Talk:Slava Ukraini

Discussion about removed information from the article.

Upon request by others, I am on the talk page to discuss my additions, why I believe that they are a necessary and informative addition to the article, and why I think they shouldn't be removed. I will be going over the three additions I made to the article which were removed, and the reasons why I added them, and I think they should stay there.

1. Ukrainian fascist and nationalist groups. The reason why I added this into the article is because without context, saying "Ukrainian groups" does not mean anything. A group of friends? A group of birds? A group of objects? Saying that only "Ukrainian groups" were responsible for the popularity of the phrase would be too uninformative and unrepresentative of the history of the phrase. As cited later on in the article, although not the origins of the phrase, the phrase "Slava Ukraini" was popularised through the Ukrainian League of Fascists, which would later merge with the OUN-B, with Bandera using "Slava Ukraini, Heroyam Slava" as a slogan through World War 2. These groups (Ukrainian League of Fascists and OUN-B) were undoubtedly following nationalist and fascist ideologies (For example, OUN-B was allied with the Nazis for 4 years during World War 2, believed in the extermination of Jews as an inferior race), and denying the fact that these ideologies were present in these groups, that popularised the phrase, would simply be wrong. A scholarly article from a respected and well-established historian (Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe), covers this, but the citation from later on in the Slava Ukraini article would be removed.

2. "It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists,  after having been popularized as a greeting in the early 1920s by the League of Ukrainian Fascists, which would later merge with the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN)" There was simply no reason to remove this sentence from the article, the way I see it. It provides a valuable insight into how the phrase got popularised, and is very relevant to the article (this sentence was from the section about the Ukrainian War of Independence and World War II, which was already covering the history of the phrase in the aforementioned wars, so it was perfectly relevant and made perfect sense to continue and talk about how the phrase gained popularity during the aforementioned wars.) The removal of this sentence, which discusses how it was popularised by fascist groups, seems nothing but an attempt to cover up the truth, and "clean up" the history of the phrase, by removing claims of its undeniable fascist links.

3. "However, some political figures have gained controversy over the use of the phrase. Germany's former foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, gained significant controversy over his use of the phrase online in 2017, with critics stating it was a neo-Nazi phrase, and likening it to someone saying "Sieg Heil" as a greeting in Germany." Prior to this sentence, the article stated some of the political figures that were using the phrase to show support with Ukraine. I believe that this is a relevant addition as it gives another example on a person who was using the phrase to show support for Ukraine, and the reactions and responses that were generated online through Gabriel's use of the phrase. There were in fact people who were criticising, along with some people who were supporting, Gabriel's use of the phrase, and it is true that in Germany in 2017 the use of the phrase was seen as very controversial and linked with fascism, explaining why some were likening it to some saying "Sieg Heil" in Germany. There was not any bias in this sentence displaying whether it should be likened to "Sieg Heil" or not, it was simply stated how many critics were reacting after seeing Gabriel's use of the statement.

Additional statement: When the user @Ermenrich removed many of my additions from the article, he wrote "Please discuss your addition trying to claim that Ukrainians are fascists in the talk page ;-)" as a note. This user claiming that my addition was trying to claim that "Ukrainians are fascists" is simply untruthful and not reflective of my additions. I added my additions to show the connotations that the phrase is known to have, and how it was used throughout history. This information is very relevant to the overall topic of "Slava Ukraini", and this information was missing in the article beforehand, so in my opinion, my additions were perfectly fair. Of course, this is just my opinion, and all of this is up to discussion and interpretation. Feel free to state what you think about these additions and whether or not they should be in the article or not. This post is a direct response to the users @Ermenrich and @Kleinpecan who had removed the information that was added into the article.

Marlin Monroe (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC).

Marlin Monroe (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This may be moot by now, as later edits seem to have closed the issue - but I wanted to leave another perspective for the record.

What you neglect to mention, is that in addition to peppering the article with various thematic connections to fascism, you also removed an entire paragraph about how the meaning of the phrase has long since lost any far-right connotations in the public imagination in modern times, especially the wake of Euromaidan, and was even chanted by participants in an LGBTQ pride parade.

The article already mentioned the use of "Slava Ukraini" by organizations such as the OUN during WWII - in the broader (and IMHO, in the correct) context of its use, its meaning, and its perception during different points in history. So this information was not missing, nor was anyone trying to "cover up the truth" by intentionally omitting it from the article. But interjecting this one particular archaic historical association throughout the rest of the article, in order to try to make an ideological point or to create a specific impression or imply an association in the mind of the reader - and, moreover, also removing info (or should I say "covering up the truth"? ahem!) as you did because it inconveniently contradicts the impression you wanted to create - these are definite violations of WP:NPOV.

The rest of your arguments are all just variations on similar accusations of "denying the truth", etc., and/or mere restatements of your original agenda or reassertions that you think your edits were appropriate and "fair". I find these reassertions unsubstantiated and unconvincing.

Your edits and your deletions gave me the definite impression that you had a political agenda: wanting to tie "Slava Ukraini" to fascism specifically, even in the modern context of the phrase's popularity after the Euromaidan and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, despite the fact that it is no longer perceived this way & has not been for some time. You say you wanted "to show the connotations that the phrase is known to have" -- was known, and the appropriate place to do this would therefore have been in the section on history, where in fact that information was already entirely present.

The information was already present, even though you claim it was not. I think it just wasn't as prominent as you wanted it to be, or repeated everywhere all over the place as often as suited your political perspective - see WP:WEIGHT. In this light, @Ermenrich's observation that you were intending to tar Ukrainians with the brush of fascism rings truthful, and completely reflective of your additions. I find your objections to the contrary to be rather disingenuous, and your good faith to be seriously suspect. I think his reversion of your edits was appropriate. -- Indnwkybrd (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Connection to ultra-right

I am also extremely embarrassed by the attempts in various ways to remove info from the article about the connection of this slogan with the Ukrainian ultra-right. If you lived in the USSR or the former USSR, then you will definitely associate these words with Ukrainian nationalists, regardless of your views. Moreover, for many decades this phrase was considered a political way to declare one's support for the Ukrainian right or ultra-right. In the same way you can promote that "Long live the queen" is supposedly a purely English national slogan and has nothing to do with the British monarchists. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

We should base our edits not on our feelings, but on reliable sources. First off your edits [1] - It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists in the 1920s and 1930s and is often accompanied by the response "Glory to the heroes!" "Heroiam slava!", which appeared in the 1930s among members of the ultranationalist organization OUN and UPA. - are plain wrong - check when UPA was formed. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"My impressions" are incredibly easy to check against any sources and are clearly known to anyone who deals with the Ukrainian topic. Second, you are taking facts out of context. For example, the user's information above also shows its use in anti-Polish speeches by Ukrainian nationalists. You could easily check this for yourself if you really were determined to seek consensus, and not confrontation with a certain point of view. They became popular among Ukrainian nationalists in the 1930s, including those organizations that later arose. Everything is simple. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You have not addressed the point raised above - your edits - It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists in the 1920s and 1930s and is often accompanied by the response "Glory to the heroes!" "Heroiam slava!", which appeared in the 1930s among members of the ultranationalist organization OUN and UPA. - are plain wrong - check when UPA was formed. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I directly answered this, no need for casuistry (all the more literally repeating the same comment in a clearly demonstrative manner). If wording bothers you, then fix it. This is a matter of a couple of minutes and is clearly more productive than deleting text using grammar problems. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Also far-right use of the slogan is already mentioned in article, there are even two UPA related images. This attempt to push it into special prominence in lead simply fails NPOV.--Staberinde (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As short as possible and with a couple of small images "accidentally" avoiding images of right-wing radical symbols? No thanks. What is true NPOV is the attempt to remove any reference to nationalist ties in this article. The fact that you only decided to participate in the discussion after I brought it to the attention of the admins and even now are trying to act blatantly one-sided is just an extra touch to it. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is clearly presenting OUN connection as the most notable use of this phrase. You need to provide recent high quality RS to support this view. Claims about your personal life experience are not relevant.--Staberinde (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Above you have literally several POLISH, not even Russian sources that this slogan is associated with the Ukrainian ultra-right. Secondly, as I said, this is such a well-known fact that literally anyone can check it in a variety of sources. The fact that you, as a person who claims to be familiar with the Ukrainian topic and squeaks articles about it, pretends to be ignorant of this, is at least extremely suspicious. And you can ignore my answers as much as you like, simply repeating your thesis in different words, this will not change the fact that this phrase has been used for decades as a slogan of the Ukrainian ultra-right and in many respects that is why it caused such rejection in the USSR or among the peoples affected by Ukrainian nationalists. I have lived in Ukraine for more than 20 years, and my Ukrainian relatives come from Western Ukraine (my great-grandfather even participated in the funeral of the fathers of Ukrainian literature), not even Eastern. Do not make a fool out of me who does not know the history of his own people. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's not base our edits on our personal experiences or we never agree.

