Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

latest changes to the article

Faustian would you stop reshaping this article a bit? your addition of this text: During the German occupation, the Polish government in exile and the Home Army considered that Volhynia would have to be returned to Poland after the war. Polish commanders had explaiwend that this would involve a war against Ukrainians followed by a swift "armed occupation. is useless. It was a very normal situation that the Poles supposed that Volhynia which was a part of Poland occupied by the Nazis would return to Poland, that can hardly be called a "plan". That was some pathetic excuse by the Ukrainian Nationalist to barbarically murder civilians for ethnic cleansing. Loosmark (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

His edit is factual and makes the section more informational and well rounded. Stop pushing your Polish POV against facts.--Львівске (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

what "Polish POV against facts"? Loosmark (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Faustian included cited facts which contributed to the tension among the sides. Your argument is that the part about Poland wanting to make war should be swept under the rug.--Львівске (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What cited facts, the fact that the Poles normaly expected that their country will be restored as it was before being attacked by the Nazis is a fact that "contributed tension among sides"? Is that an excuse for the mass massacres of civilians? Loosmark (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would the Poles "expect" that disputed territory be returned to them? Is this assuming Poland won, or what? Wikipedia isn't a place for assumptions. --Львівске (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it is a normal that a country which is occupied by a brutal regime expects that it will be restored when the occupation ends. It's as simple as that. Same as for example the French expected that the Basque lands will remain part of France when the Nazis move out. Loosmark (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the historical context, there was no assumption than the Nazis would even lose. Second, it was disputed territory by 4 parties, so to assume anything is just ignorant. Third, considering WW2 began due to TOV Polish occupation of German territories, how could Poland expect anything be returned at all?--Львівске (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WW2 began because of Polish occupation of German territories?!? Jesus, no wonder wikipedia is turning into a joke... Loosmark (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So if you had it your way, the re-taking of the Polish Corridor should be censored as well? Good grief! --Львівске (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You are simply embarrassing. I've seen people arguing all kind of crazy things on wikipedia, but that the WW2 began because of Poland beats everything off. I'm out of words. Loosmark (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Have a sugar coated version of history in Poland or something?--Львівске (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the version of history accepted in all normal countries, in fact i've never heard of any country having anything different. I'm curious, are people in your country taught in schools that the WW2 started because of Poland? Loosmark (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WW2 started because Germany invaded Poland, which happened because Poland refused to cede the lands they obtained in the Treaty of Versailles back. Are you denying this fact? This is common knowledge... --Львівске (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You claimed that the WW2 started due to quote: Polish occupation of German territories. Every country i heard of (including Germany) accepts the truth that war was started because of the Nazis' criminal agressive policies. Are you still claiming that the WW2 started due to something Poland has done? Loosmark (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Name one person who claims that WW2 was started because of "criminal aggressive policies," that's an oversimplistic, biased, revisionist way of putting things. --Львівске (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The WW2 started because of Hitler and the Nazis. Do you agree with this or not? Loosmark (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, as it is far too simplistic for such a world changing event. I think it would be more fair to say that WW2 started because of WW1. --Львівске (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Radek's comments below are factual and ought to be included in the article. The general picture is that Poland wanted to reestablish control over Volhynia, populated by that time (thanks tot he Soviets and Germans) by 8% Poles, and were preparing for a military conflict to establish control. The OUN chose to preempt this in mid-twentieth century fashion by slaughtering and driving out the remaining Poles.Faustian (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Text based on Snyder

The Snyder book is searchable on Amazon: [1]. While the text added to the article is in the book (in fact, it's taken almost verbatim - thus constituting a copy vio) what's left out is the context of the paragraph and some key passages in the Snyder book. Basically the Polish government in Exile entertained the possibility that, after Hitler's attack on Stalin, the Second World War would end in a similar way as the First World War - with mutual exhaustion of Germany and Soviet Union. In this case they believed that fighting between some Ukrainians and Poles was likely to break out and that this was something that Polish forces should prepare for, since they wished to reestablish pre WWII borders. The "armed occupation" part obviously refers to the fact that this imagined state of affairs would require an increased military presence in those regions of pre war Poland where this was more likely. At the same time, the book states, the Polish Government in Exile supported the idea of an independent Ukraine although they wanted it to be established on pre-war Soviet territory. The text further states that this idea of possible war with some Ukrainians in the event of Russian and German exhaustion became stronger after 1943 due to the collaboration of some Ukrainians with the Nazis.

Importantly the text also notes (previous page) that OUN-B THOUGHT EXACTLY THE SAME THING. They also expected an eventual exhaustion of Germany and Soviet Union and afterward a confrontation with the Poles. The difference was that because of this they thought they had to move WHILE WWII was still going on - whereas the Poles where only planning for the future - and this is partly what led to initial actions against Poles in the region.

As it has been entered now, the text in the article does not represent the source in a NPOV, balanced, manner.radek (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest the text be changed to to maintain neutrality? I'm having a hard time seeing any bias for malice in the disputed prelude section as it is.--Львівске (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Radek's intepretation of Snyder is absolutely correct. My question is how, specifically, the included parts violate NPOV.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well isn't that clear? You only entered text what the Poles were planning, and nothing about the OUN-B plans making it look like as if the OUN-B massacres were some sort of a reply to something - they weren't, they just wanted to massacre as many civilians as possible to ethnically cleanse the teritory. Loosmark (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OUN-B plans were preemptive - based on the understanding that Poland would try to retake the territory. As Snyder noted on page 168, "the preemptive strikes against Poles envisioned by the OUN-B were not military operations but ethnic cleansing." Your phrase "they just wanted to massacre as many civilians as possible to ethnically cleanse the territory" is just one POV among many. Although there is no doubt that they wanted to ethnically cleanse the territory, and no doubt that they murdered 10,000s of people in brutal ways, there is considerable controversy among historians whether the murders were themselves an OUN-B goal with respect to the ethnic cleansing, whether they were done on the initiative of the local OUN commanders, etc. The idea that the OUN simply wanted to murder for the enjoyment of it or whatever and that national reasons were merely an excuse has been discredited as the fantasy of Polish nationalists: [2]. Faustian (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly murdering brutaly 10,000s civilians is so sickening that the article should concentrate on that rather than on what the excuses used for the murdering were. After all even the Nazis were killing Jewish people because of "preemptive" reasons but wikipedia doesn't care for their reasons and rightly so. Loosmark (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The article does concentrate on that. Doing so doesn't mean we ignore underlying causes, one of which is Polish claims on the territory. One source (Snyder) explicitly states that the ethnic cleansing was a preemptive strike by OUN with respect to Polish-Ukrainian conflicts over the territory.Faustian (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, I have to respectfully disagree here. As I said before the POV is not in what was included but what was excluded. I will try to come up with something that's more balanced but gimme a bit because this is a sensitive issue and I'm busy with real life stuff. Couple things; Poland did want to "retake" the territories, but they wanted to "retake" them from the Nazis (or Soviets), not from Ukrainians as it is being implied. It's true the OUN-B plans were "preemptive" but that leaves out the fact that they were also "murderous". There isn't that much distance between "ethnic cleansing" and "massacre as many civilians as possible" - so the POV is essentially the same as in Snyder. The "true" motives of OUN-B and whether or not they acted according to a central directive or on (widespread) local initiative are indeed controversial but they don't concern any of the text from Snyder that is being reffed. It IS important that whatever motivations OUN-B had, these are not presented as excuses for the murders which is what I think Loosmark is (in my view, rightly) worried about. Yes, the Polish Government in Exile regarded Volhynia, Galicia and other regions as part of the Polish state and OUN-B didn't - but the fact that the PGiE's goal was reestablishment of Poland in its prewar borders (which is a perfectly normal goal for an exiled government to have) is very much secondary to what the title of this article states this article is about.radek (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to your corrections and trust, by your comments here, that they will be appropriate. I generally agree with what you are saying. About "retaking" - yes, it was about retaking from the Germans, but it was understood by the Poles that doing so this would involve (as in 1919) taking also from the local Ukrainians who made up the majority of the population, and that doing so would involve an armed conflcit against those local Ukrainians. While we know that the UPA's implementation of its preemptive ethnic cleansing was murderous, it is still controversial about whether its plans were murderous. I agree 100% that the article ought not make excuses for UPA crimes. On the other hand, explanations are absolutely necessary and Polish plans for Volhynia are an important piece explaining UPA's plans that resulted in the massacres in Volhynia.Faustian (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Radek, I don't think it's fair to say that a Polish effort to retake Western Ukraine / this region would be directed only at the Nazis and Soviets. It goes without saying that a Polish military campaign to retake the area, especially if against Ukrainian regiments of the Red Army, would result in significant amount of Ukrainian civilian casualties. How the massacres acted as a preemptive measure are an important factor for understanding why the massacres took place.--Львівске (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From the text in the source and other sources I think that the PGiE thought that they might have to fight against OUN-B and other possible militias. Whether or not this would involve civilian casualties and how many is just speculation (Original Research) not found in the source.radek (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And since when to preempt a military campaign you have to slaughter 60.000 to 80.000 civilians, mainly women and children? This is sick logic. Loosmark (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please try to avoid making uncivil accusations against other editors.Faustian (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made no accusation against other editors let alone an uncivil ones. I'm just dismantling this logic that a military campaign can be preempted by murdering 10.000s civilians. Loosmark (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I retract my comment. I should, however, be clear in not implying, as in your commnent below, that those discussing with you are excusing the massacres or taking UPA's side.Faustian (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair point. Loosmark (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A Polish campaign to retake this territory would have undoubtedly resulted in significant Ukrainian civilian casualties, no?--Львівске (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point this is just unsourced speculation - maybe? But who knows? radek (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And? Is that a good an excuse to start to mass murder innocent civilians? Loosmark (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said it was "a good excuse." It was, however, an underlying reason for the events. The elimination of the Polish population would make Polish retaking of Volhynia more difficult and useless (the Polish military would be fighting to gain territory with no Poles living in it).Faustian (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not for anyone here to decide whether it was a just reason or not, but it was in fact a reason and should not be censored to support your POV--Львівске (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, nobody here is to decide that because it is already decided: nobody with a sane brain would argue that there could be a "just reason" for murdering so many innocent civilians. Loosmark (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the key is to explain OUN-B's thinking here (roughly, "if we don't act now, Poles will retake this area later), but be honest about what they thought was a best way to preempt this ("ethnically cleans the Poles from the region, including murdering lots of civilians, while we still have the chance since the Germans will look the other way").radek (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There clearly needs to be a section about the OUN-B's ideology in the background section, with a redirect to the main page about the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. I will try to work on tht later today if someone else doesn't do so first. A lot of the other background information (about Polish policies, Soviet and German policies) included in the article are important because they explain how the OUN, originally a fringe organization, grew in popularity and was then able to take over a large segment of western Ukrainian society. Without the OUN-B's dominance, it is likely that the massacres would not have occurred or would have been much smaller in scale. It is obvious that the OUN-B's program called for the ethnic cleansing of majorty-Ukrainian inhabited territories. As for the thinking about murdering lots of civilians - there seems little doubt that this was the thinking of many of the local commanders in Volyn. However it is a matter of contention whether this was the goal of the OUN-B itself.Faustian (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how about something like this, replacing the present text up to the word "Nevertheless". Note that parts of it are based on Snyder but I rephrased. Also I tried to incorporate Faustian's concern about who was responsible (local commanders vs. HQ - the part in the parentheses is there for clarification and is not necessary). I've also tried to balance the need to explain a "reason" with a descriptive account of what was about to happen, so as not to give an impression that the "reason" is an "excuse". Please comment:

After Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, both the Polish government in Exile and Ukrainian Nationalists of the OUN-B considered the possibility that in the event of mutual military exhaustion of Germany and the Soviet Union, the region would become a scene of conflict between Poles and Ukrainians. The Polish Government in Exile, which wanted the region returned to Poland, planned for such a possibility as part of its overall plan for a future anti-Nazi uprising. This view was strengthened by some Ukrainian nationalists' collaboration with the Nazis, so that by 1943 no understanding between the Home Army and OUN was possible. On the other hand, OUN-B came to believe that it had to move fast while Germans still controlled the area to preempt future Polish efforts at re-establishing Poland's pre-war borders. The result was that at least local OUN-B commanders in Volyn and Galicia (if not the OUN-B leadership itself) decided that an ethnic cleansing of Poles from the area, through terror and murder, was necessary.

radek (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would add something about the fact the the Polish government planned for a 'military action. Otherwise it seems perfect to me. What do you think about the following:

After Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, both the Polish government in Exile and the Ukrainian Nationalists of the OUN-B considered the possibility that in the event of mutual military exhaustion of Germany and the Soviet Union, the region would become a scene of conflict between Poles and Ukrainians. The Polish Government in Exile, which wanted the region returned to Poland, planned for a swift armed occupation (if the word "occupation" seems POV-ish I'm open to a synonym) of the territory as part of its overall plan for a future anti-Nazi uprising. This view was strengthened by some Ukrainian nationalists' collaboration with the Nazis, so that by 1943 no understanding between the Polish government's Home Army and OUN was possible. On the other hand, the OUN-B came to believe that it had to move fast while the Germans still controlled the area in order to preempt future Polish efforts at re-establishing Poland's pre-war borders. The result was that the local OUN-B commanders in Volyn and Galicia (if not the OUN-B leadership itself) decided that an ethnic cleansing of Poles from the area, through terror and murder, was necessary.

Faustian (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the word "occupation" simply because it seems to be implying that the Poles would be "occupying" politically foreign territory whereas it was pre-war Polish territory (and in this context sort of implicitly equivocates it with "Nazi occupation"). I don't know ... "presence"? "control"? Both of these would make the "swift" grammatically incorrect. Looking it up on the Thesaurus [3] maybe something like "swiftly achieved military control"? "military administration"?radek (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the "through terror and murder" part redundant? Ie; "Germany decided that war with the Poles, through shooting and bombing, was necessary". It kind of goes without saying. --Львівске (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. If I murder somebody and keep it a secret no one else is terrorized. But if I go all Godfather on them and murder them so that everyone knows then everyone will be terrified of me - which might be a goal in and of itself. BTW, I've been in a dispute with a user who was trying to remove refs from the article based precisely on the fact that shooting civilians and bombing civilians is not the same thing (the refs said "strafing" not "bombing"). Wikipedia can get a little pedantic sometimes but it's also good to be precise.radek (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the methods used in Volyn (beheading people, etc.) went beyond "ethnic cleansing" and can be viewed as horrible enough to warrant explicit description. I'm not pushing to have this phrase in, but I don't object to other editors wanting it in; it seems appropriate.Faustian (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, with the proper referencing or notability. --Львівске (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Szawlowski as Recommended Reading

He has been discussed on this talk page twice already - here: [4] and here: [5]. Summary: the man is not a historian, but a lawyer. In his works, he makes claims such as barbarity was a Ukrainian cultural tradition, and that Ukrainians were worse than Soviets, who were worse than Germans. he words of Polish historian Rafal Wnuk [6], "The most serious allegations are made by R. Szawlowski. He claims that all Ukrainians inhabiting ethnically-mixed territories are responsible for ethnic crimes against Poles. He considers these crimes crueler than those committed by Germans or Soviets." Szawlowki's work disparages actual historians while praising obvious propagandists such as Wiktor Poliszczuk. It would be inapropriate to draw readers' attention to Szawlowski as a recommended reading for further information. If we go down that road, we might as well throw in some Ukrainian nationalist sources too. There are surely sources that serve as better recommended reading. Specifically, I'm replacing Szawlowski's work as recommended reading with Snyder's Reconstruction of Nations, described by him as "the first scholarly treatment in English of the totality of Polish-Ukrainian ethnic cleansing between 1943 and 1947" (pg. 9).Faustian (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this deletion, he seems to have researched the events in detail. Loosmark (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

His level of research seems to be irrelevent if it is done in the service of propaganda. Particularly with respect to controversial topics, we ought to very careful about the sources we use and apply the highest standards. A man who concludes the Soviets were worse than Germans, and that Ukrainians were worse than both Soviets and Germans, a man who is a lawyer and not even a historian, whose works contain a lot of attacks on legitimate historians, falls far below that standard.Faustian (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

According to source presented above he did not say that the Ukrainians were worse than both the Soviets and the Germans but rather He considers these crimes crueler than those committed by Germans or Soviets. Yes it can be argued that what he wrote is wrong but frankly if you read the describtions of the crimes in Volhynia by some people who managed to escape, it is completely sickening. Loosmark (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What was done is indeed sickening, yet this does not justify using a non-reliable source as recommended reading.Faustian (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All one-sided, biased nationalist propaganda needs to be removed. All of it. It's the major problem with both this and the UPA article and if deleting this guy is a step in the right direction then it needs to be done now and kept out forever.--Львівске (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lvivskie try to understand Polish point of view. For Polish UPA are killers. About 150 thousands victims - this is huge number. Events from the past will not justify genocide.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pawel, understand that the article must maintain a neutral point of view.--Львівске (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Szawlowski as recommended reading in the article, did you already take it out (I'm fine with taking him out of any recommended reading section - I dislike these section generally anyway)? He is mentioned as having written a foreword to a book that is used as a source but my understanding here is that the actual article that is being used as ref was written by other researchers. I don't think that this disqualifies the use of the book as a source - particularly since sometimes in these kinds of volumes it's the publisher that decides on the forward writer and the contributors don't have a say or opinion on that - though if you want to remove the mention of his forward from the citation that's fine.radek (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced it with Snyder's book.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Background Material

Describes violent Polish anti-Ukrainian "pogroms" in the 1930's:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/comment13.htm

Ought to be briefly integrated into the article.Faustian (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop making things up, there were no pogroms. The situation of the Ukrainian minority in Poland between the wars wasn't perfect but the situation was similar in all multiethnical countries in Europe at the time. Loosmark (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"The most widespread and intense violence took place in the anti-Ukrainian pogroms of 1934-1938. For this, alas, we do not need to rely on Polish or Ukrainian accounts alone. Monsignor Dr. Philippe Cortesi, the Papal Nuncio in Warsaw, condemned the violence in a private letter to the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs regarding just one such event of 2-3 November 1938. Polish members of the 'En-De' ('National Democracy', a militant Polish patriotic-nationalist organization) attacked Ukrainian students in their dormitories in Warsaw, unhindered by Polish police who stood by watching the brutal violence, and who waited until the end of the riots to arrest Ukrainian students for disturbing the peace. Several Ukrainian institutes were attacked, with the subsequent "destruction of everything that falls into the hands of the aggressors." A Ukrainian shop was destroyed when Polish "nationalist fanatics" set fire to the interior and then hurled a screaming young Ukrainian woman into the flames. The worst violence occurred at the Ukrainian Catholic seminary, located a mere 200 meters from the central office of the Polish state police. In the Polish crowd's iconoclastic rage, irreparable damage was done to the interior of the Ukrainian church, where icons were defiled and a priceless portrait of St. Peter destroyed. The seminary was ravaged as the angry Polish crowd systematically broke apart furniture and hurled the pieces through broken windows to the streets below. In all, at least eight Ukrainians were hospitalized with serious injuries, and two were killed. Consistent with its usual policy, the official Polish press remained mysteriously silent about such incidents. And wherever possible, the Polish police confiscated and suppressed Ukrainian underground newspapers and publications where the incidents were discussed."

