or of some potential hypothetical article, it is simple - it's simply how reliable sources refer to the events. We have lots of sources which talk about "Massacre of Poles". There are no reliable sources which talk about "Massacre of Ukrainians" for this period, for either Volhynia or Galicia, although of course most of the sources which describe the "Massacre of Poles" note that there were some retaliatory killings. So it is simple - reliable sources.VolunteerMarek 02:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know man, why are you saying 20k is a higher bound? 20k seems to be the median here for Ukrainian causalities and 2-3k is a lower extreme bound. Up to 20k in volyn, more in galicia, and 5-10k elsewhere? that's potentially 30-50k ukrainians vs. 40-60k poles...that's kinda on par at the end of the day--Львівське (говорити) 02:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"There are no reliable sources which talk about "Massacre of Ukrainians" for this period" that is categorically false.--Львівське (говорити) 02:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, for Volhynia alone 20k is most certainly not the median. 2-3k is the most quoted and reliable number. 20k for all the regions affected by conflict is feasible though probably on the high side of things. And again, the 40-60k Poles are for Volhynia alone.

So please DON'T do this:

1. Take the lowest possible number of Poles killed in Volhynia alone and use that as an average or highest possible number for Poles killed in all regions

2. Take the highest reported (I'm not even gonna call the 20k "possible" because it simply is not) number of Ukrainians killed in all regions

and then compare the two numbers. We have to compare like to like, which means using the median estimates for both. And if we're talking Volhynia we don't all of sudden switch to "all regions" numbers.VolunteerMarek 02:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted 6-7 sources below showing the 20k +/- figure, how you can call it not possible is beyond me at this point.--Львівське (говорити) 02:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm addressing that below. - the 20k +/- (mostly -) figure is for "all regions". Explicitly in some of the sources you listed. The only 20k "for Volhynia" that has been presented is the Rudling/Maksymiuk source - but seriously, if we're gonna put that in, then I'm gonna insist that we put Siemaszkos in too.VolunteerMarek 03:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet your tone increases in aggression, even threatening to increase - "I can be aggressive if I want to" - and admitting that perhaps it is only your perception of it that is making it passive aggressive "seemingly designed to irritate".

To move forwards consensus is necessary. At present the article is about all massacres in the region and so should reflect that in the title, which removing "Poles" (or adding "and Ukrainians") would certainly do.

It is obvious that you are not calm and are trying to brow beat me into submission, something that will not go down well. Stop the personal attacks and try and understand that your comments are not appearing neutral; perhaps the irritation is that you can see there is justification for my comment that the title is POV. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, I am not going to waste my time talking to someone who is falsely accusing me of stuff that just isn't true. Quit making personal remarks or speculating on whether I'm calm or not. Talk about sources and article content or there's no point in discussing anything with you. For example, Lvivske and I can disagree - disagree even very strongly - but we can have a discussion without resorting to accusing each other of "being aggressive" or personal attacks (and yes, false accusations fall under WP:NPA).VolunteerMarek 03:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is where you went wrong, this thread is about the article title - yet it has turned into heated discussion over how many rather than POV title

I began by suggesting that the title needs to be less pointy, less POV and more neutral in tone. I agree that "Massacre" is correct, and that the new title does cover the geographical area. What I do not agree about is that the article contains a significant number of Ukrainians massacred and yet the title suggests that only Poles were massacred.

I want you to talk about that one and only point, to find consensus, and to discuss what, if anything, can be done. If you can do that without trying to make me look like I am attacking you, then all will be fine. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you stick to the discussion of the issue, rather myself, we can talk.

The "how many" is central to the question of the title. In Volhynia and Galicia the

1. Conflict was initiated by UPA, as massacres of Polish villages

2. The casualties were greatly skewed to the Polish side. Based on the text below we're talking about 40-60k vs. 1-2k in Volhynia and 25-40k vs. 1-2k (by most recent estimates) in Galicia.

3. I still want to emphasize that while occasionally some sources will talk about both "massacres" AND "conflict" or even "civil war", the designation "massacres" is fairly standard in English language sources (particularly those which concentrate on Volhynia).

4. AFAIK - and Lvivske can present sources to the contrary if they're out there - there are no dedicated works which focus on the "Massacres of Ukrainians". Yes, some sources do speak of self defense or even massacres conducted in retaliation, but the discussion is always in the context of a response to "Massacres of Poles". This means the present naming is in agreement with sources.

Furthermore

5. I've already stated that the best solution might be to have a meta-article, called "Polish-Ukrainian conflict (some year)-1947" which would then point the reader to dedicated sub articles. If someone wrote an article on the events of Lublin/Chelm/Zamosc region, then that one I would be fine with being referred to as "Polish-Ukrainian conflict in Eastern Poland" or something (the precise title could be tweaked). Right now I'm still thinking about Galicia. But Volhynia was most definitely "massacres".

6. What makes this difficult is that this "conflict" changed both over time and as it spread westward. It definitely began as mass killings - even genocide - carried out by UPA against Polish civilians in Volhynia. As it moved west to Eastern Galicia it lost some of its genocidal aspect and became more of "just" a ethnic cleansing operation. Additionally, as it moved westward two things happened: 6a) it moved into territories where UPA did not have as much ground and logistical support as Volhynia and 6b) having seen what had happened in Volhynia, the Polish resistance in Eastern Galicia and other regions was better prepared. So gradually, as time went on, the nature of the conflict began changing from that of one sides massacres against Poles into something that *could* actually be called a "civil war". The "civil war" aspect was most true in the territories of present Poland where UPA and AK were more or less evenly matched. But this is precisely the part of the conflict that is NOT part of the present article (and that's actually why I kept bringing it up). And then of course Soviets took over, then Polish communist authorities, and you got Operation Vistula.

VolunteerMarek 19:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I would ask you to remove the first sentence in your latest post. I was not the person who started discussing peoples thoughts, that was you ("perhaps not in the way you think."). If you remove that first sentence I will remove this paragraph.

As you are saying that the OUN started it, I was wondering if that was true. It seems that another sentence in the background section appears to not really support that. Here it says that the UPA performed terrorist actions (though not what those actions were, in particular were they against the people or the government) - "... and the ensuing state repressions.[18] Collective punishment meted out to thousands of mostly innocent peasants resulted in exacerbation of animosity between the Polish state and the Ukrainian population.[19]" (which is also not really clear as to what those punishments were).

If it is true that the Polish government was the first to take action against civilians, then it would certainly add weight to a more neutral title. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't plan on removing anything and I don't particularly care whether you do or not either. In fact, since I already replied to your paragraph, you SHOULDN'T remove otherwise it will confuse the record of the conversation.

As to the "who started it", yes OUN/UPA "started it". Of course everything has a background and a cause and that's why we have those sections. But it is ridiculous to try to justify - or even compare - massacres of thousands of people by UPA to the actions of the interwar government of Poland in Galicia (not Volhynia). And if you don't know what those "punishments" were, perhaps that suggests that you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to be discussing its neutrality. But here Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia (1930), Volhynia Experiment, Henryk Józewski, Ukrainian People's Republic, Ukrainian Insurgent Army, UNDO...

And again, at the end of the day it comes down to sources. Consult'em, provide'em, discuss'em.VolunteerMarek 18:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's debatable whether it was outright started by the UPA as massacres/killings of Ukrainians by Poles were reported that directly preceded the big 'response' by the UPA. Also, the reason it is considered by Snyder to be civil war (and by others) is that the reason for the massacres was a response to Polish aims to ensure de facto ownership of the territory. The entire conflict was centered on Polish rule vs. Ukrainian independence, and there was a heavy political conflict that preceded everything. Poles were killing Ukrainians in the west, Ukrainians were killing tonnes [albeit a small % of] Poles in the east. I think the genocide claim is total rubbish when you actually look at the big picture; not to mention that they were killing ethnic-Ukrainian Polish-loyalists as well - according to Snyder just as many as Poles - the massacres has an intense political & territorial motivation. PS: How have we gone from up to 20,000 Ukrainians killed in Galicia to "1-2 thousand"???--Львівське (говорити) 18:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's debatable whether it was outright started by the UPA as massacres/killings of Ukrainians by Poles were reported that directly preceded the big 'response' by the UPA. - that's just not true, though UPA did make that claim as a propaganda excuse. But I've never seen a serious scholar take those at face value.

I think the genocide claim is total rubbish when you actually look at the big picture - for events in present day Poland yes, for Eastern Galicia it's debatable, for Volhynia "genocide" is in the ball park. Several authors do in fact explicitly refer to it (Volhynia) as genocide, usually after a careful consideration. Others are somewhat more skeptical.

How have we gone from up to 20,000 Ukrainians killed in Galicia to "1-2 thousand" - we actually went from 10k to 1-2k and the reason for that is that originally I misread the Snyder source - the 10k number he gives for Eastern Galicia includes Ukrainians killed by Nazis and Soviets.VolunteerMarek 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not propaganda, there were documented cases of Poles slaughtering Ukrainians immediately prior. It's a chicken/egg scenario.

Who? What authors? And can you really call something genocide if you have to redefine it to only a small geographic territory and qualify it with "here, but only if you don't count the other areas; and only if you don't count all the Ukrainians they killed too, and only if..."

We went from 20k to 10k to 1-2k and I'm not seeing why. And it may be OR to combine, but you were in the small figure for Volhynia camp but the net for vol/gal was 20k - yet now the net is 4k? That's an extreme leap and some cherry picking of figures to get there.--Львівське (говорити) 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

there were documented cases of Poles slaughtering Ukrainians immediately prior - ok, let's see the reliable sources.

Who? What authors? - Motyka for one. Snyder does too, though only in passing (at least in this source) [5]. Several other authors do it implicitly without stating exactly "this was genocide": [6] [7] (I think Berkhoff does call it genocide directly at one point but it's on a page unavailable for preview - pg 282). Of course I'm leaving out obvious ones like Piotrowski and Terles. I'll also try and get a copy of Marples' book and look through it.

I want to note however that the view that it was genocide is not necessarily my view - I think the question is complicated and at the end of the day irrelevant; calling it different names neither adds nor subtracts from the number of people that were actually murdered.

That's an extreme leap and some cherry picking of figures to get there - I thought I explained it. I mistook Snyder's number which included Ukrainians killed by Nazis and Soviets for the number killed just by Poles. The newer sources also stress that the bulk of the Ukrainian casualties occured not in Galicia but in present-day Poland (Zamosc, Lublin, Chelm). So it's 4k for Volhynia and Galicia, and maybe another 8 to 10k in present day Poland (including during Operation Vistula).

Again, this is why I want that table to be in the article - it succinctly lists all the estimates, so we don't have to keep going through all this over and over again.VolunteerMarek 23:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

VolunteerMarek 23:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Snyder does't call it genocide in that source. Is he referring to the soldiers having experience with German-Jewish genocide before being recruited? Or the Holocaust in Poland in general? He's for sure not calling this conflict genocide. He more than anyone considers it a mutual conflict. That's markedly the opposite of genocide--Львівське (говорити) 00:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rudling and question of Ukrainian victims

I'm just looking at Rudling source right now and at one point he says Despite statements by senior UPA commanders, such as Taras “Bul’ba” Borovets. Now, of course Taras Bulba-Borovets WAS a commander of UPA, but he was the commander of the ... original, DIFFERENT UPA. And in fact Borovets' UPA fought against Bandera/OUN-B's UPA. And (despite some fringe sources to the contrary) Borovets' UPA opposed, either passively or actively the massacre of Poles in Volhynia which were being carried out by the other, Bandera affiliated, UPA.