The sources you refer to are outdated. Please provide modern (2022-) sources to support your edits. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• The page says (in the body of the page) "The modern response "Heroiam slava!" (Glory to the heroes!) appeared in the 1930s among members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN)." No one was removing this. How this should be summarized/included in the lead? I think the current summary in 2nd para of the lead is adequate: "The phrase first appeared at the beginning of the 20th century in different variations, when it became popular among Ukrainians during the Ukrainian War of Independence from 1917 to 1921.[1] From the 1930s it was used by different Ukrainian groups, as well as Ukrainian diaspora groups " and so on. OUN was just one of these groups. But yes, it probably might be mentioned in the 2nd para (I have no strong opinion), rather than in the way you did. But this is not at all about Poles. My very best wishes (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Polish sources are questionable for the reasons already explained (sourcing it to some old men, among other things). You do not have consensus - MyVeryBestWishes made the initial edit, Staberinde supported it, and I also support it. That's three to one.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

So discuss them instead of just serving as cannon fodder in an edit war for my opponents. I will also note that all of you occupy a certain ideological side (you even have this very slogan on your page) cannot be considered a consensus. You're just trying to push your opinion through the power of the majority. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You're just trying to push your opinion through the power of the majority. While this may be a strange concept in Russia, this is more or less how WP:CONSENSUS (and, incidentally, democracy) work...--Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Right now this slogan is very widely used in Ukraine by almost everyone. It is NOT exclusively "associated with the Ukrainian ultra-right" or extreme nationalism. My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Solaire the knight for initiating this discussion instead of simply continuing the revert struggle in the article. There is clearly currently no consensus for the changes, which does not appear to be adequately sourced and seems to push a particular POV. The WP:ONUS is on those trying to make a change to get consensus, so the text should return to the previous version while this is debated civilly here. Please provide strong sources to back up your version persuasively. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Solaire the knight is right, everything is well sourced, there is no reason not to mention such an important matter in the introduction. It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists and the modern response "Heroiam slava!" (Glory to the heroes!) appeared in the 1930s among members of OUN. What specific source are you missing there? Thanks for the reply BobFromBrockley. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

everything is well sourced
I still don't see modern (post-invasion) source saying "It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists" (as your edits are) without explaining the context. You have some? Manyareasexpert (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Why post-invasion? The 2017+ sources are not outdated, such old historical events have long been verified, both by older and newer sources. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Because new sources reflect new changes. See, for example, Likhachev "Far Right, Revolution and Symbols in Ukraine" Using the phrase “Glory to Ukraine!” or even “Glory to the nation!” no longer means, as it did ten years ago, a xenophobic anti-democratic ethno-nationalist position. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Post-2022 sources such as this are relevant to how we talk about the current use of the slogan and should be included as appropriate. But they don't refute the text "It became part of the lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists in the 1920s and 1930s" which is currently sourced to post-2017 scholarly sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Who doesn't think it's still in this connection? Someone may still consider it so. I am not saying that this means a xenophobic anti-democratic attitude, but the earlier connection with nationalism is obvious. If the meaning of the phrase has now changed, you could add it in the introduction, I'm definitely not against it.Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No need for post-2022 sources for 1930s. Sources for “lexicon” in body seem to be sound to me. Which ones do you think are problematic {{Manyareasexpert}}? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Although your edit, Jirka.h23, is different from Solaire’s as it mentions OUN (a good edit, as summarises body) and not UPA (which literally didn’t exist in the time period). I think the other controversial element is “ultra-nationalist”. That’s not a inaccurate description of OUN (especially OUN-B), but it seems unnecessary in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Have edited Jrja.h23 version in a way that hopefully satisfies both sides of this argument. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this version looks good.Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

That version was highly redundant- the “lexicon of Ukrainian nationalists” bit is just a rather fancy way of saying information of the second paragraph of the lead. It was then further redundant by repeating “Ukrainian nationalists” twice in one sentence. Moreover, history of the slogan is covered in the next paragraph, not the first one. I have moved the bit about “glory to the heroes” to the second paragraph and deleted the “lexicon “ part.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Glory to the Cossacks"

This article [2] mentions that during the Ukrainian War of Independence the greeting was used by the "Black Cossacks" with the response "Glory to the Cossacks!" Does anyone know who the "Black Cossacks" are (a quick search on WP does dig anything up)? It might be worth adding.

Generally, other information in that article about the origin of the phrase might be worth adding, but I'd like to find better/more detailed sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I found this, substantiating what's been added to the article: [3]

The chant “Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!” has its origins in the Ukrainian revolution of 1917–20. Soldiers of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR) came up with the slogan, “Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Cossacks!” Interwar nationalists changed the latter part of the chant to “Glory to the heroes!”14 The more militant chant of “Glory to the nation! Death to the enemies!” was not connected with the OUN at all. It originated in the 1990s, in independent Ukraine, among the ranks of the right-wing organization Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense (UNSO).15

There's also this from the same source as was originally added by Tristario [4]:

The greeting became widely popular during the Ukrainian revolution [of 1917 – Ed.]. From 1917, it was used by the squads of the black Cossacks of the Army of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, in the form Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Cossacks! In 1918, during the rule of Hetman Skoropadsky, the greeting was transformed into Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Hetman! In general, during 1918–1922 the Army of the Ukrainian People’s Republic had different variations of responses to the Glory to Ukraine! salutation, including: To Ukraine – Glory!; Glory Forever!; Faith and Glory! After the defeat of the national liberation fight [1917–1921], the salutation was revived in the community of Ukrainian youth in emigration. It became widely popular in the Ukrainian Nationalists League, established in 1925 in Czechoslovakia. The League became one of the co-founders of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

This all looks like relevant information.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that some detail on the use of "Glory to the Cossacks" would be worth including Tristario (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Zoran Milanović

Hi, it seems that Zoran Milanović opinion [5] had little coverage by reliable secondary sources. n1info is not reliable, index.hr is a tabloid. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