The author makes clear that this was one of many such incidents.Faustian (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The author also uses the word "genocide" to refer to the events discussed in this article. The author also describes this incident as "the worst violence". "Pogrom" is an unfortunate choice of words here (as is perhaps "genocide").radek (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

By worst violence he meant in reference to the events of 2-3 November 1938. The author is clearly a reliable source here is his CV: [7] and this review was apparently published by Harvard.Faustian (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should also include the information in the article that the Ukrainian terrorists murdered the Polish minister of interior in June 1934. Loosmark (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? The assassination of Holowko is already in the article. I hope you're not suggesting that assassinating the interior minister in 1934 justifies throwing a screaming Ukrainian woman into a fire in 1938. I hope you're not using OUN-B logic.Faustian (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course not I'm not suggesting anything like that. But it is not clear what conclusion to draw from a murder of 1 Ukrainian woman. Loosmark (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, the conclusion is anything that makes the Poles look bad should be censored --Львівске (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No the conclusion is that a murder of 1 woman, however terrible that is, cannot be a proof that a whole country was doing anti-Ukrainian crimes. Few years ago a couple of foreigners (Turks if i recall correctly) were burned in a building in Germany. does that mean the modern Germany is an anti-Turkish state and that Turks should do ethnical cleansing in Germany by murdering 100.000s civilians as the Ukrainians did in Wołyn? nope, such idea is completely mad and ludicrous. Loosmark (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the source was clear in using the example of that woman to highlight what Ukrainians were going through for several years. There were many such incidents. It stated that this was only one example. No, there was no mass murder of Ukrainians. They were merely treated somewhat like blacks in the American South prior to the 1950's (the occasional lynching, etc., to put them in their place). This is not, as you claimed, "similar in all multiethnical countries in Europe at the time" although the incident described was reminiscent of Kristallnacht (also prompted by an assassination, btw), though on a much more limited scale. The source described these events as contributing to the later massacres in Volyn.Faustian (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainians were not treated as blacks, neither were they burnt alive, ok? Stop with these pathetic fabrications. They were not given the rights as the monirities have today but such were the times and neither were the Irish and Welsh in UK, the Corse in France, the Catalans and Basque and France etc etc etc etc given any rights. The blacks in the US were treated 1000 or 2000 times worse. Loosmark (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. With all due respect, I prefer what reliable sources say to your opinion. According to the passage excerpted above, such events were common between 1934-1938. The passage states a screaming Ukrainian woman was thrown by a Polish mob into a burning Ukrainian store. A Ukrainian seminary was burned, a precious icon destroyed, other icons defiled, Ukrainian (seminarians?) beaten, two of whom died. Ukrainian university students were brutally attacked by Polish mobs while police watched and then arrested the Ukrainians. This is just what happened in 3 days in November 1938 - and such incidents were going on for 4 years. It's more like how blacks were treated in the American South in the 1930's, than how Corsicans were treated in France. As for "fabrications" - I don't believe that Jeffrey Burds [8] engages in fabrication, do you? Faustian (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that your comparing the situation of black people with those of the Ukrainians in Poland is a manipulation because these two situations were completely different. It is true that Ukrainian minority were not given cultural rights as they should have been from today's perspective but my claim is that almost nobody was giving adequate rights to minorities at the time in Europe. Anyway the situation of black people in American was bad beyond imaginable. Loosmark (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

About 100 blacks were killed by lynchings in the 1930's. Blacks were denied educational opportunities, their votes were suppressed, etc. The Ukrainian situation was not the same, but roughly comparable. The number of victims of violence was probably similar, thousands of schools were shut, university education was limited (wealthier Ukrainians sent their kids to university in Vienna, but what did poorer ones do?), votes suppressed, churches destroyed or forcinbly converted, etc. Another example, I heard from someone - he remembered as a child in the 1930's how his grandfather was dragged out of the house by a Polish policeman and forced to lick the policeman's boots in front of the family and neighbors. The constant humiliation, lack of rights, threats of violence, occasional (though not mass) killings, explains the anger that led the hateful ideology of the OUN to become more popular within Ukrainian society (remember, OUN was a tiny fringe whom most Ukrainians really disliked in the 1920's). It is not an excuse for mass murder in the 1940's, but that latter events cannot be understood without knowing about the former. And I doubt that such treratment was the norm in the 1930's in Europe.16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well said Faust. Seriously, to say the situation with the Blacks in America was thousands times worse is ignorant. To pretend that nothing happened and it was just common "minority rights" of the day, is down right ugly. If you highlight the tension between the sides and the fact that majority of hte population in Volyn was Ukrainian...this a recipe for disaster. The "causes" section really should be made clear. Hopefully that can be accomplished, in spite of Loosmark's propaganda.--Львівске (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a recipe for disaster, in fact there was no reason why that should lead to a giant scale mass murders and massacres for the purpose of ethnical cleansing. Loosmark (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing Sourced Information?

The same editor Poeticbent, who falsely changed Orest Subtelny's description of hundreds of Orthodox Churches converted or destroyed to "In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic churches "[9] (this was proven here: [10]) has now decided to remove sourced material, taken from a book about the OUN and UPA published by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. This book has previously been online but apparently no longer is. As far as I know, wikiepdia policy doesn't demand that all works must be online to be relaible sources. I will ask this editor to stop blanking the page please. If he has constructive grammatical changes to make, he shouldn't mix them with the blanking. When I have time I go back and re-add the other changes he makes after removing his blanking, but not always.Faustian (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Stop lying through your teeth about what I wrote based on cited reference, and stop calling a few unsupported crummy sentences you defend – without a working link for months – a “sourced information”. Sourced to whom… if there’s no page at the source? Your latest edits prove that you have no knowledge of what constitutes proper referencing. You reverted everything I did in a bout of blind ignorance without reading any of the external links made available to you. That’s foolish. And also, do not call me names unless you’re an underage bully who thinks that verbal attacks are going to make you look bigger somehow. --Poeticbent talk 03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't need to have a working online link to source something properly. Just a reference, and legitimacy that this source is real. Hopefully an admin picks up on your trolling. I find it extremely ironic you are part of the "anti vandalism taskforce" and say you prefer to use the talk page vs. edit wars on your user page, what, is this some kind of cover?--Львівске (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I provided the link to show how you falsified what Subtleny wrote. Here is what you did: [11]. You changed "Hundreds of Orthodox Churches were destroyed or converted into Roman Catholic Churches" to "In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic churches", with Subtleny as the source. Here is Subtleny's book: [12]. Third paragraph states "the authorites ransferred about 150 churches to the latter (Roman Catholic) and destroyed another 190." So, clearly you falsified what Subtleny wrote in your disruptive edit.

Now you are falsely claiming that sourced information is " a few unsupported crummy sentences you defend – without a working link for months – a “sourced information”. Sourced to whom… if there’s no page at the source". The book was once available online, now it is not. So what? The link worked for months prior to not working, and nobody challenged it then. It is referenced as: "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Chapter 5, p. 285. Kiev, Ukraine: Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine". Page 285. So, yet another falsehood by you. Then you complain that I call you names. I wrote, above, Polish nationalist in parentheses with a question mark. It was not a definite statement, but a speculation based on the pattern of your disruptions. If a Ukrainian editor did the same sort of stuff (falsifying information to minimize Ukrainian crimes, removing sourced information that says anything positive about someone in conflict with Ukrainians, etc.) I would have a similar hypothesis and would say so. So? Yet here you are, talking about "lying through your teeth", "blind ignorance", "foolish", "underage bully" etc. Try to be civil. please.Faustian (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect to "blind reversion" when you mix some gramamtical improvements with a bunch of blanking and/or falsehoods, I revert the whole thing. I then, when I have time, make an effort to go back and readd the legitimate stuff you mixed in, as I did here: [13]. If I don't always have time to do so, or miss something, the best way to avoid this problem is to not mix it in with the blanking of sourced info in the same edit.Faustian (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've reorganized the background section and will clean it up tomorrow (will probably not go back to the computer later today). Needed clarifications: 2 Polish approaches to the "Ukrainian problem". Dmowski wanted assimilation and persecution of Ukrainian culture, Pilsudski wanted to support Ukrainian identity but channel it in a way that made it loyal to the Polish state. The OUN sabotouged Pilsudski's plans by killing moderate Ukrainophile Poles and Ukrainians who cooperated with them. (ironic that the Polish nationalist chauvinist Dmowski and the OUN were basically working against the same team). Snyder and others explain this well. It need not be explained in great detail on this article, but a brief summary would be useful. If noone gets to it by tomorrow, I'll do what I can.Faustian (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should be split into 3 sections: before, during, and after. All background and prelude in one, all that happened during, and it's legacy, reconciliation, and historical part in the 3rd.--Львівске (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Faustian, this is an interesting and factual observation. OUN activists were very keen in the 1930s on deterioration of the Polish - Ukrainian conflict. Their tactics was very clever - they destroyed rail or telegraph lines, also killed local police, sometimes just local Polish civilians. After these acts, they anxiously awaited Polish reprisals, because it was the only way for them to turn otherwise peaceful Ukrainian villagers against Polish rule. Tymek (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Orders