Rudling seems confused here.VolunteerMarek 01:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Rudling is basing this 20k number on Jan Maksymiuk's Radio Free Europe article. He also refers to the AK "nationalist underground partisan movement". Now, it was of course Polish, and sought Polish independence from Nazis, but it wasn't "nationalist", at least not in any way more "nationalist" than say the French Resistance[1]. I checked the archives for this article and can't find any info on who this Maksymiuk is (ec add: he seems to be the "Senior Multimedia Editor" at RFE). It's strange that a journal article would quote a more or less random newspaper article. Especially on which gives a number that is so greatly different with what actual consensus number is (2-3k). Again, this would be as if we included the Terles' 200k number for Poles killed in Volhynia, or the Siemaszko 300-400k number. If we're keeping out the Siemaszko's numbers because they represent outliers, for the same reason we should keep out the Maksymiuk number.VolunteerMarek 02:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why they couldn't be described as nationalist. He didn't specify it as ethnic nationalism or really qualify it in any way. I think the parallel to the French works in this case, as I understood it.--Львівське (говорити) 02:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[1] Oh yeah the footnote - this just looks like Rudling being a typical snotty biased chauvinistic Westerner. If French people fight for a free France then they're "freedom fighters", but if Eastern Europeans do the same thing they're being "nationalistic". Ok, that's just my piece of OR right there.VolunteerMarek 02:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay pulling out my essay notes to see what I've got here. I think I fudged the sources on the article recently because it seems to be missing a few....but...

• snyder says deaths in galicia limited to 25k poles
• snyder says as many ukrainians killed by UPA as poles in 1943
• snyder says 50-100k poles and ukrainians combined, 1.5m poles/ukrainians combined displaced persons
• magosci, 20k ukrainians killed "reasonable estimate"
• marples, 12k ukrainians in eastern poland killed, 15-30k total
• jilge, 15-20k ukr dead
• oliner, 15-17k ukr dead by poles
• witt, 15-30k ukr victims
• rudling, 20k ukr killed in volyn by AK
• snyder, 10k ukr killed by AK, nazi, soviet in 1943
• motyka, 2-3 in volyn and 10-20 in all areas (thus, 17-18k in eastern galicia, or EG + eastern poland?)

--Львівське (говорити) 02:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

* snyder says deaths in galicia limited to 25k poles - yes, this sounds right.

* snyder says as many ukrainians killed by UPA as poles in 1943 - where? page? Does not sound right. Maybe, maybe, if he's talking about all Ukrainians killed during this time, including those killed by Soviets and Nazis.

*magosci, 20k ukrainians killed "reasonable estimate" - in Volhynia alone? [Subsequent edit: according to the table above, this refers to "all regions"] - VM.

*marples, 12k ukrainians in eastern poland killed, 15-30k total - is this page 221 of this Marples [8]? I can't see the whole page but he appears to be describing some source not necessarily agreeing with it - I'd like to see the whole text. And he is giving 90k of Poles killed. Also I can only see the 12k killed in Eastern Poland, I can't see the 15-30k total part.

*rudling, 20k ukr killed in volyn by AK - he's just repeating the sketchy Maksymiuk source, as already addressed.

* snyder, 10k ukr killed by AK, nazi, soviet in 1943 - yes, I already referred to that. Note it includes those killed by the Soviets and Nazis.

* motyka, 2-3 in volyn and 10-20 in all areas (thus, 17-18k in eastern galicia, or EG + eastern poland?) - yes, which is also what I already said.

I'll have to look up Jilge, Oliner and Witt, but if those numbers are for "all regions" then they in no way contradict - in fact, support - what I've been saying here.VolunteerMarek 03:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll recheck and get back to you on this. I have all the page numbers, just not sure what original quotes I have available. Stick a pin in it.--Львівське (говорити) 03:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Part of the reason why I wanted us to construct that table above is precisely so we can avoid having to go through all this number talk over and over again. I still think we should put it in the article too.VolunteerMarek 03:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait. Ok - is the disagreement over the "1,000-2,000 in Eastern Galicia" line in the lede? If so - I just noticed it - then I concur and support with changing that number as that is indeed wrong. I think it was the more accurate 10k to 20k before but somebody on the Polish side monkeyed with it. So I'll fix that one - just please don't try to change the other numbers as they are the accurate ones. Two wrongs don't make a right, they just make it more wrong, and all that.VolunteerMarek 03:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll stay off edits until we get a table together. I could have sworn I posted the list before...or had more in the article at some point? Or maybe I was just holding off until I re-wrote my civil war article I had planned to compliment this one [that focuses on the ukrainian aspect] and just never got around to it. Regardless, I'll see what I can do and try to get all the sources in order.--Львівське (говорити) 03:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Like I said, I don't have an objection to a separate article here or actually a meta article that would give an overview and then direct readers to dedicated sub-articles.VolunteerMarek 03:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the reason why the "20k killed by AK in Volhynia" number is impossible is just simply that there wasn't enough AK in the region to do it. There was no AK in Volhynia when the killings started in Feb 1943 (ok, there might have been like 4 guys in the region who went around calling themselves "The AK" or something, but for all practical purposes, AK didn't exist in Volhynia at the time). The first units were formed or brought in from outside in July 1943, as a response to the massacres. And we're talking at most a thousand or so AK soldiers vs. 200,000 UPA soldiers (if you believe the Germans - but even the lowest numbers are like 50k UPA soldiers). If you got 1k guys who are up against a 200k force, then massacres by the 1k vs. the 200k are not going to happen all that much, especially given how partisan warfare actually worked (various partisan groups physically controlling territory - this wasn't Fallujah where they attack and then run and hide).

Then the 27th Volhynian AK Division was formed, but that wasn't until January 1941, took awhile to get off the ground, and initially could only cover a very small chunk of territory in Volhynia. And even this "division" was only something like 6k-7k soldiers, so still vastly outnumbered by UPA units. Additionally the primary purpose of the 27th was to fight the Germans as part of Operation Tempest - in fact, some of the local commanders were pissed off that they had to fight Germans while UPA was killing Poles. And shortly thereafter, by March 1944, the 27th was engaged/attacked by regular German forces. It didn't have time to carry out that many massacres (though it might have carried out some). In April and May it basically had to fight German units the whole time, being surrounded for most of that period. And then it left Volhynia. And then the Soviets took over and that pretty much put an end to all the Polish-Ukrainian fighting.

Now, like I said, the situation in Galicia was different. Hence there you actually do get higher numbers for Ukrainians killed by Poles.VolunteerMarek 03:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ruding doesn't put a year on it...and perhaps he's wrong about AK and it ties in with Snyder's assertion that the UPA was killing loads of Ukrainians as well. Just throwing it out there. PS: You're also doing your own low-vs-high bound trick, there weren't 200,000k UPA soldiers fighting in Volyn. That's the peak amount, and by that point they were busy fighting the Soviets/Nazis. Not sure the #s of the UPA-North...--Львівське (говорити) 04:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

there weren't 200,000k UPA soldiers fighting in Volyn. That's the peak amount - that's probably true, but even if there were only 50k it still means quite a skewed soldier ratio. In Volhynia UPA had a very strong advantage. As you moved on to Galicia and then Eastern Poland, that diminished. And as the advantage diminished the casualty ratio changed as well. In Lublin/Chelm/Zamosc, where there were about equal, the casualties were about equal, or even larger for the Ukrainians.VolunteerMarek 04:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OMG. Guys, you are twisting around. It seems you don't know even last works about this topic (nonetheless you discuss about them and give references). You have to know:

1. Research of these masssacres is quite young discipline as it was not allowed during communism phase in Poland and USSR. It was possible in the West, but the scholars did not have access to East archives, so their knowledge was limited. The research started seriously in late 1980-ties and practically still continues, mostly by Polish side.

2. In the condition of lack of serious research, there circulated a lot of mistakes, wrong theories or even mistifications. They are circulating even today. Presently we are writing an article about it in pl.wikipedia [9]

3. As the research continues, we have more and more updated informations. Some numbers given 5 years ago may be outdated now.

4. There IS NO Western scholar who is an expert of so called Polish-Ukrainian conflict, especially in the statistics of victims number. As you can see, they (Snyder, Himka, Rudling, Rossoliński, Katchanovski etc.) cite other authors when they give number of victims. Consequently, they cite sometimes outdated numbers or even not reliable sources (like Maksymiuk).

5. If you go more deeply in the question of Ukrainian victims, you will see, that little is known. The numbers of tens of thousands Ukrainians killed by AK have no serious base. Polish and Ukrainian historians in the conference "Polska-Ukraina" stated: Obecny stan badań ukraińskich nie pozwala także na dokładne sprecyzowanie liczby ofiar ukraińskich w poszczególnych regionach. Według wstępnych szacunków z rąk polskich w latach 1939-1947, w tym także w operacji "Wisła", zginęły tysiące Ukraińców. Również w historiografii polskiej, jak dotąd, nie podejmowano prób całościowego ustalenia strat ludności ukraińskiej. [in: Polska-Ukraina. Trudne pytania, t.9, Warszawa 2002, p.403]. Ihor Ilyushin writes: Brak oficjalnej informacji o liczbie zabitych Ukraińców można wyjaśnić tylko tym, że na Ukrainie podobnych do polskich badań i obliczeń nikt nigdy nie prowadził. Dopiero w ostatnim czasie, z inicjatywy Wołyńskiego Uniwersytetu Państwowego i Lwowskiego Instytutu Ukrainoznawstwa, rozpoczęły się takie prace. Ale dziś ukraińscy historycy nie są jeszcze niestety gotowi, by przedstawić własne podsumowania. [in: UPA i AK. Konflikt w Zachodniej Ukrainie (1939-1945), Warszawa 2009, p.37].

6. So, 20,000 Ukrainian victims, that created you so much troubles, was outdated estimation given by Motyka. It did not included only Volhynia and Western Galicia but also present eastern Poland (Lubelsczyzna, Rzeszowszczyzna). But Motyka corrected it in his last book: Wiele kontrowersji budzi ocena strat ukraińskich. Przed dziesięciu laty, bodajże jako pierwszy polski historyk, próbowałem je oszacować. Według mojej ówczesnej wiedzy uznałem, że w wyniku polskich działań zginęło 15-20 tysięcy Ukraińców. Dziś, w świetle najnowszych danych, skłonny byłbym liczbę ukraińskich ofiar nieco obniżyć. Z ręki polskiej na Wołyniu zginęło zapewne (nie licząc zabitych przez policję pomocniczą) od 2 do 3 tysięcy Ukraińców. W Galicji Wschodniej zostało zabitych 1-2 tysiące Ukraińców. Zupełnie inaczej wyglądała sytuacja na ziemiach dzisiejszej Polski. Zginęło tam w latach 1943-1947 więcej Ukraińćów niż Polaków, najpewniej 8-10 tysięcy (3-4 tysiące do lata 1944 roku i 5-6 tysięcy w okresie 1944-1947). Ogółem dawałoby to liczbę od 10-11 tysięcy do 15 tysięcy zabitych. Także w tym wypadku podawanie wyższych liczb nie ma żadnego umocowania w badaniach naukowych. Podkreślmy to wyraźnie - spotykane w ukraińskich podręcznikach liczby 30, 50 czy nawet 70 tysięcy zabitych Ukraińców są po prostu wzięte "z sufitu". [in: G.Motyka, Od rzezi wołyńskiej do akcji "Wisła", p.448].

So, please be conform with the most updated sources and do not cite mistakes and mistifications. GlaubePL (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind translating those (5. & 6.) into English please? I do not speak or read either Ukrainian or Polish. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Here let me do it.

First one:

"The present state of Ukrainian studies does not make it possible to establish precisely the number of Ukrainian victims in various regions. According to preliminary estimates, during the years 1939-1947, including Operation Vistula, at the hands of Poles died thousands of Ukrainians. Also, in Polish historiography, until recently no attempts have been made to establish the victims among the Ukrainian population. (gives source)

Ihor Ilyushin:

"The lack of official information as to the number of Ukrainians killed can only be explained by the fact that in Ukraine studies and estimates like those carried out by Poles, have never been conducted. Only recently, on the initiative of the Volhynian State University and the Lviv Institute of Ukrainian Studies, has work (on this question - vm) began. However, currently Ukrainian historians are not yet ready to be able to present their own conclusions. (gives source)

Motyka (I have this book, and yes it is probably "the cutting edge" in research on this question.)