[6], euronews is high quality Marcelus (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Euronews is a better source, and also gives us the most accurate translation. Mhorg (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Milanović’s claims about "Slava Ukraini" mirror statements made by Russian officials about the chant.
According to the Kremlin, it is exclusively associated with the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists or OUN, a Ukrainian ultranationalist organisation whose radical faction led by Stepan Bandera collaborated with the Nazis.
Referred to as OUN-B, it carried out massacres of Poles and took part in the Holocaust in Ukraine.
According to academics and historians, "Slava Ukraini" predates the OUN, having been mentioned by the Ukrainian national poet Taras Shevchenko in the 19th century. It was also used by various Ukrainian revolutionaries and activists well before the events of World War II.
Milanović incorrectly claimed the two phrases were equally old and compared them to the infamous Nazi German salute.
See, that's what you need secondary sources for. Please include this analysis into the article. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why the statement of the President of Croatia was removed? Mhorg (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

the statement
The statement itself is not as much important as its analysis from secondary RSs. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In the article there are presidents Von Der Leyen, Poroshenko, Zelensky, Clinton. Instead the only president who speaks of the slogan in negative terms is deleted from the article? This is a NPOV violation and I think it should be restored. Mhorg (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

von der Leyen mention uses primary source as a reference and I agree it can be removed. As well as other parts which are not supported by secondary RS. When they are supported by secondary RS, I think what's important and is to be included into wiki is which analysis a secondary source gives to facts. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Intro redundant and NPOV

I have displaced the too long historical debate about the origins of the motto in the history section. In fact the introduction should always be short and clear, and it wasn’t. When you say “historians” and not “some historians”, it is not NPOV, especially in a matter that is quite seen as problematic. Arorae (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Precisely

@Mhorg:. Hi you have modified the text recently ([7]) without even inserting the blue link to the League of Ukrainian Nationalists and insisting on a very minor and secondary Fascist organisation, that existed only between 1925 and 1929 (not even an article on WP!). Instead of underlining that “Slava Ukraini” already exists since almost 1860 (Shevchenko poem) and was already used by Ukraine Rada in 1917, before even the existence of any kind of “fascism” in Ukraine. I suggest that you have a look to Encyclopedia of Ukraine or to German or Italian WP that presents only facts of the history of the motto. Unfortunately this is not the case here. Arorae (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have question to latest edits, too. I'm reviewing and fixing some now. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest contributions! Arorae (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Rossolinski-Liebe, Stepan Bandera

I noticed latest edits are based on Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe, Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist. Fascism, Genocide, and Cult . This work has a negative review - please see [8]

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

Perfectly said. Arorae (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Rossoliński-Liebe is a recognised scholar. Some Ukrainian historians, mainly apologists for the OUN and the UPA, are of course opposed to his works because they reveal inconvenient truths. There is no reason to remove refrences to his works. @Arorae please self-revert, especially since you removed references to Lipovetsky also. Marcelus (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I will not. Ukrainians are not always apologetic toward the OUN, just have a look to WPuk page about the crimes committed by OUN a members! nothing has to be revealed, even for Ukrainian historians. But definitely Rossoliński-Liebe has his own point of view about Bandera, and his work is not recognised by the majority of historians. Please, instead of inserting text in the intro, discuss first here. Arorae (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

However, the closer the author gets to the present and the more political his state�ments become, the shakier and more questionable his arguments. There is no doubt
that Ukraine (like many other post-Communist countries) has yet to seriously
address the difficult aspects of its history in general, and of collaboration in the
Holocaust in particular. I fear, however, that some of the author’s rather careless
generalizations will have counterproductive effects. These include his cryptic and
euphemistic mention of “political conflicts in 2013–2014” and the “civil war in
2014,” and the mistaken statement that “democracy and the concept of civil
society have not played any major role in Ukrainian cultural, intellectual, and
political life” (p. 556). Addressing critical historical issues needs time—as
Rossolinski-Liebe himself notes (p. 559) ´ —and a favorable overall climate. With
Ukraine at war and its economy under tremendous strain, the prevailing situation
is unfortunately not very conducive to engaging in such painful debates. [9] Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

As correctly said by better scholars than me: “Despite the author’s [Rossoliński-Liebe] insistence on acknowledging his quasi-exclusive focus on the crimes committed by the OUN and UPA, as the two organisations associated with Bandera, at the expense of those perpetrated either by Nazi Germany or the Ukrainian police, by the Red Army, or by the Polish Home Army in its retaliation against the mass murder of Poles by the UPA, and in the absence of limited information beyond some dry figures related to the number of victims, the narrative necessarily appears rather one-sided and requires considerable knowledge on the part of the reader about the Holocaust in Ukraine to fill in the missing pieces of information. While it is difficult to imagine how this could have been avoided given the purpose of the book, which is to provide a biography of Bandera and the organisations he led in the course of his lifetime, the picture of Ukrainians as “both victims and perpetrators” in the course of World War II is significantly inclined towards the latter. Moreover, despite the acknowledgment of several factors other than “the nationalist and racist ideology of the OUN-B” that help explain the transformation of “ordinary men and women into murderers” (p. 279), some of these, such as the absence of a “strong administration in these territories at a time when the front was changing” (p. 280) are insufficiently explored, despite their proven significance in the history of the Holocaust (Snyder, 2012).” written by R. Cârstocea, a Romanian scholar. Arorae (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

yes, just found the same review Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you are citing yet another review, that only says Rossoliński-Liebe should explore the topic broader, it doesn't exclude him as WP:RELIABLE source, and I once again ask you to self-revert. Let me remind you of WP:NOTCENSORED. Marcelus (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In this response you are just ignoring what's been said by another scholar.
But we should not ignore. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

As one of your fist edit was that one ([10]), you shouldn’t tell me how Wikipedia and history works, as I started here more than 10 years before you ever did. And I am a scholar myself (by the way even if it doesn’t count at all). Arorae (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What's the relevance on the edit you brought up? Marcelus (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the one concept that still remains problematic in Rossoliński-Liebe’s biography of
Stepan Bandera is that of ‘fascism’. ... Yet, despite a comprehensive overview
demonstrating his thorough familiarity with the main theoretical approaches to the concept
associated with the so-called ‘new consensus’ in fascist studies, the definition adopted by the author (p. 33) appears at once too broad and extensive and in some respects ill-suited for the case study under consideration. ... The frequent association of the concept
of fascism with anti-Semitism or ethnic violence in general is also a problematic one, as
considerable evidence (such as the aforementioned regime of Ion Antonescu) points to
numerous parties, movements, or regimes that displayed the latter without necessarily being fascist. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

An indictment rather than a biography. Rossoliński-Liebe does not contribute to the understanding of why a substantial part of today’s western Ukrainian population supported Bandera and why he has become a symbol in the fight for independence. Before the Second World War, different nationalist, radical, right-wing, authoritative and fascist movements were on the rise throughout Europe. Therefore, their emergence in Ukraine is nothing exceptional.

Unfortunately, the first academic bi�ography of Stepan Bandera is a failure. The author has based his work on the conviction that his character and object of scientific research is a condemnable criminal. As for those who have recog�nised him as a national hero and a mar�tyr (since 1959), both in Ukraine and in exile, for nearly all of the 20th century, they have merely covered up and legiti�mised his crimes. Ukrainian nationalism is evil and Ukrainians should give it up. Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe’s book is a somewhat monotonous 600-page long indictment, not a biography.