Nevertheless, there is no documentation proving that UPA-OUN made a general decision to exterminate Poles in Volyn Thats not true. Follow the source: Antypolskie akcje na Wołyniu, przeprowadzane z całą bezwzględnością, miały na celu zniszczenie ludności polskiej. Prowadzone były zgodnie z dyrektywami kierownictwa OUN-SD w sposób zorganizowany, i miały charakter ludobójstwa. W tajnej dyrektywie terytorialnego dowództwa UPA - "Piwnycz", podpisanej przez "Kłyma Sawura" (Roman Dmytro Klaczkiwśkyj) czytamy: "(...) powinniśmy przeprowadzić wielka akcję likwidacji polskiego elementu. Przy odejściu wojsk niemieckich należy wykorzystać ten dogodny moment dla zlikwidowania całej ludności męskiej w wieku od 16 do 60 lat(...) Tej walki nie możemy przegrać, i za każdą cenę trzeba osłabić polskie siły. Leśne wsie oraz wioski położone obok leśnych masywów powinny zniknąć z powierzchni ziemi".
Faustian is good in Polish he can better translate Klaczkowskij order: "we should carry large action of the liquidation of the Polish element. At walking away of German armies one should use this convenient moment for liquidating the entire male population in the century from 16 up to 60 years (...) we cannot lose this fight, and at all costs it is necessary to weaken Polish forces. Woody villages and villages put next to forest massifs should disappear from the face of the earth" Source: SBU Archive Volhynia province, d. number 11315, volume. l, part. H, p.16.
Can u help me with new text prepartion for this paragraph?--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My Polish is probably worse than your English, but I will try to trasnlate it: "In the secret directive of the territorial leadership of UPA - North (which means that the decision was limited to UPA - North and was not, at least according to this source, a general decision to exterminate Poles by UPA/OUN) signed by Klym Sawur (Roman Dmytro Klachkivsky) "...we ought to undertake a large-scale act of liquidation of the Polish element. Upon the withdrawla of the German army we should use this convenient moment to liquidate the entire Polish element from ages 16 to 60 years old (...) we cannot lose this struggle, and we must weaken Polish power at all costs. With respect to the last sentence, I don't understand the words "oraz", "wioski". Instead of "woody" probably "forested" or "in the forest". Perhaps it should read "villages inthe forest and next to forest massifs 9what do they mean by that?) should disappear from the face of the Earth.

Which source quoted the SBU archives? It would be interesting to read more.Faustian (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Władysław Filar, Antypolskie akcje nacjonalistów ukraińskich from Przed Akcją Wisła był Wołyń, Warsaw, 1997. This order is also reapated in Filar's new book: Volhynia events 1939-1944 (2009). Note is leading to SBU archieve.

Next very important order was made by Szuchewycz: W związku z sukcesami wojsk sowieckich konieczne jest przyspieszenie likwidacji Polaków, muszą zostać całkowicie zgładzeni, ich wioski spalone (...) ludność polską należy zniszczyć. * Opis: Fragment rozkazu z 1944 r. Szuchewycza do OUN. This order can be found in Motyka's book Ukrainian guerrilla warfare 1942 - 1960. It means: In relation to successes of Soviet armies precipitating the liquidation of Poles is necessary, they must entirely be killed, their villages burned (...) we should destroy the Polish population. * Description: Fragment of the order from 1944 r. Szuchewycza to OUN. This order concerned Galicia, Wolhynia was cleaned from Polish already (only very strong Self-defence centres stayed).--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. My understanding is that zgładzeni is translated as "destroyed" rather than "killed." Basically he was calling for the ethnic cleansing - liquidation - of the Polish population in Galicia. He did not clearly call for their deaths, rather their disappearance. Liquidate can mean either putting an end to/abolishing or killing [14]. The order can be understood either as "the killing of Poles is necessary" or "the abolishment of Poles is necessary." Obviously some commanders did the latter. If the order had used the words zabyt, ubyt, morduwat, narznac, etc. it would have been much more clear. I wish someone could come up with the original order in Ukrainian so this could be clarified further. The bottom line, however, is that we have to rely on the interpretations of the primary sources by secondary sources rather than conduct our own research. Use the conclusions of Motyka or Filar, and add direct quotes only insofar as they support those historians' conclusions.Faustian (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Let us stick to the topic

Let me just remind that the article is on the Volhynian Genocide of Poles, not about Polish - Ukrainian relations of that time. Surely, we need a background, but there is no need to elaborate on such issues as borders of the Western Ukrainian Republic, or Polish - Ukrainian War, as they have their own articles and interested users can check these topics there. Tymek (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Loosmark (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What a load of crap - If you are going to write a historic article - and consider yourself as a subject-matter expert you need context. This all happened in war-time. A number of major earth-shaking events took place. Polish-Ukrainian relations were in a horrid state. These events were taking place in an area that in fifty years changed counties multiple times - Russian-Austrian-Hungarian-Ukrainian-Polish-royalist-communist-nazism. Suffered to multiple wars. By restricting context the basic article is reduced to stereotypes. “Innocent Poles were killed by sadistic Ukrainians” Not history - Bobanni (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they were referring more to the earlier context - the details of the Polish-Ukrainian war. A sentance or two stating that the Poles won, Ukrainians lost and were resentful seems to be sufficient. Describing how it is that the ones most responsible for the massacres - the Bandera faction of the OUN - got into a position to implement those acts is a different story. For this reason the events of the 1930's and early 1940's are much more relevant and necessary and should not be trimmed.Faustian (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bobanni, please, control yourself. If you keep on answering in this way, you will be ignored, as this is not polite. I wrote clearly that we need a background, but this background is slowly growing bigger than the topic of the article itself. I agree with Faustian, all things about the OUN and Bandera are good, but there is no need to elaborate on Polish - Ukrainian war and borders of Western Ukrainian Republic. Or perhaps you are suggesting that a lost war is a good excuse for mass slaughter of civilians, 25 years later. Tymek (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you poles keep insisting on censoring history to slant the article, then you guys are the ones who will be ignored. A small summary detailing what happened and how it affected the massacre is entirely relevant. --Львівске (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I should refuse to talk to a hateful person like you, but for the last time I will repeat myself. An introduction and background are relevant, this is a sure thing. But augmenting them with topics not related to the article, is completely unnecessary. Most of these topics have their own articles. Tymek (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Information

While details about, say the borders of the West Ukrainian Republic are obviously irrelevent on this article, information about Polish policies and the Ukrainian reaction to them are very relevent in terms of helping to explain what happened later. This is not just my opinion, it is stated by a reliable source [15] "Ukrainian anti-Polish feelings did not develop in a vacuum, and no account of the process of escalation towards ethnic cleansing is complete without paying close attention to the interwar period..." This is also rather implicit in Snyder's acount and why he included that ominous quote by the young Volhynian about decorating the pillar with the Pole and the tree with his wife. I find it ironic that you, loosmark, choose to delete this information while at the same time you try to include the information about the German desruction of Warsaw in the article about the Expulsion of Germans after World War II. There loosmark wrote [16]: "It was one of the biggest crimes against the Poles plus the capital was completely devastated by the Nazi bandits. It is therefore useful to explain why many Polish people felt they cannot longer live in the same country with Germans anymore. You know to prevent the casual reader of the article thinking these expulsion came "out the blue". Loosmark (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I agree with him. Let's be consistant here, to prevent the casual reader fromthinking that the masacres happened "out of the blue." I will note that loosmark did not remove the information about the OUN-B hateful totalitarian ideology that I placed in the article, nor the OUN-B's participation in the murder of Jews that I also included in this article. He just removed the information about the bad things that Poles did.Faustian (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting parallels: Germans devastate Warsaw, brutaly killing over 100.000 civilians and what did the Poles do? They expeled them. Poles don't give all the rights to the Ukrainian minority, close schools etc. What did the Ukrainian do? Massacre 10.000s innocent civilians. Completely absurd to compare the 2 things. Also please note that on the expulsion of Germans article we only wanted to insert a single sentence and there were big dramas all over. Loosmark (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But the argument you gave involved understanding why it happened - to know that it didn't happen "out of the blue." I am not suggesting that the massacres were justified. I am explaining why that happened. And this stuff explains it. As said by a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A good question is what should be regarded as the main cause of the massacres - the policies of the Polish government in the 1930s, Nazi and Soviet policies in the 1940s, or insane policies of the OUN. I personally would choose the third one, as I find it difficult to grasp the link between closing of Ukrainian schools and mass slaugter of newborn children and their mothers. Please note that killed were numerous ethnic Ukraininians who did not want to cooperate with the Banderists. On a side note - Polish researchers created a list of 500 brave Ukrainians who helped their Polish neighbors, risking their own lives.Tymek (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tymek. If the closing of schools would be a plausable reason for huge scale mass-massacres then the world would be full of such events. No, the reality of the matter is that was the first excuse they could think of, had the school not been closed they would have just found something else. Loosmark (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The most important thing is to reach some kind of agreement here. I am hoping that we will come to a conclusion, without losing our cool. I have a personal request to Loosmark and Pawel - Faustian has shown himself to be a reliable editor, and it should be appreciated by Polish users. So no personal attacks, please, as they lead to no good. Tymek (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tymek on this one.--Jacurek (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the OUN - specifically its extremist Banderist faction -had more to do with it than destroying churches. IT channeleld the anger into a murderous direction. This is why I placed the section about Polish government policies as a subsection of "Radicalization of Ukrainian Society and the Rise of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists." It helps explain how the main factor behind the massacres - the OUN-Bandera becoming popular and strong enough to do what it did - was possible. This simply follows what reliable sources tell us about the underlying causes. If you want to know how and why the massacres occurred, you have to know the story about how the OUN became popular and how it got into a position to do what it did. Polish persecution of Ukrainians in the 1930s is an important part of that story. Soviets wiping out moderate Ukrainian politicians who would have opposed Bandera, or presented an alternative to his movement, is another part of that story. Germany employing Bandera's men as policemen, giving them training and weapons, is another part of that story. All three of these factors are included in this article, quite correctly I think. This article has 9 paragraphs about the massacres in Galicia and Volyn. One paragraph devoted to the scene in Poland in the 1930s does not seem excesive. More could be added, but this seems reasonable.Faustian (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Ukrainian pogroms of 1934-1938.