"A lot of controversy has been evoked by the question of Ukrainian losses. More than ten years ago, probably as the first Polish historian to do so, I tried to estimates these. According to the state of knowledge I possessed at the time I estimated that as a result of Polish actions, 15-20 thousand Ukrainians died. Today, in light of most recent studies, I would be inclined to lower this number somewhat. In Volhynia, most likely 2 to 3 thousand died (not counting those killed by the auxiliary police) by Polish hands. In Eastern Galicia 1 to 2 Ukrainians were killed (by Poles - vm). The situation was completely different on the territories of present day Poland. The number of Ukrainians killed there between 1943-1943, was greater than the number of Poles, most likely 8 to 10 thousand (3 to 4 thousand up until summer 1944, and 5 to 6 thousand in the period 1944-1947). In total that would give a number of 10-11 thousand to 15 thousand killed. Also in this case (he's referring to previous para - vm) the reporting of higher numbers has no basis in scientific scholarship. I wish to underline this explicitly - numbers encountered in some Ukrainian textbooks of 30, 50 or even 70 thousand killed Ukrainians are simply pulled out of thin air ("from the ceiling" - vm).

So basically Motyka has lowered his estimate for Eastern Galicia, and slightly lowered the overall number, from 20k to "10-11k to 15k". Again, this is for "all the regions combined", with the bulk of the deaths occurring in modern-day Poland - Lublin, Chelm and Zamosc regions (the last one was a bit more complicated too as it happened alongside the Zamosc Expulsions by the Germans) and Operation Vistula. For Volhynia and Eastern Galicia (and especially for the first one) the "conflict" was very much one sided - a massacre.

VolunteerMarek 19:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is why we have in pl.wiki 3 articles: pl:Rzeź wołyńska, pl:Czystka etniczna w Małopolsce Wschodniej (it's about Galicia) and pl:Partyzanckie walki polsko-ukraińskie w latach 1944-1945. GlaubePL (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Malopolska Wschodnia is different then Eastern Galicia, no? The problem though, is that the other two articles would have to get written.VolunteerMarek 09:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Małopolska Wschodnia is greater, but it this case it is rather question of semantics. GlaubePL (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to Per Rudling for a moment. I'm going to have to read his paper a few times to digest it. Partiularly with regard to the Holocaust, this is an area where true collaboration, manufactured Nazi reports of collaboration by locals (the "Germanless" Holocaust) and Soviet manufacture of evidence against Ukrainian nationals particularly in the diaspora all come together. Hopefully his treatment of the Holocaust will also provide insight into the rest of his scholarship. As I said, it will take a few times reading through and following his sources to offer an opinion, so it's not going to be a casual exercise or quick. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Genocide question

Do any serious scholars make an opinion on these claims either way? All I've seen is Katchanovski refuse it.--Львівське (говорити) 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've mentioned some above, though it's true that it's mostly Polish scholars (including some "serious" ones) that refer to it as such. Western writers tend to refer to it as a genocide in passing - as in talking about 'genocidal actions of the UPA' and similar phrasing.VolunteerMarek 23:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the latter not similar to the "with marks of genocide" comment? [cited in the article]. That is, it was genocidal in character, but not by actual definition?--Львівське (говорити) 00:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's about the same. So for example, I don't think the word "genocide" should be mentioned in the lede. But there is some place in the article where it should be considered.VolunteerMarek 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But it's not the same, the word genocide can be used simply because it's emotive. But to call the events genocide in the true sense of the word...this is a case of strong claims require strong sources.--Львівське (говорити) 02:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the article Genocides in history, you can find there many examples genocides similar to genocide made by OUN and UPA. Read the genocide definition Genocide - there is no doubt that in Volhynia and Easter Lessern Poland Poles where killed only for being Pole. OUN were trying to destroy all Polish nation at the territory of 4 Voivodeships. We have Polish Sejm resolution, IPN judgment, and e.g. Motyka statemant about genocide.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No nations recognize it as genocide, just this one commission, which alleges it has "marks of genocide", not genocide itself. Furthermore, it was a mutually exhaustive conflict wherein Poles were killing Ukrainians en masse, and later we have Vistula; and Ukrainians were killing Ukrainians for the same reason they were killing Poles, often documented in equal numbers. Genocide is a very specific thing.--Львівське (говорити) 08:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with Lvivske here - there isn't enough support in the sources to label this as a genocide. And 'aspects of genocide' is not quite the same as "genocide" itself. On the other hand, notably, it seems Motyka has come around to view the Volhynian part as genocide (before he disagreed with that view, IIRC). Still, this is something that can be explained in a neutral way in article text without committing to Wikipedia voice.VolunteerMarek 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Lvivske and Marek. Let's remember it was the Hitler-Stalin tag team who started it all. Who killed who was (ultimately, if you follow the politics) based more on who was identified with which "side" by whom. When everyone is reduced to being someone's collaborator--whether through opportunism or the basic need for survival--civilization takes a back seat. Just as in some of the Lithuanian-Polish wartime conflicts, it serves no purpose to spin events as being anything other than tragic. (I won't even go into Vilnius being "given" to Lithuania by Lenin and later by Hitler, what a mess that was.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

All Polish historiography calls it genocide - see for example Motyka and Hryciuk, not mentioning Kresy-historians. "One commission" mentioned by Lvivskie is Polish Head Commission for investigations of war crimes and it is the body competent to apply juridical qualification. GlaubePL (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Table again - let's finish it

Here is the current version (3/2/2012):

= Historian

= Poli Sci

= Research

Estimates of casualties, Poles killed by Ukrainians

Author	Nat	Volhynia	Galicia	VOL+GAL	V+G+P	E. POL	Source	Notes
Timothy Snyder		50k	-	-	-		In Past and Present
"" ""		>40k	10k	-	-		Memory and Power, 2002	10k is in March '44, >40k in July '43
"" ""		40-60k in '43	25k	-		5k	The Reconstruction of Nations, 2004	5k is Lublin and Rzeszów; "killed by UPA"
Grzegorz Motyka		40-60k	-	-	80-100k	6-8k	W kręgu Łun w Bieszczadach, 2009, page 13	net is from '43 to '47
"" ""		40-60k	30-40k	-	100k		Od rzezi wołyńskiej do akcji "Wisła", 2011, pages 447-448
Ivan Katchanovski		35-60k	-	-	-		Terrorists or National Heroes? Politics of the OUN and the UPA in Ukraine	Katchanovski considers the lower bound 35k to be more likely; cited Snyder, Hrytsiuk
Grzegorz Hryciuk		35-60k	-	-	-		“Vtraty naselennia na Volyni u 1941-1944rr.” Ukraina-Polshcha: Vazhki Pytannia, Vol. 5. Warsaw: Tyrsa, 2001	Cited by Katchanovski
"" ""		35.7-60k	-	-	-		Hryciuk G. Przemiany narodowosciowe i ludnosciowe w Galicji Wschodniej i na Wolyniu w latach 1931–1948 / G. Hryciuk. – Torun, 2005. – S. 279.	Cited by Kalischuk
"" ""		-	20-24	-	-		Straty ludnosci w Galicji Wschodniej w latach 1941–1945 / G. Hryciuk // Polska–Ukraina: trudne pytania. – Warszawa, 2000. – T. 6. – S. 279, 290, 294.	Cited by Kalischuk; from 43-46; 8820 in '43-mid'44; "according to relevant contemporary Polish sources"
"" ""		35.7-60k	20-25k	-			G.Hryciuk, Przemiany narodowosciowe i ludnosciowe w Galicji Wschodniej i na Wolyniu w latach 1931–1948, Toruń 2005, pp.279,315	for Galicia "primary balance" relied on "fragmentary and often incomplete documentation" and witnesses' testimonies
P.R. Magocsi		-	-	-	50k		Magocsi; A History of Ukraine, p 681	“among the more reasonable estimates"
Niall Fergusson		-	-	60-80k	-		The war of the world, 2007	Fergusson is citing other authors (which ones?)
John Paul Himka	[10]	-	-	100k	-		Interventions: Challenging the Myths of Twentieth-Century Ukrainian history, 2001
Anders Rudling		40-70k	-	-		7k	Theory and Practice, 2006	Problems with Rudling noted below
Rossolinki-Liebe		-	-	70-100k	-		The Ukrainian national revolution (2011), Celebrating Fascism... (2010)	I'm having trouble finding the actual source - it may be referred to here.
Ewa Siemaszko		60k	70k	130k	133k		Bilans zbrodni, 2010 [11]	According Rudling it is most extensive study of the Polish casualties (Rudling, "The OUN, the UPA and the Holocaust...", p.50)
Marek Jasiak		-	-	-	60-70k		Redrawing Nations, p174	"In Podole, Volhynia, and Lublin"
Terles		50k	60-70k	-	100-200k		In Ethnic Cleansing p61
Karta		35k	29.8k	-	-	6.5k	"Polska-Ukraina", t.7, 2000, p.159, cited by Kalishchuk: here	Karta based mostly on: Siemaszko for Volhynia (documented number) and Cz.Blicharski for Tarnopol voivodsh.
Katarina Wolczuk		-	-	-	60-100k		“The Difficulties of Polish–Ukrainian Historical Reconciliation,” paper published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 2002, cited by Marples
Alexander Gogun		25k+	-	-			Деятельность вооружённых националистических формирований на террито-рии западных областей УССР (1943–1949), 2005	Historian @ Postdam, Research fellow @ Harvard
Common communicate of PL and UKR historians		50-60k	20-25k	-		5-6k	"Polska-Ukraina: trudne pytania", 2000, t. 9, p.403.	"Polish caualties acc. to Polish sources"
Ryszard Torzecki		30-40k	30-40k		80-100k	10-20k (Polesie i Lublin)	R. Torzecki, Polacy i Ukraińcy. Sprawa ukraińska podczas II wojny światowej na terenie II Rzeczypospolitej, 1993, p. 267
IPN		60-80k	-	-	-		Oddziałowa Komisja w Lublinie, January 2012	killed by Ukrainian nationalists, 1939-1945?
Norman Davies		-	-	-	hundreds of thousands		'God's playground. A history of Poland', Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 350	ethnic cleansing

Estimates of casualties, Ukrainians killed by Poles

Author	Nat	Volhynia	Galicia	VOL+GAL	V+G+P	E. POL	Source	Notes
Grzegorz Motyka		2-3k	-	-	10-20k	8-12k	W kregu łun w Bieszczadach, Rytm 2009, page 13	1943-1947, The number for total includes those killed in Volhynia, Galicia, territories of present day (eastern) Poland
"" ""		2-3k	1-2k	-	10/11-15k	8-10k	Od rzezi wołyńskiej do akcji "Wisła", 2011, page 448	1943-1947; According to Motyka, numbers of Ukrainian casualties from hands of Poles >= 30k are "simply pulled out of thin air".
"" ""		-	-	8.3k	15-20k	10-12k	"Polish reaction to the actions of the UPA: the scope and course of punitive" p28 2003	Cited by Kalishchuk; period 1943-1948
P.A. Rudling		20k	-			+11k	in "Historical Representation of the Wartime Accounts of the Activities of the OUN..."	Cites Maksymiuk “Ukraine, Poland Seek Reconciliation Over Grisly History.”
P. R. Magocsi		-	-	20k			Magocsi; A History of Ukraine, p 681	“among the more reasonable estimates"
T. Snyder		10k	-	-			Past and Present	"Over the course of 1943, perhabs ten thousand Ukrainian civilians were killed by Polish self-defence units, Soviet partisans, Nazi policemen".
"" ""		-	-	-		+5k	The reconstruction of nations	in Lublin and Rzeszów
Rossolinski-Liebe		-	-	10-20k			Celebrating Fascism...	both UPA members and civilians, during and after the war. Rossolinski cites Motyka's estimation of 2006.
Katarina Wolczuk		-	-	15-30k				UK scholar. Cited by Marples.
Marples		-	-	15-30k			In Marples, Heroes..., pg 222	Cites Wolczuk^
Katrina Witt		-	-	15-30k			Ukrainian Memory and Victimhood, p101	Cited Marples, who cites Wolczuk.
Karta		unknown	unknown	-		7.5k	"Polska-Ukraina", t.7, 2000, p.159, cited by Kalishchuk: here
Zashkilniak L. and M. Krykun	?	-	-	35k			Zashkilniak L., M. Krykun History of Poland: from ancient times to the present day / L. Over- Shkilnyak - Lviv, 2002. - p. 527	Cited by Kalishchuk.
Alexander Gogun		10k+	-	-			Деятельность вооружённых националистических формирований на террито-рии западных областей УССР (1943–1949), 2005	Historian @ Postdam, Research fellow @ Harvard