For Rossoliński-Liebe, Bandera was and ap�parently remains a condemnable symbol of Ukrainian fascism, antisemitism, ter�rorism and an inspiration for anti-Jewish pogroms and even genocide. However, as a historian, he should not be commit�ting such an abusive oversimplification, uprooting events and people from the context of the era or using harsh, un�founded and emotional judgments. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=459570 Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Go to WP:RSN, it's not a place for this. Rossoliński-Liebe is reliable unless proved otherwise on that forum. You need to understand that even negative review doesn't make the book unreliable. Marcelus (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It's ok to discuss latest edits here. Here, another historian, Zaitsev, specifically criticises Liebe's
Hesees fascism everywhere, even in the greeting ‘Glory to Ukraine!’, groundlesslyattributing its invention to a small and little-known Ukrainian Union of Fascists(34), when in reality it had been widespread back in the time of the UkrainianRevolution of 1917–1920, several years before the formation of the Union of Ukrainian Fascists. [11]

Also, nobody says Liebe is not reliable. Please do not raise false argument. It's that the specific critique of his work that should be taken into account. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

His opinion was already mentioned. You can of course post it here, but if you want Rossoliński-Liebe to be regarded as unreliable you need to achieve it on the proper noticeboard. Marcelus (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, this author seems to be controversial, so we shouldn't repeat his claims blindly in wikivoice without also representing the prominent opposing arguments and criticisms of his analysis. HappyWith (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See my edit, reverted by @Arorae, I was trying to present four the views of four historians, among them Rossoliński-Liebe. Marcelus (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, should have read the diffs more carefully. HappyWith (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Using some of these sources maybe reasonable, but it is not clear what exactly change in the text was suggested. You guys are making a lot of changes at the same time and revert each other. If you can all agree about something, I will probably agree with any version you all agree with. Speaking on specific diff [12], I would oppose to such massive changes because they heavily rely on a few cherry-picked sources and make an impression of promoting certain POV. More modest changes in this direction might be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes if you would allow me to work on the article instead of reverting every change I made without any proper reason, you would see that I was trying to write actually balanced article, which it isn't right now sadly. Marcelus (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  You need to reach the consensus first. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Manyareasexpert Consensus about what exactly? I don't see any attempt of the discussion about content, I don't really know what is wrong with the content I propose Marcelus (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Other editors presented you scholars criticizing your addition of Liebe's origins of the slogan. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Manyareasexpert and I acknowledged that, and in my next edit I included information about the controversy surrounding the origins and presented other views about the greetings origins, not only Liebe's. But then I was accused of reverting other's changes and not listening to others. I'm now under impression that nobody is actually reading my edits and just being against it out of principle Marcelus (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Stable version

@Jirka.h23, let me remind you that the stable version everybody agrees on is this one [13] Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Votum sepratum, this version minimise fascist origins of the greeting. Marcelus (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It is your point of view only. And we are not in Poland where one MP could vetoed and block anything. In Latin the correct spelling is "separatum". Arorae (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

So, how about we stop with reverts, get back to the stable version everybody agrees with, and work on new additions first?
My proposal: we should include [14] talking about Liebe He sees fascism everywhere, even in the greeting ‘Glory to Ukraine!’, groundlesslyattributing its invention to a small and little-known Ukrainian Union of Fascists(34), when in reality it had been widespread back in the time of the UkrainianRevolution of 1917–1920, several years before the formation of the Union of Ukrainian Fascists. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

it had been widespread back in the time of the UkrainianRevolution of 1917–1920, several years before the formation of the Union of Ukrainian Fascists.
Can we check if this statement is actually correct? Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/28/article/569806 he chant “Glory to Ukraine!
Glory to the heroes!” has its origins in the Ukrainian revolution of 1917–20.
Soldiers of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR) came up with the slogan,
“Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Cossacks!”

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1750698017727806?journalCode=mssa
This was particularly emblematic dur�ing the football world championships after Croatia's victory over Russia when he used far-rightist salute Glory to Ukraine (Ukrainian: Слава
Україні! Героям слава!). Greeting has a firm historical background. It
was used by Ukrainian nationalists since 1917 until 1950s, especially
among supporters of Stephan Bandera. This greeting was demonized and
banned as a manifestation of Nazism in the socialist period. Critical
events at Maidan in January and February 2014 brought the extreme right
to the light of the world; although it was a minority in the protesting
crowd, it was best organized and the most visible to the public. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, the stable version is one that existed since April 18 until June 1 (with one minor edit made between on May 21). If anyone wants to make significant changes, please get WP:Consensus. First of all, please start new thread on this page and justify your changes. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  I justified all my changes. Nothing was lost in comparison with the version labelled here as "stable" Marcelus (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter if you justified your changes. It only matters if you got consensus for your changes. Right now you did not. Instead, you just violated your 0RR restriction. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to tell but I think he will not. Arorae (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The version by Marcelus heavily relies on writings by Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe and Ivan Katchanovski. Based on our BLP pages, writing by these author should be regarded as WP:BIASED, meaning these sources can be used, but require a direct attribution to authors (i.e. "According to ..."), and they should not be heavily used as "the truth". Other than that, I do not see serious problems with his version. But he is edit warring while having no consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with you. I suggest to warn him about his continuing edit war. But I do not agree with putting Rossoliński-Liebe as the golden truth: his statements are controversial. Clearly. Arorae (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I wasn't edit warring with anyone, at least not consciously. As for Rossolinski-Liebe I already voiced my opinion in another thread, in short your reservation is baseless imo, and there is no reason to not use him as reliable source. Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't found other scholars agreeing with Liebe on attributing the slogan to the "League of Ukrainian Fascists".

On the contrary, we have scholars saying it's incorrect. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Liebe is attributing it to LUF, Lipovetsky is attributing it to LUN, Yuzych is saying that it's most likely not true, and attributing it to the OUN-B in 1941. We are of course talking about the greeting with the response "Glory to the Heroes". My edit that you all demanded to be reverted included all these views. Marcelus (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources with quotes with dates please. My quotes are above.

We are of course talking about the greeting with the response "Glory to the Heroes" - No cherrypicking.

Clarification: My quotes are talking about the origins of the slogan. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert you can check my edits in the history. And what cherrypicking? Did you even read any of my edit? Do you know what we are talking about?

There is a greeting "Glory to the Ukraine", which is old, and the version with the response "Glory to the heroes" which is much younger, created by one of the nationalists organisations in c. 1925 or in 1941. This is the controversy, because different historians are giving different dates and name different organisations as creators.

It's not cherrypicking, but two related phenomenon. Marcelus (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

which variant is Liebe talking about? Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Does it make sense to enforce such a distinction between "Glory to Ukraine!" alone, and "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!" as if they're two distinct phenomena? Clearly sources think the second derived from the first. And there isn't agreement on where the response "Glory to the heroes!" (a rather generic phrase, not only used in Ukraine) originated. Tristario (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

‎Arorae revert

@‎Arorae that's another revert of my edit. Can you give reasonable explantion why you did that? This edit didn't change anything substantial in the text, it was mostly reconstruction what's already written. Your description of the rever (You cannot be the only one with separatum) isn't very helpful, and doesn't explain why you think my edit should be reverted. Please explain yourself here, because I don't really want to take it to broader audience, but the way you are acting makes me think you are not acting in a good faith. Marcelus (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see my message Talk:Slava Ukraini#c-Manyareasexpert-20230602132300-Marcelus-20230602131700 regarding latest edits adding Ukrainian Union of Fascists League of Ukrainian Fascists. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Because of course, your own good faith has no bias? Let me laugh, Mr votum separatum. Arorae (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL. Try to focus on content, not on me. Marcelus (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t focus on you, not at all: I have absolutely no interest in what you are or should be. Even the text of Rossoliński is not respected or quoted correctly, as he never wrote that “Fascists” invented the phrase. Arorae (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't revert my changes without a proper reason. Marcelus (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Slava Ukraini#c-Manyareasexpert-20230602141400-Manyareasexpert-20230602121600 Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to tell, but he never answers on the point, only on his own ideas and point of view. please “don’t revert my changes”, as if they were made of gold. Arorae (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