Many editors seem to be aware of the complexity of the ethnic cleansing campaigns in Ukraine in the mid 1930s and in 1943 and Poland in 1947,

"The most widespread and intense violence took place in the anti-Ukrainian pogroms of 1934-1938. For this, alas, we do not need to rely on Polish or Ukrainian accounts alone.

Monsignor Dr. Philippe Cortesi, the Papal Nuncio in Warsaw, condemned the violence in a private letter to the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs regarding just one such event of 2-3 November 1938.

Polish members of the 'En-De' ('National Democracy', a militant Polish patriotic-nationalist organization) attacked Ukrainian students in their dormitories in Warsaw, unhindered by Polish police who stood by watching the brutal violence, and who waited until the end of the riots to arrest Ukrainian students for disturbing the peace.

Several Ukrainian institutes were attacked, with the subsequent "destruction of everything that falls into the hands of the aggressors." A Ukrainian shop was destroyed when Polish "nationalist fanatics" set fire to the interior and then hurled a screaming young Ukrainian woman into the flames. The worst violence occurred at the Ukrainian Catholic seminary, located a mere 200 meters from the central office of the Polish state police.

In the Polish crowd's iconoclastic rage, irreparable damage was done to the interior of the Ukrainian church, where icons were defiled and a priceless portrait of St. Peter destroyed. The seminary was ravaged as the angry Polish crowd systematically broke apart furniture and hurled the pieces through broken windows to the streets below. In all, at least eight Ukrainians were hospitalized with serious injuries, and two were killed. Consistent with its usual policy, the official Polish press remained mysteriously silent about such incidents. And wherever possible, the Polish police confiscated and suppressed Ukrainian underground newspapers and publications where the incidents were discussed."

as quoted by Jeffrey Burds, Northeastern see (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/comment13.htm) Bobanni (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There werent any pogroms in 1934-38. In 1930 was pacification action. --Paweł5586 (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there were no "pogroms". As I have already written somewhere else even in today's modern countries like Germany or France there are cases of ethnical intolerance and violence and sometimes people get killed just because of their nationality. Loosmark (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review wp:OR

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means thatWikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Bobanni (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And what original research that did i bring up? Loosmark (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark gave his opinion, which he has the right to do, that there were no pogroms. The reliable source states differently, but loosmark has the right to express his disagreement. THe article ought to, of course, reflect reliable sources rather than editror opinions. As for the analogy with Germany, I don't recall, in two days, a screaming Turkish woman being thrown into s burning store byu German mobs, a Turkish seminary being destroyed by another mob which killed 2 people, and a Turkish dormitory being assaulted by yet another German mob while the police stood by and watch. And in 1934-1938 there were many such cases in Poland against Ukrainians. Faustian (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[17] [18] Loosmark (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd link clearly says "there were no indications that the blaze was the result of a racist attack" --Львівське (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Bobanni, feel free to create a new article Anti-Ukrainian pogroms in Poland, 1934-1938, with a link to it in this article, marked For more information, see:. But please do not mix topics and do not put everything in already overstretched article. I have no doubt that there was discrimination against Ukrainians in the Second Polish Republic, but the number of victims of policies of Polish government was next to nothing. I am pretty sure that in 1934 - 1938, terrorists of OUN killed more Polish civilians. Anyway, a new article is the only solution here. Tymek (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no pogroms, the correct title of such an article should be Polish-Ukrainian relationships 1934-38. Loosmark (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps expand the History of Ukrainian minority in Poland, which is already linked. Tymek (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There were numerous encounters between the Polish and Ukrainian populations in the period leading up to "the" ethnic cleansing, and there were numerous occasions where Ukrainians were killed in these scurmishes, and the actions reported in the Western press. The whole process was one of conflict escalation whose roots can be found in the fact that the long promised Ukrainian autonomy was not delivered by the Polish government which at that time had transformed itself into a dictatorship. Indeed just the opposite happened. Just this weekend I ran across a number of articles published in the "Manchester Guardian" which wrote about the escalation of conflict in the 1930's analysing and discussing the situation that lead to the conflict.

As the article stands right now, it seems that suddenly, right out of the blue, after the issue of a decree by the OUN and because of this decree, widespread massacres commenced. No. It was a continued escalation where two sides were unable to come to a compromise that lead to these actions becoming so bitter. As a result everyone suffered. I will see about locating the articles and typing some out.Bandurist (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposed to mentioning those events, but if you wish to describe them further, a new, separate article is the best solution. Here, we are dealing with mass slaughter of Polish population of Volhynia, not with Polish - Ukrainian relationships in the 1930s. They are good for a background, and a mention is necessary. Still, I find it weird when some of you here compare a burned Ukrainian store to 100 000 murdered civilians. Tymek (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the article is long enough that the level of description of events in the 1930's is not excessive. It's only one paragraph - compared to nine paragraphs and pictures of the massacres. Se the article about the Armenian Genocide - two entire sections devoted to description of the Ottoman empire in the 19th century and the disssolution of the Empire. The burning store was used as an example that stood for many such events, just as numerous examples of Poles beheaded etc. within the main part of the article stand for many such events also.Faustian (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

One more remark on the discriminatory policies of Polish government in the 1930s, and their connection to the massacres. We should all bear in mind that Polish rule of Volhynia ended in September 1939. All Polish policemen, soldiers, civil servants, osadniks were sent to Siberia, or killed in Katyn. Therefore, those whom some Ukrainians regarded as oppressors, disappeared from Volhynia forever. After German invasion, in 1941 and most of 1942, nothing major happened between Poles and Ukrainians in that area, with occasional violence. The massacres began on a large scale in summer 1943, four years after Polish rule had ended. All Polish police were by then dead, what remained of Polish population of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia were mostly poor peasants, many of them poorer than the Ukrainians. The structure of Home Army did not exist there until late 1943, also due to the fact that almost all Polish males capable of organizing those units had been sent to Siberia. Should those peasants and their children be regarded responsible for mistakes of Polish rule four years earlier? Perhaps some see a link there, I do not. Tymek (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Burds explicitly and Snyder implictly make that link. Of course practically all of the Polish victims were innocent of the persecution against Ukrainians. This probably should be included in the article. Just as most of the Ukrainians west of the new Polish border, killed by Polish forces, were innocent of the Volyn massacres. Hatred, unfortunately, is often collective.Faustian (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure, which new border do you have in mind? Loosmark (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I didnt find any information about "anti Ukrainian" pogroms in 1934-1938 in Motyka's books, Torzecki also. It is nationalist propaganda trying to excuse UPA genocide. I found many informations about very good Polish-Ukrainian relatons beetwen communities. There were many mixed marriage, shared celebrating Christmas and Easter ect. Here are some stories of witnesses in Polish. One example: Współżycie mieszkańców wsi, bez względu na narodowość i wyznanie, układało się poprawnie. Była to swoista symbioza dwóch narodowości i dwóch religii. W rozmowach towarzyskich posługiwano się obu językami. Obchodzono wzajemnie święta obu wyznań. Istniała daleko posunięta wzajemna tolerancja językowa i wyznaniowa.