Other

• Polska-Ukraina - "Polska-Ukraina: trudne pytania", 2000, t. 9, p.403 : "Present state of Ukrainian historiography does not allow to precise number of Ukrainian casualties in the regions"

Chart Discussion

Here are some thoughts:

1. Per Faustian comments above I think the numbers from Rossolinski-Liebe should not be included, as they are just mentioned in passing.
2. I would also exclude Rudling per my comments above, as he's just repeating non-scholarly sources and appears to be confused about some basic issues.
3. I would either exclude the Siemaszko number or somehow put it in a separate category of "other numbers", maybe with Rudling and Rossolinski-Liebe. With Siemaszko the advantage is that the estimates were actually carried out directly (aside from Motyka I don't think anyone else in the table did their own estimation based on archival documents). The disadvantage is that while the Siemaszkos did a lot of very good work gathering records and documents, they drew what is thought to be some very strong conclusions from them - i.e. very high numbers.
4. It would be nice to differentiate between sources where the author carried out their own study based on primary sources (i.e. "estimates") from numbers which come from an author which has not done the documentary research himself but who is obviously familiar with this research (i.e. "estimates by others that reliable sources find plausible" - this would be Snyder, maybe Magosci and Katchanovski) from numbers which is just an author who generally speaking is not familiar with the topic area and is just repeating the first number that he saw in some book (Fergusson, Rudling maybe Himka).

Additionally, another two "tools" that the article could use is a timeline and some maps. We keep arguing about what happened where and how many people were killed in what region. Part of that results from the fact that several regions were affected at different times and it is a bit of a pain to constantly keep track of it all.

In regards to the maps, it'd be nice something that shows for readers where Volhynia is, where Eastern Galicia is, and where Lublin/Chelm/Zamosc is. This will also show how the overall conflict spread through time.

In regards to the timeline, I think I can do some work on that. For the purposes of this article I see February 1943 as the beginning of the massacres in Volhynia, which I think is a reasonable starting point. Where to end it though? Go all the way to Operation Vistula just to make sure to include it all? Thoughts?

VolunteerMarek 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The timeline should simply run to the end of the war. Anything else risks opining who got in the last shot in the Hatfield–McCoy feud. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also lean to Magocsi as the best representation, the lead should mention the total death toll on both sides (i.e., the totality of which this article is a part). Also, the background section only has one sentence on the competing claims which laid the foundation for the feud, there needs to be less of the rest and more on the actual basis of the conflict and how it came about. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We should follow the sources. Many sources (like Motyka) tell about period 1939-1947. Or we limit it only to ethnic cleansings and then we can talk about 1943-1947 (I would prefer 1043-1945). GlaubePL (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the belief, as I've stated already, that this article should focus on the years and actions of the ethnic cleansing campaign as stated in the lede, and a larger article should focus on the full scale of conflict that preceded and followed. For the purpose of this article, 1939 would be going too far back.--Львівське (говорити) 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cannot play with sources like you did above. Snyder, Katchanovski - OK; Rudling, Himka, Rossoliński - not OK. What's the difference?! They all are scholars who research history of Polish-Ukrainian borderlands, but they all don't count the Polish victims. You reject the only person (maybe apart Motyka) who does it - namely Ewa Siemaszko. Rudling, Himka and Rossoliński cite her works, all of them are professionsl historians. Himka is a professor of history, Rudling is PhD. The latter improved much more, he does not cite Maksymiuk in the last works. GlaubePL (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@Vecrumba: In the interest of neutrality I think the timeline should go up to Operation Vistula. We could also have a "pre-1943" or a "1939-1943" entry in the timeline which just succinctly starts it of. @GlaubePL: Rudling, aside from making some basic mistakes in his paper, has a PhD in Public Policy and works in a Department of Political Science, not History. Up above, there were objections to including Piotrowski because he was a "Sociologist of history" rather than a historian. Same logic should apply to Rudling. I have not seen Rudling's latest work - do you have a link or a citation?

For Liebe-Rossolinski it's more of the fact that the source is actually NOT about the massacres/ethnic cleansing, only tangential to it. And he gives the figure in passing. I'm not sure about Himka - aside from the source given does he have other works on the subject?

Siemaszko - according to Motyka, while the Siemaszkos did great work of gathering documents and sources, the conclusions they drew from these were a little far fetched. (I've seem to misplaced my copy of the Motyka book "Od Rzezi...". I know it's either somewhere at home or at the office but I can't locate it for the life of me. I'm sure it will turn up soon). I guess we could include the Siemaszko number but note in the Notes section the objections to it that have been raised.VolunteerMarek 21:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only to Motyka. See my article in pl.wiki and citations in it: pl:Ludobójstwo dokonane przez nacjonalistów ukraińskich na ludności polskiej Wołynia 1939-1945 GlaubePL (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Piotrowski isn't the best for raw figures, he comes across as a bit biased, but his work on the subject offers a wide array of sources, accounts, and facts that would be instrumental to this article. Himka...I don't like him; he's an anti-UPA/Ukrainian POV pusher. I've found a lot of contradictions on his writings on Ukrainian-Jewish relations. He presents some good facts, without a doubt, but I wouldn't cite the conclusions he draws without scrutinizing them. (I digress, use him with caution, but he's usable)--Львівське (говорити) 21:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rudling is a historian and he works in the Department of History: [12]. You probably mistaken him with Katchanovski, who is a political scientist. GlaubePL (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct--Львівське (говорити) 21:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Last work of Rudling: [13] GlaubePL (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In which he says 88,700 Polish victims and cites "According to the most extensive study of the OUN-UPA’s anti-Polish campaign, the number of Polish victims reach 130,800 when including the victims whose names could not be established. Ewa Siemaszko, “Bilans Zbrodni,” Biuletyn instytutu pami#ci narodowej, no. 7–8 (116–117) (July–August 2010): 93."--Львівське (говорити) 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I did confuse him with Katchanovski there. So my comments apply to Katchanovski not Rudling. And thanks for the link.21:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Katchanovski is citing both Snyder and Hrytsiuk, the latter work is: Hrytsiuk, Grzegorz. “Vtraty naselennia na Volyni u 1941-1944rr.” Ukraina-Polshcha: Vazhki Pytannia, Vol. 5. Warsaw: Tyrsa, 2001: 249-70. --Львівське (говорити) 04:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should differentiate when speaking between Western and Polish sources, rather than doing some OR and choosing what should win, or combining the two. With the Holodomor, for example, we differentiate between western, ukrainian, and soviet sources.--Львівське (говорити) 22:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that the reliable Western sources are essentially based on Motyka, a Polish source, or in some cases on Siemaszko, another Polish source. This partly reflects - as stated above - that most of the primary research on this topic has been carried out by Polish historians. So I don't see a reason to differentiate between "Polish sources" which say one thing, and "Western sources" which pretty much repeat what the Polish sources say, although with some time lag (for example, Snyder is based on Motyka's work from a few years back).VolunteerMarek 00:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Then we need to group who is basing their numbers on whom, and in the case of Motyka, accurately account for how he came up with his figures. I think we provide more backstory to him in the article itself if he is in fact a source for western scholars (kind of like a Robert Conquest for the Holodomor article). We should add these connections to the table for the time being in the notes section, a long with the year of publishing.--Львівське (говорити) 01:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we already have that to some extent. Snyder is basing his statements on Motyka. Some of the others are relying on Siemaszko. I don't know off hand whom Magosci is basing himself on. Some of the others (Rudling) are basing themselves on the Maksyumiuk article and who knows where he pulled his numbers out of. At the end of the day, as far as actual estimates are concerned it boils down to either Siemaszko or Motyka.VolunteerMarek 02:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I still think it would help to keep a note of it. Quickly looking at Reconstructing, Snyder cites Hryciuk a lot for figures for Ukrainian deaths. Also using Dzieje Konfliktów and Ryszard Kotarba--Львівське (говорити) 04:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Does really Magocsi write about number of Volhynian massacres' victims? In google.books there is nothing in page 681: [14] GlaubePL (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

He does, I even provided the quote itself. I believe I referenced the 2nd Edition he releases in 2010, though. (so the page numbers would be different)--Львівське (говорити) 22:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Grzegorz Hrytsiuk

Based on his PL wiki page alone, he seems like a huge source for this topic and someone we should track down. The article states ". Przemiany narodowościowe i ludnościowe w Galicji Wschodniej i na Wołyniu w latach 1931–1948" is a highly regarded book on the topic.

Katchanovski cites Hrytsiuk _{“Vtraty naselennia na Volyni u 1941-1944rr.” Ukraina-Polshcha: Vazhki Pytannia, Vol. 5. Warsaw: Tyrsa, 2001}. I ran a Google for it and nothing, so I tried it in Ukrainian (Втрати населення на Волині в 1941–1947 pp.) and found this by Stepan Makarchuk (Source: Ukraine - Poland: difficult questions. T. 5. - Warsaw, 1999). So same Name (different years), same journal, volume; 1999 instead of 2001.

"Polish memoirists and historians have not always agreed with some information about the Polish population of Volhynia in 1939, 1941 and 1944 pp. Unfortunately, Ukrainian historians have studied the above questions is not enough. Publicists are referred to the Polish researchers Czeslaw Madaychyka, Edward Prus, and others. Yes Basil Yevtushenko repeated by C. Madaychykom that OUN members killed almost 40 thousand Poles 37" He also provides a nice list of massacre sites of Ukrainians by Poles, which isn't something we normally find in our sources de jour. (ref 37 = A. Yevtushenko, Banderovschyna [in:] "Thank Rodynы" (newspaper Prykarpatskoho voennoho vicinity), 1990, March 17.) "Many acts of commissions are lists of victims by nationality, but does not state on whose hands they suffered death, often are "people shot by the German invaders and their accomplices." Since information about the killers of civilians remained in the acts of a few areas, like the mention of nationality is also executed in rare cases, the output even approximate the number of deceased Ukrainian population due to the Polish-Ukrainian armed struggle seems impossible." Also says 50k Poles in Volhynia (based on post-German population numbers, so 50k gone, not specifically UPA, some could have fled, some from nazis or soviets, etc. 50k Poles died in Volhynia during German occupation) and 120k Ukrainians (again, not pinning it on anyone, just from the war in general)--Львівське (говорити) 06:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Need help translating this from the Kalischuk article, "яких 35 700–60 тис. – жертви українських нападів" (Hryciuk G. Przemiany narodowościowe i ludnościowe w Galicji Wschodniej i na Wołyniu w latach 1931-1948 / G. Hryciuk. - Toruń, 2005. - S. 279.)--Львівське (говорити) 07:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kalishchuk

I just want to recommend everyone involved in the # fact checking to check out the Kalishchuk article PDF. It's in Ukrainian, but Google Translate is sufficient. She provides probably the best recounting of literally every source out there. Most notable is the Karta Research Cell findings presented in a table. As a whole though, she cites everyone we've got in the table and then some, and if we comb through this I think we'll exhaust the chart and have everyone covered.--Львівське (говорити) 17:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link?Faustian (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's in the chart, but here--Львівське (говорити) 00:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Magocsi

UPDATE: Ends up I got the Magocsi 'A Historyf of Ukraine and its Peoples' (2nd edition) in the mail today and nobody decided to tell me. I have it now, what should I be double checking? For what I'm reading now: He doesn't state just Volhynia, his 50 figure refers to the entire conflict. He offers no direct citation, but has a large Further Reading section. He suggests Snyder "The Causes of..." and Reconstruction of Nations; Terles, Piotrowski, Lotnik/Preece, Dzemianczuk, and then Piotrowski again for a 3rd time (highly recommends Genocide and Rescue as the best work in the genre.--Львівське (говорити) 04:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