As he continues editing (and more to come) without even discussing it… Arorae (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have supplemented the article with new, source-based information. You need to write which content I have added you think is inappropriate and why, then we can talk. Marcelus (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I would rather not use writings on the subject of "Ukrainian Nazi" by controversial historians who supported conspiracy theories (e.g. Ivan Katchanovski) or whose presentations have caused public protests, letters of condemnations by groups of colleagues (e.g. Per Anders Rudling or Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe). Can you do that? Or at least make an explicit attribution every time when you use such WP:BIASED sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes Can you give me a source on said letters and protest about Rudling or Rossolinski-Liebe, because that's first time I hear about it. They are, especially Rossolinski-Liebe regarded as respectable scholars and qouted quite extensively in scientific literature. So I don't see any reason for not using their writing as sources. If you want to exclude them you need to make a case on WP:RN Marcelus (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I am simply looking at our pages, i.e. Grzegorz_Rossoliński-Liebe#Political_reactions. It says: "Rossoliński-Liebe was invited ... to deliver six lectures about Bandera in three Ukrainian cities. ... The organizers, however, were unable to find a suitable venue in Lviv, and also, three of the four lectures in Dnipro and Kyiv were canceled a few hours prior to the event. The only lecture took place in the German embassy in Kyiv, under the protection of police ... In front of the building, approximately one hundred protesters ... tried to convince a few hundred interested students, scholars, and ordinary Ukrainians not to attend the presentation, claiming that Rossoliński-Liebe was "Joseph Goebbels' grandchild" and a "liberal fascist from Berlin" [3 refs]. With regard to Rudling, it says: Rudling became the subject of international attention in October 2012 when a group of Ukrainian organizations in Canada delivered a signed protest to his employer, accusing him of betraying his own university's principles and so on [many refs]. I never heard about these academics, but this is not normal. In my opinion, this defines them as WP:BIASED (see above), meaning I did not suggest to exclude them completely, just use other sources (if available) and provide explicit attribution. I did not check their citation indexes, but many people who create controversies are highly cited. Consider someone like David Horowitz. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You took out the quotation part: "In front of the building, approximately one hundred protesters including members of the radical-right Svoboda party". So no, we don't call an academic 'biased' because far-right protesters protest him. Mhorg (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, some of them were far-right protesters, but others did not - according to cited sources. Having such public protests in response to academic lectures is highly unusual. Someone being an academic/researcher does not mean he is not biased. Frequently, it is exactly the opposite, especially in such contentious areas. As about the removed image: how do we know that the location of the memorial was provided correctly? The essence here is location. Besides, I do not think such image adds anything to the page, even if the location was correct. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes we shouldn't remove works of the scholar because he was protested by ultranationalist, neofascist party, if anything it makes him all the more reliable. Marcelus (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said their works should be removed. I only said their works sparked a lot of controversy/public reaction, which is something very different. It would be more productive if you suggest specific version of text in section "Proposed changes" you started below. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Marcelus and Mhorg, they are respectable scholars and extensively qouted, there is no reason not to mention them, I do not agree with their removal anywhere in the article.Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Another source

[15] The OUN and UPA greeting “Glory to Ukraine!”—“Glory to Heroes!” rang out in the speeches from the Maidan stage and from the crowds. The greeting was “appropriated by the bulk of the protesters and imbued with a new meaning, free of the original claims to ethno-national superiority and exclusivity” (ibid.: 101). The crowds also sang UPA songs. “Glory to Ukraine!”—“Glory to Heroes!” sounded at the mourning ceremony for the “Heavenly Hundred” on the Maidan. In this way, the greeting that served dur�ing the clashes with the riot police as a symbol of courage, devotion to Ukraine and willingness to ight, now came to stand for grief, self-sacri�ice, and gratitude of the living to the dead

With the war in Donbas unfolding, the greeting “Glory to Ukraine!”—“Glory to Heroes!” became increasingly connected to the memory of the fallen Ukrainian soldiers. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

and another As participants in the Euromaidan, they understood
that the fact that Euromaidan protesters willingly used some of the outward attributes of Ukrainian
nationalism (such as the famous UPA greeting ‘Glory to Ukraine’ – ‘Glory to the heroes’) did not
mean that they adhered to the whole UPA legacy and subscribed to its view on the Ukrainian
nation (Gerasimov, 2015: 30). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1750698017727806?journalCode=mssa Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Take a look at this comparison: [16], these are the changes I proposing:

• the article should be based on reliable sources, i.e. on the work of historians, especially in the historical part, so we should limit the number of newspaper articles, especially as they are easily replaceable

• the article should address the controversy over the creation of the salute in its full version (historians give different dates)

• the use of the salutation by the OUN, OUN-B, UPA should be further developed, as well as its popularisation during World War II

• we should not avoid the topic of the fascistisation of the greeting

• of minor things, I think that the whole Shevchenko poem should not be quoted, it contributes nothing

Marcelus (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Slava Ukraini#c-Manyareasexpert-20230602141400-Manyareasexpert-20230602121600 . To reach consensus you need to collaborate with others. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert I'm collaborating with everyone who is willing to do so, so far I didn't notice much will, only reverts and personal accusations. As for your comment that information is included in my proposition, the controversy over origins of the greeting are one of my points. Marcelus (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Speaking on #1, #2 and #5, most contributors (me including) seem to agree based on the discussions above. You are welcome to make such changes. Except that we should also use good journalistic sources like DW [17]. #3 and #4 are more tricky. Looking at the discussions above, I think that main disagreement was about the "fascistisation". What do you mean by that? The current version says: The greeting "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!" later became the official slogan of Stepan Bandera's wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the OUN-B, in April 1941. OK, No one objects to this. Can you post your suggested new version of the corresponding section here? My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

After looking more carefully on #2, I partly disagree. Yes, more info about it can/should be included, but not as was written by Marcelus. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Some comments: I don't see the issue with the Shevchenko poem, we have coverage of that from multiple sources. Looking at Marcelus's version, it seemed to contain some slight WP:OR by drawing more of a distinction between the "full greeting" and "glory to ukraine" than sources actually do, and was also written in a manner that I found confusing and slightly ambiguous (I think the version we currently have is easier to follow). In terms of what Rossolinski-Liebe said - we have him saying something in passing in his book which no one else seems to agree with, and it's also not actually clear what he's saying (is he saying that was the first time "Glory to Ukraine" was used, the first time it was used as a greeting, the first time it was used as an official greeting in that context, or the first time it was used in a fascist manner?). I'm also concerned about issues of relevance and WP:NPOV in Marcelus' version - it seems to specifically just be focusing on a connection to fascism Tristario (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I fully agree with Tristario. Arorae (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I too agree with everything Tristario said, including that the version by Marcelus "seems to specifically just be focusing on a connection to fascism." It should not be. I do not see any actual connection to fascism that would be established in sources. We need a source saying "Glory to Ukraine was a fascist greeting". But they do not say it. They only say such greeting was used by OUN. Yes, it was, and that is exactly what we already said on the page. We should not create the narrative about "Ukrainian fascists" my making WP:SYN or violating WP:GEVAL. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Cited from the Rossolinski book Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist: Fascism, Genocide, and Cult (page 70): Among the organizations whose members went over to the OUN was the League of Ukrainian Fascist (SUF), which invented the fascist greeting "Glory to Ukraine!", another Rossolinski citation: ..was Bandera. As he entered, he performed a fascist salute, raising his right arm and shouting "Slava!" or "Slava Ukraïni!" All the defendants in the courtroom answered him in the same manner. I'm not saying that this slogan is necessarily connected with fascism today, but the history of this slogan should be included. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The history of the slogan is included. The article already mentions the use by the OUN, and Russolinski-Liebe is contradicted in the second citation by sources stating the greeting was invented during the Ukrainian War of Independence or earlier.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

As already said by many scholars (see many discussions above), Rossoliński-Liebe has definitely a bias about attributing to “fascism” any sort of action of Bandera. Even this last quote doesn’t look very equilibrate: as you can see, in the League of Ukrainian Nationalists, from 1925 to 1929, there was a fascist movement (Mussolini was quite popular since 1922), but OUN is not, clearly and only, a fascist movement. And fascism in 1925 was not yet a racist movement. Arorae (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