It means: Co-existing of country inhabitants, no matter of the nationality and faith, were correct. It is a specific symbiosis between two nationalities and two religions. We used both languages to speak between Polish and Ukrainian. We together celebrated Christmas nad Easter. An advanced mutual linguistic and religious tolerance existed. --Paweł5586 (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey Burds is hardly "nationaliast propoganda." Moreover he cited the words of the Papal Nuncio - is that "nationalist propaganda" also? Here is a book by Anna Reid - Ukrainian nationalist? - [19]. Read the excerpt from the New York Herald Tribune on the bottom of the page, and tell me how wonderful relations were before the war. Faustian (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

New Organization

Before, after the lead, the article had followed chronological order of events preceding the massacres and then the massacres. Now some changes have been made without an explanation of why they were demed necesary. We now have the background pushed to the back (and mixed up - the Polish policies of the 1930's have been placed before background information of the 1920's). Typically background belongs in chronological order - see Rwandan Genocide where a disucssion of the civil war and catalysts precede the massacres. Of Armenian Genocide where two sections, one a discussion of events from the late 19th century and a second about the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, precede a description of the Armenian genocide itself. In addition to placing the background at the end of the article, the logical organization within the background section has also been removed. All of those reasons basically showed how the OUN was able to do what it did. Now they are listed as seperate events, seemingly unconnected with each other and only to the massacres. I am restoring their proper place.Faustian (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to simply move things around but everything was so mixed up that I ended up merely restoring the last version, by loosmark, and will have to go back to add the grammar or other changes.Faustian (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to know how to write well, so please let me take care of the article's structure. First, do not lose track of the broader picture. Squabbles by prewar nationalists are one thing, but committed atrocities are quite another. That’s why the section Responsibility has been expanded and moved down to deal with excessive details of the Polish-Ukrainian past with proper weight. Some of the edits which attempted to paint that sort of thing with carefully selected words have been placed at the bottom. Nothing was omitted from the article. However, please keep in mind that the victims cannot be made responsible for their own murderous death. --Poeticbent talk 07:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the format of other mass murders such as the Armenian Genocide which logically show the events preceding the massacres, then the massacres, and then the aftermath. Please refrain from personal attacks, and please do not try to take possession of the article by unilaterally completely altering its structure. We already have an example of you falsifying information, being uncivil, etc. here: [20]. Please refrain from such behavior. Thank you.Faustian (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of some articles about massacres. Note that each article includes information about the background and preceding leading up to the killings, them the murders, and then the aftermath and other stuff. The Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, Rwandan Genocide, Lwów pogrom (1918, etc.Faustian (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• You remind me of another Wikipedian who made my life a living hell until he finally went away one day. I already said, your edits are thoughtless and sloppy. You have no talent for writing. Meanwhile, everybody is taking a stab at this article and so, it needs a revamp once in a while. Out of courtesy, I won’t call you a liar for your numbing reinsertions of bad links as references, so please extend the same courtesy to me and google yourself the information you delete. Since you brought up the examples, look at Rwandan Genocide again. The actual massacres are much closer to the beginning... and for a good reason. --Poeticbent talk 04:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

More personal attacks, followed by yet another false statement. In the article Rwandan Genocide , there are five sections preceding the one about the genocide itself. If you continue to change the order to one that is not chronological, which is different from many other articles on various other massacres, your change of order will be reverted. If you choose to embed other info into your disruptive edit, unfortunately that might also be collatoral damage. Perhaps you can make the good edits first, and then do your disruption, so that only your disruption will be reverted. But the choice is yours. Faustian (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I consider this hopeless exchange finished, editorial bullying notwithstanding. This is the last time I’m acknowledging Faustian's attitude problems with a personal reply. Article Rwandan Genocide has 19 sections – the Genocide section is number 5. The article Armenian Genocide has 16 section – the Genocide particulars are under sections 1, 2 and 3, and so on. There’s no need to whitewash what happened in Volhynia with a barrage or peripheral info placed up front. And don't threaten me with collateral damage, because you're not a soldier, OK? --Poeticbent talk 16:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you refuse to discuss your changes that make this article different from so many other ones. The Armenian Genocide has sixteen sections. The section on the genocide itelf is the third section, following the prelude [21] (with 3 subsections including life under Ottoman rule, reform implementation of the 1860's etc.) and the dissolution of the empire sections [22]. As you correctly state, out of the 19 sections about Rwanda the actual genocide begins in section 5. The current version of this article has 11 sections. The massacres are the second one. This is completely in line with other articles and is logical. Before we describe the massacres, we write what led up to them. All info is sourced to reliable sources, and indeed one of those reliable sources hiomself stated that the events did not occur in a vaccum and the background is necessary in order to understand.

You assume bad faith and falsely accuse me of whitewashing the massacres. This is out of line. I am the person who wrote and added to the background section, the information about how the UPA learned to kill Polish civilians by helping the Germans to kill Jews. That is hardly the act of someone wishing to "whitewash" what happened in Volhynia.Faustian (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Balance

Before my reorganization
Article length: 40,513 characters
1. Lead: 2,732 characters
2. Politicized whitewash: 12,267 characters
3. The article subject description: 20,991 characters
4. Closing statements: 4,523 characters

After
Article length: 40,513 characters
1. Lead: 1,864 characters
2. Introduction of the subject: 3,103 characters
3. The article subject description: 17,433 characters
3. Historical discourse after the fact: 18,047 characters

--Poeticbent talk 04:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sad to hear that you describe reliably sources background infromation as "politicized whitewash."Faustian (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Everything is a matter of proper perspective (which you lack, having no talent for writing), so let me explain it to you. If you insert, at the beginning of the article, kilobytes of text written decades after the fact "pointing fingers", and you don't say what actually happened, that's "whitewash". But, if you put that text after the article subject, than the "kilobytes" become a historical discourse. Its all after the fact, not before. --Poeticbent talk 05:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again you are uncivil. What happened is in the lead, and there is moreover a picture of slaughtered people at the top of the article. No whitewash. As I have already written, I was the person who added the material about UPA members learning how to slaughter Poles by ehlping the Nazis murder Jews. So your accusation that I am somehow "whitewashing" UPA crimes is patently false. Indeed, you began moving the events preceding the massacres out of chronological order and into the back of the article only when some information about what Poles did was placed there. The reason it was placed there was because a reliable source explictly stated that these acts were a contributing factor. Someone else seems to want to be whitewashing here.Faustian (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bobanni's edits

Bobanni in case you have missed it, this is an article about the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. The Wisła action has nothing to do with the Massacres of Poles and it has its own article here Operation Wisła. I therefore ask you to remove the text you have added to the article. Thank you. Loosmark (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Both deal with ethnic cleansing = Operation Wisla according to many realiable sources was seen as retaliation to the Massacres. So there is a link between both articles - hence the "main" tag. Bobanni (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not connection between the two things. The events in Volhynia were mass scale massacres of innocent women and children for the sole purpose of ethnical cleansing. Loosmark (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I brief section about reprisals against Ukrainians in Poland (with a link to the Operation Vistula) article would seem to be be appropriate. I agree that Bobanni's version can be trimmed a lot, to one paragraph, because it is peripheral. But I'm not sure it deserves complete removal. There is certainly a connection between the expulsion of Ukrainians from southeastern Poland and the Volyn massacres. Look at page 194 of Snyder's Reconstruction book: [23]. At the request of the Soviets, "on September 1945 Polish authorities ordered three infantry divisions to deport remaining Ukrainians to the Soviet Union. The ranks of two of these three divisions included Poles from Volhynia, some of whom exacted personal revenge for the slaughter of 1943. Polish soldiers killed hundreds of Ukrainian civilians as they forced about twenty-three thousand of them to evacuate the country in late 1945...one example must stand for dozens of others. At Pluto's orders, Polish soldiers murdered the civilian inhabitants of Zawadka Morochowska on 25 January 1946. Soldiers killed 56 people, mostly women, childrena nd the aged. They burned people alive, mutilated faces with bayonets, disemboweled the living."Faustian (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wisła operation wasn't ethnical cleansing in the classical meaning. It was undertaken by the communists because the Ukrainians resisted the communist authorities. There is no connection between the two events as the communists simply wanted to get rid of elements which could be dangerous for them. For example the whole operation started on 28 March 1947 hours after the communist general Karol Świerczewski was assasinated. Loosmark (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Snyder disagrees: [24] Page 197: "It does not follow, however, that resettling the entire Ukrainian population was only considered in the context of the war with the UPA...Resttlement was designed to ensure that Ukrainian communities could never agian arise in Poland, that postwar Poland would be, in the terms postwar Communists inherited from interwarnationalists, a "national state."Faustian (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that disagrees with what i wrote; yes the communists decided to make ethnically homogeneous state but they did not do that to punish Ukrainians for their crimes in Volhynia, frankly they didn't care about that, they simply wanted to maintain maximum control on society and the UPA was seen as sth which challenged their authority. Loosmark (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Operation Wisla was a final chapter of that sad period, but I think discussion about it, and all possible edits should be carried out on the proper talk page. I cannot resist a remark. While Polish government apologized for this shameful resettlement of Ukrainians, current Ukrainian government hails such people as Shukhevych as heroes, with official celebrations and monuments dedicated to them. Tymek (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion - double memory

This article on a major inter-ethnic conflict suffers from what Jeffery Burd describes as:

"The task of reconciliation of these disparate memories is not only daunting, but in fact guarantees that the historian's motives will be impugned no matter how diligent the research, or how conscientious his or her efforts to be fair. And when we refocus our attention to multiethnic zones like Galicia, the struggle for totality becomes even more daunting, as we move from "double memory" to ethnically distinct multiple memories of shared events."

With this article representing the Polish "memory" and aggresive deletion by many editors of the Ukrainian "memory" thereby impacting the Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Bobanni (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is topic about Massacres of Poles not about operation Vistula! Stop playing games. Nobody in operation Vistula had died. People in Jaworzno camp died because of typhus.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Bobanni. I think that because the relevant background information is included, the nuetral. If this article was based purely on Polish sources and included only the massacres and nothing else, than indeed it would be only a "Polish memory." However, we have info by Snyder, Burds, etc. and the picture seems to be more or less complete.Faustian (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

POV tag keeps getting removed. The comments relate to "I don't think so" without any real discussion. Some discussion takes place in Operation Wisla article. Much of the article relates to historic stereotypes common to many conflicts ethnic conflicts. Please leave both tags in place until dispute is resolved. Thanks Bobanni (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Prometheism - Polish support for Ukrainian independence

The article should in the background (briefly) Prometheism, the Polish policy of supporting the cause of Ukrainian independence and weakening the SU in the 1920s. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting the Background and Preceding Events After the Massacres?