An excellent source, Magocsi's credentials are impeccable, just ordered my own copy.(I have other works of Magocsi.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding alleged mass killings of Ukrainians in Chelm region in 1942, Magocsi resonates unfounded claims of Ukrainian historians. Motyka in his last book closed this topic: Unfortunatelly Ukrainian historians never attempted to prove this hypothesis, limiting themself to vague statements about thousands of dead Ukrainians and Polish atrocities. ("Od rzezi...", Warsaw 2011, p.284). Motyka and other Polish historians (Cz.Partacz, K. Lada, W. Filar) claim that in 1942 the Polish underground killed in Chelm region around 30 Ukrainians ("Od rzezi...", p.285) A document of Ukrainian Aid Commitee prove it. The myth of the beginning of mass killings in the Chelm region in 1942 by the Poles is the result of the propaganda of the OUN-B, which after starting the massacres in Volyn and Galicia (1943-1944) falsely announced that Poles began the mass murders in 1942. ("Od rzezi...", p 290-292, Partacz, Działalność nacjonalistów ukraińskich w Ziemi Chełmskiej i na Podlasiu 1939-1944 [in:] Stosunki polsko-ukraińskie w latach 1939-2004, Warsaw 2004, pp.65, 90)

This shows that Magocsi is not a reliable source on this topic.GlaubePL (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Magocsi's Historical Atlas of Central Europe, for example, has been hailed as the seminal work in the field. So you cannot simply discount him as impaired. Have you read the suggested sources before just dismissing him? If this article is going to get out of the Poles said/Ukrainians said morass which has you all shouting at each other dissing each others' sources, you'll need to create a narrative which includes all reputable sources. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not dismissing whole Magocsi's book, but the half page of his "History of Ukraine". It seems you don't understand. I provided you a source - G.Motyka - who is an author of monographs about so called Polish-Ukrainian conflict, and he dismisses the issue of alleged mass killings in Chelm-region in 1942. Motyka dedicated to "Polish-Ukrainian conflict" in 1939-1947 thousands pages; how many Magocsi did? Presumably a half page, without any footnotes. It clearly resonates historical disinformation of OUN-B. This issue has to be rewritten, in this moment is POV. GlaubePL (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What you describe as a neglected "half page" is described in the forward of the 2nd edition as "now given the attention it deserves [is] the [...] Polish-Ukrainian conflict at the close of World War II". Clearly he put some effort into expanding this part of the book.--Львівське (говорити) 14:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Figure out how to include what Magocsi writes about the conflict, not how to exclude it. If this article narrative is ever to succeed, it won't be by leaving out sources. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Vecrumba. Wikipedia reports what is written in reliable sources. One can include what Magocsi wrote, and then follow that with what Motyka found. There ought to be no synthesis implying that Magocsi is wrong, simply include all the information. Write what Magocsi wrote, and then write that accoriding to Polish historians the number of Ukrainians murdered in Chelm in 1942 was approximately 30 but the OUN-B magnified this considerably in order to justify their massacres etc. etc., or something like that (I'm not familiar with what the Polish sources wrote).Faustian (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Marples

The Marples and Wolczuk are redundant - it's listing the same thing twice.VolunteerMarek 23:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that any different than citing Snyder who cites Motyka? If anything, keeping Marples in eyeshow of Wolczuk gives her credibility, considering Marples is an expert historian on this topic. I think that he's citing her is important for making her case.--Львівське (говорити) 23:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Difference is that the reason Snyder quotes Motyka is because Motyka did archival research and we can access both sources independently. Can you find a link to the original Wolczuk source? I tried and can't find it.

Have you read Marples' book btw? I'm surprised a bit that you're touting it here. The whole book is written as a very strong critique of OUN and UPA and of the way that their history has been treated in some/most Ukrainian literature.VolunteerMarek 00:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read the Wolczuk one but I'm not sure if it's the whole thing or a summary piece, it's a re-syndication so the footnotes were stripped, which sucks. I've since lost the URL, gotta try again. As for Marples, yeah I've read it...I found it to be a good read. Hardly a slam-piece like Himka or w/e.--Львівське (говорити) 01:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lvivskie, don't you understand the difference between a review and an endorsing ones thoughts? If so, please be carefull with editing Wikipedia. GlaubePL (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems impossible to establish Wolczuk's, Magocsi's and Maksymiuk's (cited by Rudling) sources for the number of victims. Hedviberit (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Other

"In all areas affected by conflict" - need to differentiate between:

• the whole of Poland and whole of Ukraine during the whole of initial conflicts and World War II
• Volhynia and eastern Galicia during a specific period.

At the moment that column title means all Ukrainian casualties before, during WWII, and afterwards. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede

There is currently a sentence in the lede which absolutely should not be there. It is "However, according to G.Motyka, the estimation of 30,000 Ukrainian casualties is baseless." First off, this is giving way too much weight to Motyka and his opinions - in a lede - which should be neutral and reflective of a summary. It's not a place for interjections or arguments or editorializing. Calling reliable sources "baseless" to start off an article is very weasely. This quote belongs in the numbers section; where I placed it before I was reverted. If any scholar disputes figures, absolutely, include it, but it shouldn't be in the lede to mislead readers that all other scholars who think differently from Motyka are "baseless" in their claims. That's rubbish and blatant POV pushing. Should we include sources discussing how Polish historians inflate the numbers then in the lede, to even things out? I think I know the answer to that one from some editors here.--Львівське (говорити) 00:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Which Polish historians are you referring to and what reliable sources is this based on? I mean, yes, there are some Polish authors who inflate the numbers but these are the people who are talking about 300,000 to half a million casualties - NOT historians like Motyka who are talking about 50k or so, which is very consistent with other sources - hence there's nothing undue here. And with the talk of "inflating" or under-flating, we can actually pull a lot of material from Marples to discuss the fudging/ignoring of the numbers by several Ukrainian writers.

Honestly, at the end of the day, the whole "defend UPA and OUN" project is simply not going to work since virtually all reliable sources point in the other direction.VolunteerMarek 00:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read several sources make these claims, and they are just as RS as Motyka. I'm not saying Motyka is inflating, just that it's a competing POV that, like Motyka's, shouldnt be in the lede. It's an opinion, not fact.--Львівське (говорити) 00:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently the lede reads like this, "Motyka says X, while others say X-Y; HOWEVER, Motyka says everyone else is dead wrong." How can that in any way be construed as a neutral presentation of the sources? Does Motyka even explain how those numbers come about? It's a pretty damning statement to accuse other scholars of "pulling numbers out of the air" and being "baseless". Look at the Holodomor lede as an example of how ranging estimates are presenting in a neutral, unframed manner.--Львівське (говорити) 03:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have included this sentence because you force your POV in the article. Wikipedia should rely on reliable sources, on fundamental works on the topic. For your 30k you quote some Volchuk Oksana. Who is she? How many articles/books ahe wrote about the topic? I afraid not much. Lets take Ilyushin's (Ukrainian historian) "UPA and AK". Volchuk was not mentioned in the sources. As I said several times - Motyka is a neutral writer (even accused by some Poles for being pro-Ukrainian) and is an author of fundamental (opinion of Snyder) monographs in the topic. When he says 30k is "from thin air" it means Volchuk cannot be quoted. So, if you continue your way of editing Wikipedia, which means quoting "from thin air", I will come with the expert - Grzegorz Motyka.GlaubePL (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Being inclusive of scholarly, reliable sources is not "forcing a POV". It would appear you don't fully undertand what a POV is. What it is, is being inclusive. Furthermore, comparing a 10,000 person differential to a 100-200 thousand person differential is not an equitable comparison to make at all.

Does it matter how many articles and books Wolczuk has written on this topic? She's an acclaimed expert on Ukraine in general; that should be enough to make her a reliable source of opinion. Motyka does not make a claim against Wolczuk or any other scholar by name, so you saying "it means Volchuk cannot be quoted" is just original research on your part.

And why are you referring to Woczuk as "Volchuk" and me as "Lvivskie"? Cut the name screwing.--Львівське (говорити) 21:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Lviskie, I think you missed that the lede does not quote sources which provide number of PL casualties higher than established Motyka. But if you say Motyka is not the limit, I can add such sources, telling about 150k, 200k or even more. Is this what you want in this article? GlaubePL (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Motyka does not set the standards of the lede, like it or not. If we were only allowed to cite figures that fall within the bounds of His Holy Majesty Grzegroz Motyka, then we wouldn't be coming up with this comparison chart in the first place.--Львівське (говорити) 21:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Pawel was so kind as to censor the following from the lede, "Who started the cycle of massacres remains a subject of controversy and dispute.". This statement is the epitome if neutrality; acknowleding that there is a not a concrete answer to this question, and not leading the reader one way or the other, just simply informing them. If neutral statements like this are going to be removed, and matter-of-fact statements like the above (which disregard competing scholarship) are inserted, this article will remain a POVy mess forever. Come on, guys.--Львівське (говорити) 00:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Magocsi, there is not a concrete answer to the question who started the killings/violence and he is referring to Ukrainians in Chelm region in 1942 who were in his words 'attacked by the Polish underground'. Are you sure he used phrase 'the cycle of massacres'? Motyka writes that Ukrainian nationalists and Ukrainian police killed hundreds of Poles in 1942. Gross states that several thousands of people died in local outbursts of violence during the initial period of Soviet occupation in 1939, most of them - Poles killed by Ukrainians. Should we include that information in the lede? Hedviberit (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I am not particularly enamored of Gross. Gross also has Poles killing their Jewish neighbors when there is contrary evidence if enough digging is done (Ezergailis), that is, some of the most sensational killings look to be not by Poles, not by locals. IMHO, he has been riding the gravy train of sensationalizing WWII tragedies--an observation (sensationalizing, not the gravy train part) echoed by those representing the community of victims. I don't see Gross adding to the quality of content. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Protection needed?

It seems to me that both User:Lvivske and User:GlaubePL have broken the WP:1RR restriction on this article (this needs double-checking to be sure). One option is to block both of them; another option is a period of full protection. Please comment if you have a recommendation of how to deal with this. The talk discussion is going fairly well but L. and G. are not waiting for it to reach a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to just step away...but not all the revs are related to the ongoing discussion. For instance, I checked the source on a statement in the lede (the source said "from social and economic spheres") and I was immediately reverted back...and now I removed an unsourced photo and was immediately reverted again, and called for "denial"??

I think we should have a super-neutral lede [with regards to figures] until we reach consensus on that front to avoid fighting.--Львівське (говорити) 22:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not block anyone. Yet. Both users are participating in talk page discussion and the 1RR restriction was placed some time ago so it's very possible that 1RR was broken simply because people forgot/were not aware of it. At this point, a reminder (which is what this is) is sufficient. Also, I don't think protection is yet needed though that may become the case.