So, Rossolinski claimed that: "the League of Ukrainian Fascist (SUF), which invented the fascist greeting "Glory to Ukraine!...". How come? We have many sources saying that the first part of the greeting/expression "Glory to Ukraine" was NOT invented by OUN. For example, it does appear in the poem of Shevchenko much earlier, as a matter of fact. This is also an argument that Rossolinski should not be used at all as a source or be used with care. As about complete expression, no, as this source [18] say, for example, "The phrase dates back to World War I, when military units from the short-lived Ukrainian People's Republic were fighting alongside German and Austro-Hungarian soldiers against Russia. ", etc. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The poem of Shevchenko had a similar phrase. Dw.com said that the phrase dates back to WWI, however it was in the 1930s when it really took hold becoming OUN rallying cry, meant they used it as their salute. He is well known scholar and much qouted, few protesters with far-right demonstrators can not change this. Ermenrich, yes it is included, it's fine this way, I just don't agree with possible removal.Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I question whether we should be using what someone says if we're not actually sure what they mean, and everyone else seems to disagree with them Tristario (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes For example, it does appear in the poem of Shevchenko much earlier, as a matter of fact: unfortunately, apologetic sources, seeking to remove the odium of fascism/integral nationalism from the greeting, point in a rather manipulative way to the alleged first use of the greeting in Shevchenko's poem. But in fact Shevchenko simply uses the two words, not as a greeting, but simply as a vocative.

@Tristario Of course, the article should specify when the response "Glory to the Heroes " appeared, as it is now an inseparable part of the salute as such. It is clear from the sources that the phrase "Glory to Ukraine" was in use much earlier, but when the response appeared is not so clear. We may not rely on Liebe, as he actually only repeats the findings of Ukrainian historians. Yuriy Yuzych's 2018 article gives new findings, he explicitly rejects that the response was adapted in the 1920s, instead states, clearly: Therefore, the second congress of OUN in 1941 not only established a long-formed tradition with its decree, but also added a compulsory response to the greeting: "Glory to its heroes!". Yuzych is certainly not an opponent of the OUN-UPA, but his article seems reasonably objective, based on his knowledge of the sources. Note that he makes no mention of Shevchenko. I do not agree that my proposed changes place too much emphasis on 'fascism' or have a problem with 'NPOV'. I am simply adding facts that are undoubtedly missing from the text. And all the proposals are based on sources. I am not changing the other chapters. (unsigned by Marcelus) Marcelus (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No, RS say something different about Shevchenko and the origin of the phrase. For example, [19] (a secondary academic source), says the following:

Many of these national icons have been targets of Russian propaganda. The slogan “Glory to Ukraine – Glory to Heroes!”—popularized during the Euromaidan protests—was used by the Kremlin as “evidence” that the protests were led by “Nazis” and that all Ukrainian patriots were, in fact, “Nazis.” In reality, the slogan was originally used in 1917–1921 during the struggle for Ukrainian national liberation, long before the Nazis took control of Germany. The phrase first appeared much earlier, in 1840, in a poem by prominent Ukrainian Taras Shevchenko (UkraineWorld 2021). In 2018, “Glory to Ukraine – Glory to Heroes!” was officially adopted as a greeting of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The salutation has become an everyday patriotic greeting and, when used by foreigners, it signals support for Ukraine.

My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The phrase first appeared much earlier, in 1840, the phares, not the greeting. Marcelus (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The phrase, not the greeting. But the source makes such connection, so should we. The greeting appear only later, but it was not OUN who authored it as a greeting - see quotation from your source below or DW ("The phrase dates back to World War I, when military units from the short-lived Ukrainian People's Republic were fighting alongside German and Austro-Hungarian soldiers against Russia."). Practically all sources say it appeared as a greeting before OUN. Yes, OUN also used it a slogan. So what? This is not Sieg Heil. It became most prominent only recently, long after the OUN. My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Shevechenko simply used the phrase: Slava Ukraini, it has no relevance to the greeting. None of the sources claim that the greeting was inspired by this poem. It has no relevance to the article.

Slava Ukraini began to be used as a greeting in the early 20th century. The response was often also "Slava Ukraini", but other phrases were also used. This is fact number 1.

Fact number 2 is that the answer, "Heroiam slava", appeared as part of the fascist salute of the OUN-B in April 1941, or as suggested by the earlier authors (Liebe, Lipovetsky) in Ukrainian nationalist circles in the 1920s. This is fact number 2.

The article must present these two facts objectively but also without censoring the truth. Of course, it cannot focus only on this, but this information must be there. Marcelus (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It has no relevance to the article.

Let the source be the judge. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Check my recent changes to the Shevchenko part, I think it's satisfactory for everyone, and it follows sources more properly. Marcelus (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

he explicitly rejects that the response was adapted in the 1920s
Anybody saying that? Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point! Here is the source linked by Marcelus. I agree this is good source. It says:

The slogan "Glory to Ukraine!" and its response "Glory on all of earth!" was first used by the Kharkiv Ukrainian students' association at the end of the 19th century. The same association, at the foundation of which, the Revolutionary Ukrainian Party (RUP) was born in 1900 - the first modern Ukrainian political party under Russian occupation. The first known mention of the slogan is attributed to this event specifically....

If it "explicitly rejects" anything, this is an assertion that the wording was invented by OUN. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yuzych doesn't actually say where "Glory to the heroes!" originated though, or that the OUN-B invented that, he just says the OUN-B adopted that as its greeting. We include that in the article already. "Glory to the heroes!", like I mentioned, is not some kind of exclusive phrase, it was also used in the soviet union, [20] [21] (as, apparently, an anti-fascist slogan) for instance, and it's also now used in russia. Tristario (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree. Yuzych carefully traces when "Glory to the Heroes" appears as a response to the salute and states that it appears in 1941. Marcelus (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

And where does he say that? It just says they added that as compulsory response to the greeting. It doesn't seem to say anything about where that response originated from, or whether it existed before. Am I missing it? Tristario (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Tristario edit

@Tristario in your description you said: Rossolinski-liebe says "This is apparently the first recorded fascist salute that OUN members performed in public". Not, as this text might be implying, the first use of "slava ukraini" as a salute of some kind, which is ok, although I doubt anybody will get that impression because of the rest of the article that describes extensively the use of slava ukraini as salute before. Nonetheless tell me why did you remove the sentences enteirly instead of rewording it? Please self-revert, restore the text and correct the it in order the remove issue you talk about. Marcelus (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The removed text says: The first public use of the salute occurred in December 1935 during the interrogation of OUN member Vira Svientsitska.... That seem to contradict other sources which say the salute/greeting was used much earlier. Was not it? If so, we can not say this in WP voice, and I doubt that such incorrect/questionable claim should be included at all. My very best wishes (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It's about OUN fascist salute, with the right hand raised. It's a first documented public display of it. Marcelus (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the greeting "Slava Ukraine" does not mean Sieg Hail and it never meant it. Yes, the greeting was used by OUN, but it was not Sieg Hail. I understand that OUN members greeted Ukraine, not Hitler. Raising hands is very common. More sources about it, not just Rossolinski-liebe, would help. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

OUN members were influenced by the Italian fascism and German nazism, and they copied their rituals and customs. The text isn't saying that the greeting was Sieg Hail, co I don't know why you mention it. Rossoliński-Liebe is good enough source, it's a factual information, that is backed up by actual source referenced by Liebe in his book. Marcelus (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

« OUN Fascist salute »? Which OUN are you speaking of? Your arguments turn to be obsessional with the fascism of OUN, so now you are just trying to demonstrate that any word of OUN should be a fascist word, but life is more complex than in the book of Rossoliński-Liebe. Arorae (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

In 1930s there was only one OUN, and yes it was highly influenced by fascism, I don't see any reason why we should censor that. Marcelus (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