I would appreciate feedback from other editors on this. The version prior to the editors changes began with the lead describingt he massacres, thenthe events building up to the massacres (basically the story of how the murderous Bandera fation of the OUN got into a position to commit them), thent he massacres, followed by other information.

As I had mentioned, this order followed the precedent of other articles on similar topics. The Armenian Genocide has sixteen sections. The section on the genocide itelf is the third section, following the prelude section [25] (with 3 subsections including life under Ottoman rule, reform implementation of the 1860's etc.) and the dissolution of the empire sections [26]. Out of the 19 sections about Rwanda the actual genocide begins in section 5. The current version of this article has 11 sections. The massacres are the second one. This is completely in line with other articles and is logical. Before we describe the massacres, we write what led up to them. All info is sourced to reliable sources, and indeed one of those reliable sources himself stated that the events did not occur in a vaccum and the background is necessary in order to understand.

Any comments about the order?Faustian (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I restored the order. The new images even fit better in this order. Any comments?Faustian (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on reorganization

Ok I think there's two related issues here:

• Organization - Whether the sub sections "Radicalization of Ukrainian Society", "Polish-Ukrainian relations before World War II", "Policies conducted by the Soviet Union (1939–1941)", "Policies conducted by Nazi Germany (1941–1943)" (or their renamed equivalents) belong in the Background section or in the Responsibility section.
• Appropriate length of the background section relative to the rest of the article. Of course, moving the "Policies" and "Radicalization" subsections from Responsibility to Background - this is why these two issues are related - makes the background section too big.

In it s current version [27] the background section seems too long. In the last version before the re-organization of the article [28] (by Pawel5586) one could argue the Background section is too skimpy with a lot of the important context information down below in the Responsibilities section.

Of course Wikipedia has no set policy on this, but other similar articles can be used as a sort of rule of thumb. I looked at Armenian Genocide and Rwandan Genocide and did a character count for each (w/o spaces since then things like number of subsections would have an impact). I calculated what percentage of the article main body (i.e. excluding the lede, the "See Alsos", references and things like "timeline" and "films about") is taken up by what is the background section.

For Rwandan Genocide: I take the two sections "Civil War" and "Preparations for the Genocide" to be the Background section. The rest of the main text goes from the section "Facts" to the end of the section "Resistance to the Rwandan genocide" (I did not include the time line). The background is then 3011 characters (w/o spaces) and rest of the main article text is 34580 characters. The background section is thus 8% of the overall main article text.

For Armenian Genocide: I took "Prelude" and "Dissolution of the Empire" as the background sections. For rest I went from "Armenian Genocide, 1915–1917 period" to end of Art sub section in the Commemoration section (including the list of films would make the background section smaller %). The background is 7970 characters. Rest of text is 47815 characters. So the background section is thus about 14% of the overall main article text.

Ok, doing the same thing for the two version of the article. Pawel's last version [[29]] of the article has the background section at about 8% of the article. The current version has background as 32% (1/3) of the article.

Based on this, I think the currently the background section is way too long, though the 8% previously is probably too skimpy. So length argues for the old version, chronology argues for the newer version, since most of the stuff that was moved from the "Responsibility" section happened before the massacres.

Ideally, IMO, we would like to preserve the present structure for the sake of chronology, but shorten the background section to about 15% of the main article body. This would involve removing some stuff, rewording, and also deciding if any of the moved material can go back into the responsibility section.

Yes, this is where the tedious nitty gritty work comes in.radek (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll start getting to work on that.Faustian (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent blanket reverts at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia

User Faustian (talk · contribs) – who is Ukrainian – attempts to WP:OWN the article called Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, written about the atrocities committed by the Ukrainian nationalists in Eastern Poland during World War II. Many times before already I turned away from this article (which I co-wrote) because of his attitude. The article, created mostly by Polish Wikipedians has been taken over by Faustian in recent past – trying to present the massacres rather as a military conflict – with the tens of thousands of Polish and Jewish genocide victims painted by him as some sort of regular armed forces consisting of actual troops (these are his citations) thus causing their own deaths by defending themselves against the Ukrainian perpetrators. Faustian’s most recent edit war conducted for many days in bad faith (wiping out good refs, reinserting bad links and promoting politicized finger-pointing) goes on, with WP:AN/EW report regardless of his continued blanket reverts. —Poeticbent (via posting script) 16:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No appeal to reason worked so far because of his hidden objective which is to make the Poles responsible for what happened to them. Faustian insists on inserting – ahead of the article’s subject — kilobytes of text (sometimes peripheral and minute) written decades after the fact "pointing fingers" at individuals and veering off the subject of massacres into the Ukrainian independence movement. As a result, what actually happened in Volhynia is being described, via his edit war, towards the end of the article which I attempted to correct. Faustian refuses to accept that the issues of responsibility belong after the article subject – as part of the historical discourse taking place decades later. —Poeticbent (via posting script) 16:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You guys are the ones trying to own the article, reverting and contesting cited information. He's just trying to make the article better and without its original Polish bias.--Львівське (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually only Poeticbent is engaged in doing this on this article. The accusations by him against me are false. This section is a request for comment on the order of the article, not a forum for personal attacks. Suffice to say that I am the editor who created this section of the article: [30] outlining Ukrainian involvement in the murder of Volhynia's Jews and how the Ukrinians committing this crime learned how to massacre the Poles later. This is hardly the work of someone attempting to whitewash Ukrainian actions. But I will say no more on that - it's not the subject of the RFC.

As I had mentioned in the previous section on the talk page, the order follows the precedent of other articles on similar topics. The Armenian Genocide has sixteen sections. The section on the genocide itelf is the third section, following the prelude section [31] (with 3 subsections including life under Ottoman rule, reform implementation of the 1860's etc.) and the dissolution of the empire sections [32]. Out of the 19 sections about Rwanda the actual genocide begins in section 5. The current version of this article has 11 sections. The massacres are the second one. This is completely in line with other articles and is logical. Before we describe the massacres, we write what led up to them and what made them possible. The version that Poeticbent keeps reverting includes all the factors that made the massacres possible, taken from reliable sources. Indeed one of those reliable sources himself stated that the events did not occur in a vaccum and the background is necessary in order to understand.Faustian (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

RFCs are supposed to be neutral. Poeticbent, I am highly disappointed in your tone and attitude here - you are obviously pro-Polish and anti-Ukrainian. I am a Polish editor myself, and I see both sides at fault, but as a Polish editor, I would like to implore YOU to take a deep breath and cool down. I hope that the Ukrainian editors can do the same thing; in any case, this RfC statement needs to be revised to be less partisan. Briefly - I see both sides (Polish and Ukrainian editors) edit warring here, using emotional language and biased nationalistic sources. This needs attention from neutral editors, and those Polish and Ukrainian editors who can manage to stay as neutral as possible. As far as I see it, the editors who has been editing this recently (Poeticbent, Faustian, Lviske) fail at that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point out where any of my edits have failed being nuetral? I will make any necessary changes to fix them.Faustian (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You are edit warring and you are exchanging personal attacks with Poeticbent. I don't have time to analyze content edits in more detail, but edit warring and personal attacks on both sides are a good indication that neither party is neutral and reasonable. Please cool down as well, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is an inaccurate statement. "Personal attacks on both sides" is inaccurate. He has claimed that I have vbeen "lying through my teeth", can't write, etc. etc. Look at how he worded his RFC. I have stated that he has falsified information; this is a fact and I provided the diffs and the links to the googlebooks site that proves that what I said was not an attack but a factual description. As for edit warring, my warring consisted of restoring the previous version of the article and asking for discussion before making the massive and controversial changes. I did so without violating 3RR, unlike the other party. Please do not equalize the two parties here or claim that I am not nuetral or reasonable.Faustian (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being neutral? BS --Львівське (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (via RfC): It is wikipedia's policy to be NPOV. Since I have hardly any idea about the basics of this case, I can truly speak from that perspective. I have read the discussion and the claims, and what I notice is a conflict doing on, as well as a persistent disagreement. In such cases, NPOV means this: both sides should be included, in a sense of "Whereas some believe that< source >..., others say that< source >..." - this is usually the most reasonable way to deal with any conflicts in a reporting, and uninvolved fashion. (That, by the way, is why I refrain from writing about any issue that I might be emotionally involved with. If I had a say, I would advise that neither those who identify as Polish nor those who identify as Ukrainian should majorly contribute to this.) Seb az86556 (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that editors who have strong emotions about this topic should probably be very careful in editing it in order to make sure they're doing so in a NPOV way, I don't think the suggestion that Polish or Ukrainian editors should not contribute to this article is very constructive. Polish and Ukrainian editors are most likely the only ones with the sufficient background knowledge, access to sources, ability to read them and knowledge as to how to find new ones which are all necessary for writing a good article (also, I think Eastern Europeans have had enough of having their history written by semi-clueless and condescending Western European writers). If everyone tries to approach the subject in a mature, calm manner then I think it's possible to cooperate here. Whatever one's nationality/ethnicity.radek (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Note my wording: "Identify as". There's a difference. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (via RfC): I am a bit disappointed that participants in this discussion identify each other as belonging to different national groups rather than just being wikipedians. The mere mentioning by some, that they co-wrote the article suggests that it is the author of the RfC that is trying to OWN the article. By just reading the introduction it becomes clear that the article is indeed one-sided and biased. There is a detalied description of atrocities commited by Ukrainians but not a word about 20,000 Ukrainians killed by Poles at the same time.[33] Take a look at the German article for a balanced representation of events. Let different views supported by sources be expressed. This is a very complex and contentious issue. I suggest using talk more often to voice concerns and try things there before posting and revert-warring in the article. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  It begins there, but lets not forget the arguments that ensued after the pro-polish editors here persistently pushed remove or hide the information about the historical background that lead to the attacks. These "blanket reverts" have been mostly combating this these biases, or putting sections in the correct order (re: chronologically)--Львівське (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  This article has its specific topic and of course does not cover all the historical Polish-Ukrainian relations. On the other hand, most of things have their reasons and especially in such a contentious topic it is important to explain the background of the tragic events. The Polish- Ukrainian tensions that originated already in the beginning of the 20th century, escalated over the following years, and culminated in the Volhynia slaughter. Other events followed, as the fights in Eastern Galicia, the post-war fights in the Bieszczady (which deserves its own article, too), and the final Operation Wisła. Nevertheless, let's not forget that this article has a very specific topic of its own. --Lysy^talk 08:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tone and all