I would like to remind the participants that "he who wins" is not "he who reverts the most" but "he who reverts last". And reverting last means "convincing others that their view is supported by sources" and establishing consensus.VolunteerMarek 00:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I hate to go back to this again but I had to fix the quote once again. GaubePL took it upon himself to change the wording around (to "purge all") despite what's actually in the book. The quote reads "It's main goal was to [...] remove - by force, if necessary - non-Ukrainians from the social and economic spheres of a future Ukrainian state." (pg 204). I don't know if this just doesn't sit well with him or what, but why he's reverting/removing the 'social and economic' part that the author mentions is anyone's guess. --Львівське (говорити) 02:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the sources say about killing and not about removing from 'social and economic' life! The fragment about removing from 'social and economic' life refers to 1930's and cannot be used for 1943-44. Is it clear? GlaubePL (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The source says exactly as I quoted it above, you know this. And the source discusses the OUN's main goal, it doesn't specify a timeframe or that that 'goal' changed after the war started. The sentence was clearly based on the quote above (that you are now disputing) and then altered to fit a POV by changing 2 parts. Is it clear?--Львівське (говорити) 00:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unattributed exhumation photo

There is an image on the page with the caption "The mass grave discovered during the second exhumation in Wola Ostrowiecka (August 2011)". Can we confirm that this image is related to this article? The File Page says nothing of it, and inserting a random or unattributed exhumation in this article is WP:SYN (ie. murders happened in volyn, this image is of murders in volyn, therefore it must be from this event). For all we know it could be Nazi or NKVD victims--Львівське (говорити) 23:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The photo should have a secondary source or else, as far as Wikipedia (but not commons) is concerned it falls under OR. Having said that I doubt that the photo is inauthentic. There are other photos out there of the same exhumation which show the same thing in even more grisly detail. Problem is those other photos are probably copyrighted - in the Wola Ostrowiecka massacre they could probably be used under fair use though, but probably not here. Otherwise, if this photo was published by IPN at some point maybe we could use it.VolunteerMarek 02:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a photo that I received from Polish historian Leon Popek (working in IPN) who participated in the exhumation. Leon Popek granted his permition for Commons and I uploaded this picture. How can I give you the source???? The cource is Leon Popek and Wikimedia Commons! GlaubePL (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Has the photo been published anywhere? Like in an IPN report or anything?VolunteerMarek 06:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this photo exactly, but I saw similar photos somewhere in internet. GlaubePL (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked for it, but the only hit is to the Wiki commons version. There is another photo from 1992 or so of Popek and exhumed bodies from an earlier exhumation.

Here's the thing. I don't doubt the authenticity of this photo. But just like article text needs to be based on secondary sources or else it's OR, so do the images that we use. Unless a particular image is completely non-controversial, we should stick to public-domain images that have been published and verified by secondary sources. Yes I know that this makes it very hard to include images - usually images published in secondary sources are going to be copyrighted, hence not in PD. The unpublished images might be PD but they're not based on secondary sources. So you get stuck between the Scylla and Hybridis of PD and OR. But sticking to the policy is the only way to keep this honest. I've seen way too many sketchy images used to push POV (and which are still used to push POV) and I've objected to them there, hence to be consistent I have to object here.

Keep in mind though that non-PD images can be used under fair-use. Here is the google image search for related images [15]. Some of these illustrate the same thing as the image that is being currently fought over, but they have been published in secondary sources. They may not be PD but they could be used here under fair use.VolunteerMarek 08:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In this way we can reject half of Wikimedia Commons. It's bizarre. Known Polish historian (his last book about the massacre in Ostrówki and Wola Ostrowiecka was "historical book of the year" in Poland) grants his photo for Wikimedia, Wikimedia has his e-mail with permition and... it is disputed. GlaubePL (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has his email with permission then that should be enough.VolunteerMarek 22:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

PS, believe me, we *should* reject *more than* half of Wikimedia Commons. Something more like 80-90%.

Picture of the same place from Leon Popek: [16] Visible table with name "Wola Ostr." Any questions? GlaubePL (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems sufficient to me.VolunteerMarek 23:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Denial

I think everybody in this forum, including administration, should read Per Rudling's piece "The OUN, The UPA and the Holocaust" which is about Ukrainian nationalists war crimes' denial (already linked): [17]. Let me cite:

Denial of the fascist and anti-Semitic nature of the OUN, its war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and participation in the Holocaust have become central components of the intellectual history of the Ukrainian diaspora

(page20)

the narrative of denial and myth making around the OUN-UPA is now again mostly the preserve of the extreme right in the diaspora and Ukraine proper.

(page 38)

Additionally, for Polish reading people, examples how this denial looks in practise: [18] (article how Ukrainian nationalists denied crimes in Ostrówki and Wola Ostrowiecka). I think Wikipedia administration should understand that every massive crime has it's deniers and Volhynian slaughter is not an exception. GlaubePL (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Nasz Dziennik as a reliable source, although the factual info in that article is probably correct - one way to see the potential "bias" is to note that the way ND writes up the exhumation and burial of the victims is by focusing on the denial aspect of it by *some* Ukrainian organizations while not paying much attention to the fact that this reburial was supported and green lit by Ukrainian authorities themselves (mówił ks. bp Marcjan Trofimiak, ordynariusz łucki, dziękując ukraińskim władzom za umożliwienie godnego pochówku ). It's a bit like the Zawadka Morochowska thing brought up by Bandurist up above - the source is unreliable, but the basic info is probably true enough.

Along similar lines, there's a part in Motyka's "Od Rzezi..." where he talks about how the monument to the Poles killed in a particular massacres by UPA (Parosle? or maybe one of these two) was actually upkept and taken care off through out the post war period by a local Ukrainian farmer.

With regard to Rudling, we should make up our minds - either include him through out, including his casualty estimates (possibly noting some problems), and his statement about this denialism, or exclude him. I think if we go by strict interpretation of NPOV and RS policy, that would suggest inclusion.VolunteerMarek 23:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

GaubePL, is this in relation to you accusing me of "denial" when I removed the pic? Because that was, and still is, a huge accusation to make to another editor.--Львівське (говорити) 02:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer you to explain this edition: [19] You wrote that the OUN-B goal, specified at the Second Conference of the OUN-B, was to remove non-Ukrainians from the social and economic spheres of a future Ukrainian state. But the source (Gibney's "Immigration...") referenced in the article says:

Simultaneously, steps were undertaken to eliminate "foreign elements" in Ukraine. OUN-B posters and leaflets incited the Ukrainian population to murder Poles and "Judeo-Muscovites". Since the majority of Jews in German-occuppied Ukraine had already perished at the hands of the Nazis, the OUN-B concentrated its assault on Poles. In February 1943 ,taking into account the possibility of Germany's defeat, the Third Conference of the OUN-B finalized its plans. Fearing that the Polish-Ukrainian conflict would compel Poles to gravitate toward an alliance with Soviet power-base in Western Ukraine, the OUN-B leadership also reasoned that the victorious Allies, who would determine the postwar border settlements, would be forced to recognize ethnically homogenous Ukrainian lands as a fait acompli. In the late winter and early spring of 1943 , the assault on Polish settlements began. Backed by peasant self-defence units, the OUN-B detachments attacked Polish villages at night or in the early morning, butchering all inhabitants regardless age or sex.

So the source clearly states, that the 3rd Conference decided to murder Poles, but you misquoted that it just wanted to remove them from social and economic spheres. It makes a difference! GlaubePL (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting the source. You are citing page 204, which clearly says social/economic spheres; and posting an unrelated quote from page 205. I fixed the quote, you reverted and added extra info from page 205. I then fixed the quote again, and added a summary on the leaflets info you above posted. This should be clear as day to anyone who is actually reading the information--Львівське (говорити) 01:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

VM, why did you remove this tag when it was already established that it blatantly misrepresented the source?--Львівське (говорити) 04:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Another Lvivskie's edition: [20]. The number of Polish victims in Galicia according to Snyder decreased from 25k to 20k while Snyder writes about 25k. Ukrainian casualties "in the region" Lvivskie stated as high as 2k-20k while cited source (Motyka "Od rzezi...") dismisses the number of 20k! (acc. to Motyka it was 10-15k). Besides, "the region" was not only Volhynia and Galicia, but also Lublin district. So, these editions had nothing to do with WER rules. GlaubePL (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Next Lvivskie's edition: [21]. The source says about 50-60,000 victims in Volhynia, Lwivskie wrote: 35,000. GlaubePL (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You are fully aware of the chart and where those figures come from. Please stop trolling for ref errors.--Львівське (говорити) 01:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In terms of the figure in the lede and the infobox - what exactly is the objection here? The present figures reflect what sources say. The only alternative I see is changing them to the figures of Siemaszko (casualties of up to 140,000 Poles killed) which is the number given in some Western sources like Rudling. There is the Katchanovski number of "more than 35,000", but 1) Katchanovski is a public policy guy not a historian, 2) it's not clear what he's basing this on and 3) "more than 35,000" is very much consistent with the 40,000-60,000 for Volhynia given by other sources, 4) his numbers are for Volhynia alone.

So please, leave the numbers alone.VolunteerMarek 01:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I had no idea that you decided Katchanovski wasn't a good enough source for you, even though he cites Hrytsiuk, who seems to be up there with Motyka as a reference figure. Also flies against Magocsi. Not to mention you've put in the low-ball figures for Ukrainians killed using only the one source you like, and qualified it with the "also including Vistula" remark even though no other source out there says it. Yeah, we have a dispute here. You're cherry picking. And why do you keep bringing up Siemaszko in the sense of "if we use the higher bound Ukrainian numbers, then we should use the EXTRMELY OFF THE WALL Polish numbers". You're comparing 10k with 100k as if 'higher = higher'--Львівське (говорити) 02:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I already addressed Katchanovski above:

1. He is not a historian, unlike some of the other sources. This was the same objection as that raised in regard to Piotrowski above (who's a "sociologist of history"). Consistency requires that we apply the same standard.

2. His "more than 35,000" is not inconsistent with other, more numerous, more precise sources, by actual historians.

3. The "more than 35,000" is a number for ONLY Volhynia and does not include the Eastern Galicia figure. We've been through this - we cannot use numbers for a sub-region on one hand and numbers for numerous other regions, over a greater period of time on the other hand.

4. It's not clear what he is basing his numbers on.

Also, I don't know why you bring up Magosci. His number of 20k Ukrainians killed is based on Motyka's old number, which Motyka lowered and it's implicitly included in the article.

You also just changed 15,000 (which is the most up to date estimate) to ... 30,000. [22] How? If you keep bringing up Magosci, then at least use his number of 20k.

You removed the part of about Operation Vistula, [23] but that is explicitly in the source. The 10-15k, or the 20k number does include those killed after the war by the communist authorities.

You changed 3k to 20k even though 20k is not in any reliable sources, with all of them talking about 2 to 3 k.

You changed the lower bound of 70k, clearly supported by sources to 50k [24], supposedly based on Magosci. The page given is 621. There's nothing on 621 about this (it's about Crimean Tartars). If even the text is supported by the source here then ... well, yes, it does look like Magosci is in the minority here - though my guess is that he's simply talking about Polish casualties in Volhynia.

Finally, you just violated the 1RR restriction of this article, of which you are well aware. Please self revert.VolunteerMarek 02:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If Motyka is claiming Vistula counts now, then that contradicts other scholars and should be stated separately. Vistula itself has its own range of deaths from different scholars. Mag says 50, Wolczuk says 60, why not just state the lower bound for what it is rather than rely SOLELY on Motyka like you're doing here? It's really a problem when all sources talk about 43-44, or 43-47, and now Motyk is including figures from 48-49; the source I'm looking at now says 12k killed by Poles in eastern Poland in 1948-49. --Львівське (говорити) 03:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

?? Several of your statements are confusing. Sure Vistula has its own range, and Motyka has gone ahead and included it with the other numbers, giving 10 to 15k total. What is this Wolczuk source? Where can I access it? Part of the problem is that pretty much any source BUT Magosci is giving numbers which are at least 60k - the discrepancy probably arises from the fact that Magosci is talking just about deaths in Volhynia but does not make it explicitly clear. And, umm, Operation Vistula WAS 1947, so it's within the 43-47 range, so Motyka is NOT including figures from 48-49. What is this source that you're looking at right now - I can't comment on it since without knowing what it is, I can't be looking at it myself.VolunteerMarek

And the 12k killed in eastern Poland - if that is supposed to refer to Ukrainians - doesn't make any sense. OW concluded in 1947. By end of that year all Ukrainians had been resettled and/or already killed. Any killings that happened after that were of individuals - certainly not thousands. Additionally other estimates for ALL people killed by communists for 1945-1948 give numbers along the lines of 10k. Hence if that info was true it would mean that more Ukrainians were killed than the total number of ALL people killed. Which doesn't make sense.VolunteerMarek 03:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's in the Marples book. And the only reference to year in the paragraph talks about 48-49, but the chapter ends with the figure. Maybe I read it wrong, but that's what it read to me. And Magocsi isn't talking just about Volhynia, if he was, then that'd be 20k Ukrainians dead in Volhynia.--Львівське (говорити) 04:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Snyder, in To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and For All, page 87, says 50-100,000 Poles and Ukrainians were killed betwee 1943-1947.--Львівське (говорити) 04:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

and in Causes of Ethnic Cleansing, Snyder says 106k Poles + Ukrainians combined--Львівське (говорити) 05:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

K here's another issue I'm seeing. Snyder says 40k Poles killed in Volhynia in July '43, and that the UPA killed as many Ukrainians as Poles in 1943. Heroes and Villains acknowledges the July factoid (but states no figure), but says the number of Ukrainian victims was higher in October, and that in the summer of 1943, the number of victims for each side were equal. --Львівське (говорити) 04:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here we have another example of Lvivskie's "understanding" of the sources. "Equal number of victims for each side" and the alleged beginning of massacres in Chelm region by Poles are not opinions of Marples. Marples's book "Heroes and Villains..." is a kind of rewiew. Marples reportes what different authors say. "Equal number" and "beginning in Chelm region" are opinions of Ukrainian scholar Serhiichuk, critically cited by Marples. Read this: The book [of Serhiichuk] uses primary sources selectively to present a partisan version of history that in every instance favors the Ukrainian version of events and denigrates the Poles at every opportunity. (Marples, p. 231). So, the onesided source devastated by Marples's critique, was turned by Lvivskie into Marples opinion... Lovely! GlaubePL (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Killings in Chelm region in 1942-1943

The version based on Magosci and misquoted Marples (in fact onesided Serchiichuk)...