“However, Dominique Arel, a professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Ukrainian studies, argues that citizens in the country today identify with groups such as the OUN and other nationalist movements more in the sense of resistance, such as opposition to Russian aggression, rather than because of an affinity for far-right politics or violence. "The OUN slogans – "Glory to Ukraine," "Glory to heroes" – now routinely chanted by the Ukrainian middle class, many of whom prefer to use Russian in daily life, are thus acquiring a whole new meaning," he said.” Arorae (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It says the apparently first recorded public use of the fascist salute by the OUN. Why is that relevant to this page? At best, it seems like an uncertain and only indirectly relevant piece of trivia, and at worst it could be misleading. Tristario (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think some of the other edits you've been making appear to be relatively good though (although I haven't checked all of them), it's good you've taken account of some of the concerns on the talk page. Care should be taken with representing sources accurately though. Tristario (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss all controversial edits on a t/p, but so far I am mainly encountering WP:STONEWALLING-like arguments. This passage seems important to me because it describes what the greeting of OUN members looked like, and that they faced repression for practising it by the Polish state. Marcelus (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There are all the sources to write that the OUN was close to the ideas of fascism and was aligned with the project of the new order led by Nazi Germany. Mhorg (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Without this passage we still include that they used it with a fascist salute though

An issue here is that Rossolinski-Liebe's book is specifically focused on the various ways the OUN was connected to fascism - I'm not sure whether his book is a good guide for what is WP:DUE for the subject of this article. I'm not opposed to including some of these (or similar) details you've been including, though. We also need to be careful with what we say in wikivoice Tristario (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever not to trust the factography cited by Liebe. As I mentioned if we are to exclude him as a reliable source this should be done through WP:RN. Besides, "fascism" is not an insult, but a politological category. Among the undoubtedly fascist elements in the ideology and practice of the OUN is certainly the symbolism they used, including the greeting. Marcelus (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please, we should not be walking in circles repeating again and again arguments opposing Liebe and your addition. Wiki articles are supposed to be written using secondary sources, not mere facts, but analysis and conclusions from secondary sources. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying. It's a question of WP:WEIGHT (for what the subject of this article is) and WP:NPOV. Tristario (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I have now seen the discussion, I have already restored it. What is the point of removing that part? The Polish point of view is interesting and relevant to the topic. Mhorg (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop pushing new changes through edit warring and reach the consensus first. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's see.
Your sentence According to press reports, during the trials of OUN members after the assassination of Bronisław Pieracki, the accused performed fascist salutes to the words "Glory to Ukraine!".[11][1]
is sourced to Liebe's
During the trials the OUN tried to use the court as a political stage; the defendants presented the organization as a movement that was driven by idealism and deeply patriotic feelings and sought to liberate the Ukrainian nation from the Polish and Soviet occupation. The defendants and witnesses frequently performed fascist salutes to the words “Glory to Ukraine!” (Slava Ukraїni!) in front of the court and the press, for which they were punished by the court. The defendants demonstrated that they regarded Bandera as their Providnyk and implied that he might become the leader of the Ukrainian people after a change of political circumstances. Ukrainians followed the trials, reading reports in newspapers, discussing them, and writing folk songs about them and the brave Bandera.
This part describes OUN members on the trial, not the slogan.

At that time, the group adopted many symbols modelled on fascist ones, including the red-black banner, new emblem, and new fascist salute with calling "Glory to Ukraine!" and responding "Glory to the Heroes!".[17][18][19][20][21]
sourced to Liebe's
In April 1941 the younger generation of OUN members organized the Second Great Congress of the Ukrainian Nationalists in Cracow. At this congress Bandera was officially elected leader of the OUN. The congress introduced the Führerprinzip and officially introduced a number of fascist principles, symbols and rituals, including the authoritarian principle “one nation, one party, one leader” (odyn narid, odyn provid, odna vlada), the red�and-black flag symbolizing blood and earth (Blut und Boden), and the fascist salute while calling “Glory to Ukraine!” (Slava Ukraїni!) and responding “Glory to the Heroes!” (Heroiam Slava!”) The fascistization of the OUN reached its peak at that time.
This describes OUN and its congress.

After the creation in the second half of 1942, the the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) took over the salute from the OUN-B, but dropped the fascist-like raising of the right arm above the head.[25] - okay, so UPA dropped arm raise, is it important?

Should we give more attention to it? Should we also mention, for example, that However, for the sake of eventual cooperation with the Allies, the leadership of the OUN-B emphasized that it was struggling against two imperialisms: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.[1250] For the same reason, the OUN-B decided to break away from fascism and to “democratize” itself, but the term “democracy” still had a very negative meaning among the OUN-B and UPA leaders.  ? The OUN-B preserved the idea of the “Ukrainian National Revolution” of 1941 but it abandoned the right-arm fascist salute.[1251] In May 1943, the OUN-B theoretically abandoned the Führerprinzip and established a triumvirate of Zinovii Matla, Dmytro Maїvs’kyi, and Roman Shukhevych. ? Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This part describes OUN members on the trial, not the slogan, it describes both? This describes OUN and its congress, and the greetign they adopted among other fascist-like symbolism?, okay, so UPA dropped arm raise, is it important?, yes because it symbolises abandonment of fascist symbolism, so exactly the thing you are proposing? Marcelus (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

it describes both? - how it describes the slogan?
yes because it symbolises abandonment of fascist symbolism - okay but this is not the article subject. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course, this falls within the subject of the article. The article describes the history of the greeting, the fact that for a while it was accompanied by a fascist greeting, which was later abandoned, is by all means part of this history. Marcelus (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t fall within the subject of this article, that is simply Slava Ukraini and not historical research on the use of it by OUN and other extremist groups. Stop pulling the blanket to yourself. Arorae (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arorae Your argument doesn't make much sense. if the subject of the article is Slava Ukraini, then historical use of it is very much part of the article Marcelus (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Come on, every edit you make since 2 weeks is only one way, sorry to tell. Arorae (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

What way? Marcelus (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• There are two different issues here:

1. I think the abandoning the salute can be included. I never said it must be excluded.
2. As about "Death to Poles" (in relation to massacres "in the Lviv region by the UPA"), that was discussed already on this talk page [22], and I agree with those who said it should not be included on this page, simply because it is more about UPA rather than about "Slava Ukraine". I think you need to get consensus of other contributors for including this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

   @My very best wishesI don't really need a consensus if the only argument is "we don't like this part so it should be removed", and I don't really hear much else. The rest of the arguments are really weak, like the one presented by you. How is the use of "death to Poles" in any way related to UPA if it was used by common Ukrainians in Galicia and ot by UPA members? Also how is that not related to "Slava Ukraini" if it was literally the response to it? It was part of the greeting at that time and very much part of the history of the greeting. Let me remind you again of WP:NOTCENSORED, there is no valid reason to remove content only because it's upsetting or puts a dark light on the subject. Marcelus (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

   Has this "Death to the Poles" response been covered by multiple other solid sources, and do they say for a fact that it happened? If that's the case I think I'm fine with including a brief mention of it, but I notice it's specifically mentioned as an observation that was made by the Home Army Tristario (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

   And when I say "it happened" I mean sources preferably say that it was a common/standard response, rather than just some instances of it Tristario (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sure. This must be something notable and widely used as established by multiple RS, as opposed to a single biased source that refers to claims by another, even more biased source/organization. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you still calling Rossoliński-Liebe 'biased' based on what you wrote above? That is, that extreme right-wing groups contested him? Or are there other sources that say he is biased? Mhorg (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you look at the book reviews others mentioned above? Talk:Slava_Ukraini#Rossolinski-Liebe, Stepan Bandera Tristario (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