Who started the cycle of massacres remains a subject of controversy and dispute. The killing of Ukrainians by Poles predated the Volhynian massacres in both Lublin and Krakow, with the 1942 massacre of Ukrainians in Chelm being the earliest such instance that would spark reprisals.

...is radical POV based on OUN-UPA propaganda. I propose more accurate version, in new section. I have it im my sandbox: [25] GlaubePL (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

From the way I remember it, there were some *individual* killings in the region both by Ukrainians and Poles, pre 1943 - with the Poles claiming (probably justifiably) that they were targeting individual collaborators or Ukrainian policemen. This was of course very different than any mass scale action and not comparable to UPA's campaigns in Volhynia and Galicia. But it was used by UPA for propaganda purposes. Motyka's pretty explicit about it and spells out clearly how it was a myth.

There's two ways we can approach this in the article. One is that somebody insists on making this claim in the text, in which case obviously other sources should be added - in that case the info in the sandbox version should be included. Or we could just leave out the claim - the only reliable source which seems to be making it is Magosci - and not include the sandbox info.VolunteerMarek 22:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer new section. If we leave out it, finally somebody will come and will add it the Magocsi version again. BTW. Can you check Snyder claim that in Chelm region Ukrainian casualties were 396 people? (it is in the article in the section about German occupation) I tried to find it in Polish edition of "Reconstruction..." but did not succeed. GlaubePL (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll look it up when I get home.VolunteerMarek 01:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It says Poles in the Chelm region liquidated 394 leaders of Ukrainian society on grounds of collaboration. It's not clear what time period this is referring to. The sentence has a footnote which says O.S. Sadovyi, "Kudy priamuiut' poliaky?" Litopys UPA, Vol. 2, 52: Il'ioushyn, OUN-UPA i ukrainsk'ke pytannia, 107.VolunteerMarek 04:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's in a paragraph about events after the partition of Poland but before Barbarrosa (thus, preceding the Volhyn massacres). If Snyder says this uncritically it ought to stay, regardless of the original source. Snyder, a reliable source, can be assumed to know what he is doing when he uses primary or other sources.Faustian (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't say that this was in the 1942-1943 period.VolunteerMarek 06:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not. It's very strongly implied that it was in the 1939-1941 period (probably after 1939). The article currently seems to get it right. Some sporadic killing of those deemed to be collaborators by Poles, plans by Poles for a military take-over of these lands, OUN-B deciding to preempt these Polish plans by slaughtering Poles. Nice work here, btw.Faustian (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The section in general is talking about "Decapitation of Civil Society" - the disappearance and killing of social leaders as part of the cause for the violence. Snyder sort of switches the timing sentence to sentence, but in general you're probably right.VolunteerMarek 07:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I found it, thanks! Snyder indeed does not provide a year (so it could be understood it was before Barbarossa) and cites O.Sadovyi "Kudy priamuyut Poliaky" and Ilyushin. I have another Ilyushin book ("UPA and AK", Warsaw 2009, p.101), who writes more about it. O.Sadovyi is a pseudonim of Myroslav Prokop, OUB-B member. Ilyushin writes that Prokop's brochure issued in early 1944 blamed Poles for killings in Chelm region yet in April 1942 ("jeszcze w kwietniu 1942"). Motyka adds more about Prokop/Sadovyi brochure ("Od rzezi...", p.290):

[The brochure] had clearly propagandic character thus treating it as neutral source, as it is done sometimes, has to be considered as a serious methodological error.

So, Snyder based on a biased propagandic source (the brochure) and on Ilyushin who cited the same source. This shows the general problem with Western historians who ucritically cite Ukrainian sources, mostly secondary and propagandic (see Rudlings remarks about Ukrainian diaspora scholarship). Snyder is more carefull than Magocsi, but it seems they both were hoodwinked in this case. GlaubePL (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, sort of the same thing is true with respect to Western authors and the Siemaszkos, whom Motyka is pretty critical of (at least of the conclusions they draw).VolunteerMarek 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We have to be careful here and avoid original research. Presumably Snyder (and Ilyushin), as a reliable source, can tell whether some piece of information he takes from another source happens to be credible or not. He may have used a piece of propaganda, but that particular piece may have been based on fact. Second-guessing a reliable source such as Snyder is original research. Unless another relaible surce explictly states that Snyder made a mistake (in which case we would report it) we shouldn't make it look like Snyder's info is mistaken, just because the original source is propagandistic. While it is unacceptable for wikipedia editors to use such a tainted primary source to build an article, using Snyder if he happens to use this is okay.Faustian (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also, just on the basis of a common-sense test, I'm sure there were some assassinations and killings of Ukrainian leaders in Chelm region which the Polish underground regarded as collaborators. I think something about it is also mentioned in Motyka. The key difference was that these kinds of individual killings and score settling were completely different from the mass killings that happened in Volhynia.VolunteerMarek 22:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue with all these conflicts is that both sides generally consider themselves to be blame-free (or as blame-free as possible) victims. You forget the tension in Eastern Europe throughout the WWI-WWII period--Poland was not looked upon kindly, e.g., its occupation of the Vilnius region. Or, while the Poles helped drive the Bolsheviks out of Latvia (Latgale), their desire to keep Daugavpils led to the Latvians having to directly threaten to attack the Poles unless they withdrew. (From the Polish perspective, these were all acts of self-preservation.) If there were preemptive actions by the Ukrainians, they were not from baseless fears or suspicions, so let's put a lid on one-sided accusations of propaganda. There is more than plenty of blame to go around to indict everyone.

Conversely, we should be careful not to directly equate either side's patriotism with a desire to massacre one's neighbors. There are enough of those allegations going around Eastern Europe already. Again, the challenge is to create an inclusive view of scholarship on the topic. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally, yes, which is why this stuff is so hard to write about. At the same time, being careful with sources and trying to portray the events in a neutral manner does not mean throwing critical thinking skills out the window and letting in FRINGE-y stuff in.VolunteerMarek 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime I'll see if I can do something about the somewhat disjointed narrative. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

PS, that's why Magocsi, for example, being a renowned scholar, can't simply be eliminated as someone who is hoodwinked. The more that we incorporate, the better, ultimately, the article will be. Meanwhile we need to be mindful (on either side) of content such as what I updated, which, at least in the specific paragraph—absent of other context actually in the article, implied Ukrainian nationals (patriots, no qualifiers) set about mass murdering Poles. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I repeat - this is an opinion of Motyka, the autor of monographs about OUN-UPA, found by Snyder as "fundamental" (and all Polish historiography). You apparently did not read my proposal in my sandbox. I don't propose to cut Magocsi, I want to show all views. And please don't mix Lithuania etc. with this topic. GlaubePL (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I did read your sandbox and found it lacking. For example, murdering someone as an accused Nazi collaborator does not mean there are no grounds for retribution. That characterization is a Polish POV, i.e., they were Nazis who deserved it, killing them couldn't possibly be a reason for reprisals. That contention ignores the entire pre-war period of tension between the Ukrainians and the Polish state, particularly the Polonization campaign right before the war, meaning that any act of singling out and killing any Ukrainians—for any reason regardless of motivation or justification—would inevitably be interpreted as a "first strike" in wartime. You cannot simply quote Polish scholarship as the ultimate arbiter regarding justification or not of Ukrainian actions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, that sandbox is suppose to address one particular issue, so of course it ignores the interwar tensions and the Polonization campaign. Of course these are important but they are covered somewhere else in the article. And again, there *is* a huge difference between oppressive - and monumentally stupid - policies of the Polish government which nonetheless did not result in mass casualties and deaths, and mass killings that are in the tens of thousands of people.VolunteerMarek 23:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

With past hostilities feeding the already heightened tensions of wartime, you only have to pull on one little thread for the whole thing to unravel. Polish sources which pass judgement on what does, or does not, constitute a "Polish" act warranting "Ukrainian" reprisal—if represented properly in GlaubePL's sandbox, and I have no reason to doubt that—would appear, at best, to be extraordinarily naive.

Quite honestly, for cooperative work to succeed on this article and others, we all need to keep several things in perspective regarding WWII:

1. Who started the blood-letting in Eastern Europe? Hitler and Stalin. Not any of the peoples of Eastern Europe.
2. That some used the war as an excuse to kill anyone other than those invading their homes is the greatest tragedy of the war; that said, the collaborators (with either invading power—or both) among the peoples of Eastern Europe do not define any of the peoples of Eastern Europe.
3. All the peoples of Eastern Europe were victims.

The sooner we adopt that perspective the more constructive our interactions will be. @Volunteer Marek, I appreciate your perspective, but there is no advantage to be gained in completing any statement of the form "X murdered # of Y for every # Y murdered of X." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think all of these are true, but I don't think they are relevant to GlaubePL's sandbox text which's purpose is to address a very narrow point. I do however think that more info in the article on German provocations, as well as the decapitation of civil Ukrainian society by Stalin as some causes for the conflict would be good. To be clear, the direct responsibility for the massacres lies with OUN-B and UPA, but the reasons why this particular extreme brand of Ukrainian nationalism (there were non-extreme variations of Ukrainian nationalism but they got pushed out) came to dominate in 1943-1945 did have a lot to do with the Nazis and Soviets (and, unfortunately, to some extent also the misguided and stupid actions of the Polish interwar government, or at least parts of it).VolunteerMarek 19:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I see little interest here to change status quo which is extreme POV (proved by Motyka). So, sources have to speak. GlaubePL (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, I did not notice Paweł cut it. GlaubePL (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Example of problematic content

"According to Polish historian Piotr Łossowski, the method used in most of the attacks was the same. At first, local Poles were assured that nothing would happen to them. Then, at dawn, a village was surrounded by armed members of the UPA, behind whom were peasants with axes, hammers, knives, and saws. All the Poles encountered were murdered; sometimes they were herded into one spot, to make it easier. After a massacre, all goods were looted, including clothes, grain, and furniture. The final part of an attack was setting fire to the village.[90]"

One source, even attributed, is insufficient for encyclopedic documentation of WWII atrocities. For example, there are ostensibly reputable sources that state Lithuanians bludgeoned Jews to death, then sang folk songs as they sat on piles of their still-warm bodies. Utterly false. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, in this case there are multiple sources, including some Ukrainian ones, which tell the same story. In fact the "According to..." part in that sentence is not really necessary. I'm sure a lot of [ ] [ ] [ ] brackets could be added to the end there.VolunteerMarek 22:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Then we should spend some time crafting content on which Polish and Ukrainian sources both agree to avoid "he said/she said". (With lots of brackets, as you say.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it's impossible to write an article without the he said/she said. But honestly, I don't quite understand what your objection to this passage is. The only possible "sensationalist" details is the one about the peasants with axes, though that kind of thing is found in lots of sources (at least for Volhynia, in Lublin/Chelm Polish and Ukrainian peasants for the most part tried to save each other, and Eastern Galicia was "in between" as far as the peasants were concerned). Other than that the description is factual - that's how the killings in Volhynia happened: surround village at dawn, move in and systematically kill everyone, loot and burn the place. In some cases there was resistance and then it might have played out differently.VolunteerMarek 23:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree. We do need more than one source for axes et al. That is just common sense given how many false or exaggerated claims there are which circulate about WWII events. Single attribution in this case detracts from the content (coming at it reading it as someone who is uninformed). If we can improve the flow of agreed-to content we might be able to take some of the "ABC says XYZ" constructs and replace them with citations. That will also help with the he said she said. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

External Links

In the external links - (Polish) Genocide in Volhynia - http://www.bj.uj.edu.pl/~plok/genocide/index.html - you have a site with falsely acreditted photographs that Polish jounalists have shown were incorrectly labeled.

Fot. 12. Zdjęcie ze zbiorów dr Aleksandra Kormana z wyjaśnieniem: ŁOBOZOWA (?), pow. Tarnopol, jesień 1943 lub 1944 roku. Terroryści OUN-UPA dokonali okrutnego mordu na polskich dzieciach. W alei starych drzew, do każdego drzewa przybijali wokół małe dzieci, tworząc tzw. "wianuszki" Aleję tę, na rozwieszonym transparencie nazwali "drogą do samostijnej Ukrainy". Na zdjęciu jedno z drzew, na którym przybito czworo małych dzieci. Zdjęcie to publikuje J. Węgierski, informując, że pochodzi ono ze zbioru M. Domiszewskiego.

Which although the children are acreditted to having been killed by OUN-UPA and wrapped in barbed wire, were infact killed by their Gypsy mother some ten years earlier and the arbed wire is folds in the photograph.

I feel that this sort of site should be removed from the list.

Bandurist (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.Faustian (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That work is apparently from 2000. The research which showed that particular photo to have been of a different thing (an insane woman killed her children, AFAICR) post dates that (2006 or so I believe). So it's understandable why that photo would be included and mis-attributed. Still, I removed the external link.VolunteerMarek 19:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/news.rol?newsId=1680 To nie są polskie dzieci Twierdzimy tak, ponieważ posiadamy niezaprzeczalne dowody, że wspomniane zdjęcie — pierwowzór projektu pomnika — przedstawia zupełnie inne wydarzenie. Miało ono miejsce w nocy z 11 na 12 grudnia 1923 r., cztery ofiary to dzieci cygańskie, a zabójcą była ich obłąkana matka, 32-letnia M.D. Zdarzenie jest szczegółowo opisane w pracy wydanej drukiem w 1928 r. (a zapewne też w ówczesnej prasie). publikacji, która powoływała się na artykuł z roku 1928. Obydwa teksty są publikacjami z zakresu medycyny sądowej. Pierwszy to artykuł „Psychoza szałowo-posępnicza w kazuistyce sądowo-psychiatrycznej”, zamieszczony w „Roczniku Psychiatrycznym” z 1928 r. Jego autorem był Witold Łuniewski, wieloletni dyrektor zakładu w Tworkach. Druga publikacja to „Podręcznik medycyny sądowej dla studentów i lekarzy”, wydany w 1948 r. przez Wiktora Grzywo-Dąbrowskiego, profesora Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego i członka komitetu redakcyjnego „Rocznika Psychiatrycznego”. To właśnie fakt, że zabójcą dzieci była ich matka, przyciągnął uwagę uczonych. Nieszczęsna kobieta zabiła czworo dzieci w akcie rozpaczy po aresztowaniu męża i rozpadzie grupy cygańskiej, w której dotąd żyła, w przekonaniu, że grozi im niechybna śmierć głodowa. Następnego dnia zgłosiła się na policję. Z polecenia sądu została umieszczona w zakładzie psychiatrycznym, gdzie stwierdzono u niej „psychozę szałowo-posępniczą”, dziś powiedzielibyśmy zapewne o ciężkim przypadku depresji. Jak pisze Łuniewski, jej czyn „był psychopatologiczną próbą dokonania rozszerzonego samobójstwa, którego chora nie doprowadziła do końca”.

Obydwie wymienione publikacje zawierają fotografie z miejsca zbrodni. W „Podręczniku medycyny sądowej” zamieszczono zdjęcie, które oznaczyliśmy nr II. Nie jest ono takie samo jak zdjęcie nr I. Czytelnik dostrzeże, że zdjęcie I jest jego lustrzanym odbiciem. Fotografia zamieszczona w pracy Łuniewskiego, którą oznaczyliśmy nr III, jest innym zdjęciem — przedstawia niewątpliwie tę samą scenę, ale sfotografowaną z nieco innej strony. „Przejmujący grozą obraz tej zbrodni został sfotografowany przez urząd śledczy”, pisze Łuniewski, i zapewne wykonano kilka zdjęć z różnych perspektyw. Możliwe, że w archiwach sądowych lub policyjnych zachowały się inne jeszcze zdjęcia tej sceny. Ponadto zdjęcie I różni się od pozostałych ukośnymi jasnymi liniami, które kilku komentatorów wzięło błędnie za drut kolczasty. Są to zapewne ślady zgięć pierwotnej fotografii lub zarysowań na negatywie. Dwa lata później zdjęcie pojawia się w pracy J. Węgierskiego „Armia Krajowa w okręgach Stanisławów i Tarnopol ” z podpisem „zamordowane przez oddziały SS-Galicja dzieci polskie w rejonie Kozowej (pow. brzeżański) (ze zbioru W. Załogowicza)”. Aleksander Korman w pracy „Stosunek UPA do Polaków na ziemiach południowo-wschodnich II Rzeczypospolitej” (Wrocław 2002) zamieszcza najwięcej informacji o zdjęciu i zbrodni, którą ma ono przedstawiać. Twierdzi, że zdjęcie pochodzi ze wsi Kozowa lub Łozowa, pow. Tarnopol, zapewne z grudnia 1943 lub 1944 r., skąd grupa ocalałych z rzezi Polaków dostarczyła je na konspiracyjną placówkę 14. Pułku AK na przedmieściach Lwowa. Tam trafiło w ręce Władysława Załogowicza (na którego relację się powołuje), który wiele lat później przekazał je Krzaklewskiemu, a ten autorowi. Pisze też, że upowcy poczynili wiele takich „wianuszków” z dzieci, przybijając je do drzew w alei, którą nazwali „drogą do samostijnej Ukrainy”. Poznajemy nawet nazwisko przypuszczalnego dowódcy oddziału UPA, odpowiedzialnego za rzeź, i inne szczegóły zbrodni. W wydanym rok później wspomnianym już albumie Korman zamieszcza zdjęcie dwukrotnie, ponownie z informacją, że przedstawia jedno z drzew przy „drodze do samostijnej Ukrainy” w powiecie tarnopolskim. Z kolei w liczącym ponad 1100 stron tomie H. Komańskiego i Sz. Siekierki o ludobójstwie w województwie tarnopolskim (Wrocław 2004) czytamy, że zdjęcie pochodzi ze zbioru St. Krzaklewskiego, a wykonał je niemiecki fotograf wojskowy we wsi Kozówka, pow. Brzeżany, w listopadzie 1943 r. Choć praca ta ma bogatą bazę źródłową i rozbudowany aparat naukowy, nie podaje, na jakiej podstawie przypisano tę scenę do wsi Kozówka. Dodajmy, że od kilku lat zdjęcie I pojawia się w różnych publikacjach i w Internecie (np. w Wikipedii), a jego opis obrasta w coraz to nowe szczegóły rzekomej zbrodni. Bandurist (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that's the article, from 2007 I believe. BTW, I noticed that no one has bothered to change the name of the image on Commons/en-Wiki so I raised it there on talk [26].VolunteerMarek 19:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

the link for (Polish) a Polish website of Światowy Związek Żołnierzy Armii Krajowej doesn;t seem to work. Should be corrected or removed Bandurist (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The link for: (English) An abbreviated preface to the monographic book of Władysław Siemaszko and Ewa Siemaszko, November 2000. Doesn't work. Should be removed or corrected. Bandurist (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted tags

I'm sorry but these tags [27], [28], as well as some of the other ones you've been littering the article with are completely unwarranted. You're basically putting them in because you have been unable to force through your own version - unsupported by sources - of the article. That is not a good reason for including such tags.VolunteerMarek 00:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but when reliable, neutral sources are reverted and biased/weighty statements put in - and let's face it, this entire talk page is raging on about the quality of the lede - then a tag making reference to the ongoing dispute regarding the lede or systemic bias is entirely justified. You are aware of the talk page, right? How you can try to cover up that there is an ongoing issue here is just beyond me. Vecruma and Chaosdruid have both voiced concerns on this page about the bias in the article. It's one thing to dispute the sources but to dispute the dispute? jeez--Львівське (говорити) 01:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

But reliable, neutral sources are not reverted... except by you. Biased/weighty statements are not being put in, etc.VolunteerMarek 01:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Name one reliable/neutral source I've reverted? One. The above is a reliable source, but it's an opinion and putting one scholar's biased (he's defending his own work, he's biased towards himself) opinion in the lede is weighty. No single scholar should dominate the lede in the way you guys have done with Motyka.--Львівське (говорити) 02:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's back up, as in back up this claim I'm sorry but when reliable, neutral sources are reverted and biased/weighty statements put in with diffs.VolunteerMarek 04:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am also concerned by the unencyclopedic manner the article has evolved into. There are just too many POV adjectives which make the article unencyclopedic and almost unreadable, almost a piece of propoganda. There are many problems with the sources. One of the major problems is the systematic bias which has allowed many inaccurate statements and photograph captions to be published and republished, even after they have been shown to be inaccurate. This is one of the problems that has plagued many of the publications from Wroslaw and made many of them unusable. I feel that the tags are warrented until the lede and tone are corrected. Bandurist (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you be specific? I think the article is pretty much fine, but if there are some particular pieces which you can show to be based on unreliable sources then we can remove them. AFAICT all you could find so far is one external link which, because it was somewhat old, had one incorrect photo buried in it somewhere.VolunteerMarek 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the Lede - much of the second paragraph probably belongs in the article body rather than the Lede. WIthin the article, there may be some excessive grisly details. For example, the testimony of the Polish priet from Lutsk detailing how he heard that a Polish priest was sawed in half etc. This is hearsay by a non-nuetral source that was not a direct witness of the alleged event. Overall however, the article seems more or less nuetral to me. Faustian (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph probably should be rewritten to exclude the quotes but I think that the overall aims of UPA do belong in the lede, as an explanation for the course of their actions. The stuff about posters and leaflets can probably be moved to the body of the article.

As to the description of the atrocities - there should be *some* description because many sources emphasize how brutal the killings were. However, I agree that this shouldn't be over done and certainly we should not use unreliable sources or hearsay for this. The part which mentions - but which needs a cite - Zycie religijne w Polsce pod okupacja 1939-1945 should be looked into. The other stuff appears to be from Davies, Snyder and Fergusson (I've expressed my reservations about using Fergusson before but he is a reliable source).VolunteerMarek 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you've written here. I think some grisly details, taken from Davies or Snyder, are indeed encyclopedic and necessary. We shouldn't ignore the type of brutality involved. I objected to Zycie religijne w Polsce pod okupacja 1939-1945 specifically, because the source is questionable (hearsay described by a Roman Catrholic priest from Lutsk - remember the vindication campaign against Orthodox by Polish Roman Catholics? Not very unbiased relayer of information) and the amount of such details seems excessive. If we're going to remove something, it ought to be that info from that source rather than from Snyder or Davies.Faustian (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Demonizing the enemy is common practice, but has no place in an encyclopedia. Much of the information regarding brutality on both sides is all hearsay and cannot be backed up. Bandurist (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you be specific as to which text is based on hearsay, rather than reliable sources?VolunteerMarek 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I will. BTW why was the Template:Systemic bias tag removed? 12:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)