As it was mentioned above, the Rossoliński-Liebe's book isn't perfect, it has its shortcomings, but really nobody is questioning it's factographic correctness. Also what's more some of these reviews are coming from OUN-UPA apologists, who are doing everything they can to deny or soften the fascist face of OUN-UPA. What's more there a plenty of far more positive reviews of Rossoliński-Liebe. Nonetheless it's a first scientific biography of Bandera, that was groundbreaking in the approach and examination of sources, it certainly cannot be ignored by Wikipedia. Marcelus (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not an article on Bandera. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

And? What does supposed to be mean? When did I say it's article about Bandera? Marcelus (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Your collection of "facts" suggests a reader that the slogan is somehow fascist. This may be true or false, but the article should not be a collection of mere facts suggesting something. The article is supposed to be written using secondary sources, to use their interpretations and conclusions. If there are secondary sources elaborating on the connection you are trying to add - we can discuss them. But the article should not be a collection of mere facts suggesting something. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

A baseless accusation, none of my edits are intended to imply anything, moreover they are based on solid sources. Previously, the article was based mainly on newspaper texts. Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It's referenced by two solid RS: Rossoliński-Liebe and Zajączkowski, I think that's enough. It's way better sourced than most other facts mentioned in the article. Marcelus (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

So Rossolinski-Liebe says the Home Army "observed" ukrainians using the response in July 1943. What exactly (with an exact quote, with any necessary context) does Zajączkowski say? Tristario (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Full paragraph of Zajączkowski, deepl translated: On the territory of Galicia, attacks on the Polish population had already been taking place since mid-1943. They intensified in autumn of that year, first in areas in the immediate vicinity of Volhynia (Ternopil), but also in the Lublin region (Sokal). Although they did not have such a mass character as in Volhynia, the OUN-B and UNS militias killed up to around 2-3 thousand Poles at that time (including around 1.4k persons known by name). In any case, from July-August 1943, as we read in the materials of the Delegation of the Government of the Republic of Poland to the Home Country, it became increasingly common among Ukrainian nationalists in Eastern Galicia to say: "Glory to Ukraine, death to Poles". Marcelus (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Poland Ministry of Justice:[23] "The shocking descriptions of the crimes are accompanied by historical information about Volhynia and Eastern Lesser Poland during the Second Polish Republic: about the mosaic of nationalities in these areas, and about the origins of Ukrainian nationalism, especially under Soviet and German occupation. The bloody cleansing of the Polish population was carried out under the slogans "Ukraine for Ukrainians", "Ukraine as pure as a glass of water", "Smert Lacham [Death to Poles] - Slava Ukrajini", which the exhibition also illustrates."
• Monika Agopsowicz:[24] "The worst, according to witnesses' recollections, were the periods of exchange of occupying troops after the passage of the fronts - in mid-September 1939, in the summer of 1941 and the most terrible, in the spring of 1944. Already in the middle of 1943, however, in Stanislawow, according to a secret Polish report, it was increasingly common to hear on the street the greeting: Smert' Lacham [Death to Poles] and the reply Slawa Ukraini."
• Radio Lublin:[25] "Several hundred Ukrainians were killed during the attack on Sahryń. [...] Representatives of Ukrainian circles commemorated the dead [...] It was also shocking that both his and every subsequent speech ended with the cry "Slava Ukrarajini" ("Glory to Ukraine" - editor's note), and the participants in the ceremony thundered "Herojam sława" ("Heroes glory" - editor's note). This was the call which was the slogan for attacking and slaughtering Polish villages there. There is a third part to this call - "Smert Lachom" [Death to Poles]"

I think it is enough to include it in the article. Mhorg (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

These sources seem weak for a claim like this Tristario (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I also found another source, which quotes a broadcast from 3 August 1943 by the London-based Polish radio station Świt on Polish-Ukrainian relations, probably based on the same Polish underground report: We understand your conciliatory tone towards the Ukrainians, nevertheless they must be threatened. There is a fear that the murders will spread from Volhynia to Lesser Poland. In Lviv, an intelligent or a Ukrainian worker greets one another with the words: "Death to the Lachs, glory to Ukraine". The Ukrainian question comes before the German question there. Hatred of Ukrainians is terrible. This was said by the head of the Civil Struggle from Lviv at our rally. Stigmatise the participation of the Ukrainian police in the pacifications in the Lublin district [p. 77] Marcelus (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at sources and quoting that paragraph. So, we know that in one (or two) particular month in 1943 the Home Army reported an unspecified number of ukrainians using "Death to the Poles" as a response to "Glory to Ukraine". I'm still not sure about this - don't you think that's quite a specific and uncertain piece of information to be including on this page? Tristario (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually no, because Rossoliński-Liebe is referencing to the report of Polish underground from Stanislaviv. The Świt report is made by the head of the head Directorate of Civil Resistance from Lviv, and Zajączkowski is referencing to the Government Delegation for Poland materlias. So there are three different bodies, which reporting that in Eastern Galicia the genocidal climate is so tense that regular Ukrainians are greeting themselves with "Death to the Poles". This is not "uncertain" piece of information.

Besides, we are talking about an article that is based on circumstantial evidence and not very reliable sources that push back the origin of the salute as far into the past as possible. Compared to them, the information about the "Death to the Poles" reponse is very solidly grounded in sources. Marcelus (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I assume the "materials of the Delegation of the Government of the Republic of Poland to the Home Country" is also referring to the Home Army since the Home Army answered to it, and it refers to the same month (or two). As for the radio report - that's just what appears to be a conversation on a radio station

It doesn't look like we have the sourcing to support that this was significant enough for this article. And the difference between this and other details in this article (and maybe some of those other details don't belong either) is that they are based on sources that are specifically focused on the topic of this article - whereas this is based on passing mentions in the context of something else. Tristario (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• I can not evaluate reliability of Polish language sources, but it seems that yes, some (a few?) Ukrainian nationalists in Eastern Galicia long time ago were saying: "Glory to Ukraine, death to Poles". OK. Now, should this be included on this page or it is undue? I would say it is definitely undue on this page. If you think otherwise, please start a poll in a separate section or an RfC to achieve consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  I see no reason to start an RfC just because you don't like something. There is no rational reason not to include this form of greeting, since the article contains information about other forms that were used by small, isolated groups (Black Cossacks, students in Kharkov, etc.) What is more, the mentioned discussion ended with the conclusion that there is a lack of solid sources, now such sources have been found, so the previous discussion has no importance for us. Marcelus (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No, there is a rational reason. A slogan officially accepted and used by a notable organization, like OUN? Yes, that needs to be included. A few nationalists individually using it as a slogan of hatred? No, this is something debatable. And it was not only me. Now, if you start an RfC or just new section and count votes, you will see how many will support your recent addition. If only I will be opposed to this inclusion, then you will have consensus to include, and it will be documented. I will not fight with any consensus for inclusion, but you must have one. If you wish, I can make new thread myself. My very best wishes (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely do not agree with this, it is solidly grounded in the sources. There is no reason to start an RfC. I remind of WP:NOTCENSORED. I have my doubts about the quality of your edits in this article, which are not, in my opinion, out of concern for the quality of the article, but the censoring of inconvenient information and the removal of those that may cast a shadow over the greeting history. I regard the demand for an RfC as WP:STONEWALLING on your part, which has no rational justification. Marcelus (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

> If only I will be opposed to this inclusion, then you will have consensus to include
There should be no rule of crowd and if even one person has substantiated objections against the edit there is no consensus. A vote should not change this. Manyareasexpert (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with those arguing against the inclusion in the article, for the reasons given above.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hence we do not have consensus for inclusion. One issue here: what exactly was suggested to include? This is not clear. Someone arguing to include should start new section, post exact text suggested to be included, explain why this should be included, and wait for responses and potentially votes by others. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)