I've sequestered myself in a valiant attempt to just work on some content for a while, however, we seem to be in another which ethnic group is more evil to whom quagmire and I felt compelled to finally participate. I would view myself as both pro-Polish and pro-Ukrainian (if one were seeking to apply labels, might as well get that one out of the way), ergo neutral, here. I'll try to make some time to take a look through in more detail over the next few days/week. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  17:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the main thing is that folks need to calm down and discuss. Please, no attacks on other editors writing style or stuff about "propaganda".radek (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to your opinion. Please see my comments in the previous section.Faustian (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I will look over it - since I've been absent from this article for awhile, please give me some time to catch up with the most recent changes.radek (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, your engagement here is highly appreciated. Thank you for taking your time, as an uninvolved person, your input and comments are very welcome. Tymek (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please observe the 1RR on this article

See the result of this 3RR case. All editors working on Massacres of Poles in Volhynia must limit themselves to one revert of this article per day (WP:1RR). The definition of revert is given at WP:REVERT. Any admin may enforce this restriction by blocks, if needed. Before an editor reports a violation of 1RR to admins, it is good practice to leave a note for the person who you think exceeded 1RR and ask them to take back their last edit. This restriction can be lifted by any uninvolved admin without consulting me provided the admin is supported by consensus at a noticeboard. Any admin who closes a WP:AE case related to this article may undo the restriction if they think it desirable. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to prevent these disputes from spilling onto other pages, I'd slap 1RR on Ukrainian Insurgent Army as well just to make sure.radek (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to set up a 1RR at Ukrainian Insurgent Army as well. See a review of the 1RR at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

double memory?

I think the last sentence, "The historical records of both Polish and Ukrainian sources are often based on historical stereotypes making it difficult to determine an accurate picture of what happened.[7]" is good and should be used in the intro, but that's it. Otherwise it looks redundant to me, and out of place.

Indeed, seams superfluous and too generic. I'll move the last sentence to the intro and remove the rest as you suggest. --Lysy^talk 08:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide as template

Seeing as this article is a FA, just want to point out that we should probably be trying to emulate it's form to get ours up to par.--Львівське (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename Article (neutral title)

Lets change name of article - Genocide of Poles done by ukrainian nationalists.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your vandalism and harm to this article has not gone unnoticed. --Львівське (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the title to a more neutral: The massacre of Volhynia (1942-1943). There wern't only the Poles who were massacred, there were 20,000 Ukrainian victims of AK. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose changing the article name to Genocide on Poles in Volhynia. Loosmark (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Since no government in the world (including the Polish one) has labelled it a genocide this title would be just POV-pushing. Using the Armenian genocide as a template wseems like a good idea, though.Faustian (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal to rename article Ukrainian-Polish ethnic conflict (Second World War) Bobanni (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be too broad and vague, conflicts happened not only in Volyhnia. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming this article to Ukrainian-Polish conflict would be like renaming the Holocaust to German-Jewish conflict. Loosmark (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, unless the article was entirely re-tooled to document all conflict between the two sides. Personally, "Volhynian Massacres" or something along those lines works.--Львівське (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is about as neutral as you can get while at the same time respecting the need for accuracy in the title. I think the above discussion illustrates this. This is an unnecessary proposal. Stick with current title.radek (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the current title is biased and the proposal to rename it is a sound one. --Hillock65 (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What's biased about it? There were reprisals and defense organized by Poles, but that's covered in the article. The title is supported by reliable sources. Quoting the (sketchy) 20,000 number is out of context. It's as if we tried to rename Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia (1930) to something like Response to Ukrainian terrorism in the Second Polish Republic. It doesn't reflect the nature of the subject. Yes, "massacre" here (and "pacification" there) are strong terms - and there's always a need to balance using strong terms (and strong does not equal POV) with the need to reflect what the article is about and what reliable sources use.radek (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What is biased? The title suggests that in this tragedy nobody suffered, but the Poles. And that is not true. Poles had the largest number of victims there and it should be reflected in the article, but unfortunately they were not the only ones. The title should reflect that. --Hillock65 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first let me say that I think I've tried very hard to be collaborative and neutral about this. For what it's worth generally I agree with Faustian's view of things. Stupid, repressive Polish interwar policy and discrimination (+ other factors, like Soviet and Nazi "divide and conquer" policies) led to the radicalization of Ukrainian society which gave OUN-Bandera support and radicalized otherwise moderate people and this eventually led to the massacres that are the subject of this article. But this still means that; the massacres DID happen. They WERE brutal. And they DID target Poles. Yes, there was a counter-response by Polish self defense units. But that's not what this article is about - though it is very clearly a part of the article. Like I said, I think I've tried to be cooperative and understanding about this - but the idea to rename this article in the proposed fashion is very clearly an attempt to whitewash the nature of what happened and to put the murderers on the same level as their victims. You want to provide background, analysis, etc. for why what happened happened, that's fine - of course using reliable sources. But, and it's about reliable sources again, this is very much a "massacre of Poles in Volhynia" (and other regions) in reliable sources, and how it is commonly thought of and hence that is the proper article title here.radek (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This "whitewash" word is getting thrown around too loosely, IMO. Personally, I think if using "ethnic cleansing" then Poles were specifically the only ones officially targeted by the OUN-B (re: Mykola Lebed), so yes that works. If talking about genocide or massacres, then it should be all encompassing of those were were killed in said massacres. 98.5% of Volhynian Jews died, does that not say something?--Львівське (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If a particular word is accurate then it will be used. The fact that 98.5% of Volhynian Jews died probably deserves its own article, especially since they died not just during this "action" but during the larger time period of German occupation of the Ukraine. You want to write that article, I'll be happy to contribute to it. But that is a different article.radek (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So, what you're proposing is that this article is about the suffering of the Poles and killings of other civilians is not important at all? This is NOT the way to compromise. And whitewashing remark was very insensitive. Nobody is trying to say that UPA's actions were justified or that they were the only victims. Ukrainian women and children massacred by AK in reprisal killings have to be remembered too. This article is not a shrine but a description of tragic history and should be neutral and balanced with respect to ALL victims, not just the chosen ones. --Hillock65 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Poles were the biggest target but Volhynian Jews & Ukrainians were also subject to the massacres. The title should state when the massacres took place, not single out one party over others. Also, though I'm not opposed to "genocide" or "massacre", as they both apply, "ethnic cleansing" describes the situation best.--Львівське (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but most of the Ukrainians who were killed by UPA during this time (and there were many) were killed because they were unwilling to go along with the killing of Poles (they were "moderates" where in this context that word means "unwilling to kill"). The Jews who were killed at this time were killed because the Holocaust was going on at the same time as this massacre. So you have two different mass killings going on simultaneously but for different reasons. UPA-Bandera (and some collaborators) were busy killing Poles, while the German Nazis (and some collaborators) were busy killing Jews - but that does not mean that the two were part of the same operation and phenomenon (and so deserve the same article) - unless you're going to argue that the massacres in Volhynia carried out by Ukrainian extreme-nationalists were also targeting Jews (the old "Lachy and Zydzi" Cossack cry, I guess). If you want to write an article about the massacres of Jews in Volhynia during this time period, again, I will try to help out.radek (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets come up with a neutral title and put it to a survey. I think Volhynian Massacre is acceptable. --Hillock65 (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again. If the article is to be on the massacres committed as part of the ethnic cleansing operation, then it should encompass all. If it is to be solely on the ethnic cleansing operation to remove poles and establish an ethnically homogeneous state, then yes poles should be in the title. It's a matter of what this article is about. I don't think the Jews killed need their own article, it mostly fits into this article itself when giving details. So yeah, here are my two suggestions: Volhynian Massacres or Ethnic cleansing of Poles in Volhynia--Львівське (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Only OUN-UPA made ethnic cleansing - genocide. UPA killed also Ukrainians who helped Poles, Czechs, Jews. It should be one section about it. And one section about polish revange. According to polish-ukrainians conferences it was 2-3 thousands Ukrainians victims. Polish main command forbided the revenge, Ukrainian command ordered ethnic cleansin.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Paweł5586, it's also interesting to note how ukrainian nationalistic editors attacked this article: first minor changes and deletions, then bigger and bigger changes now they even want to change the title, it's sickening. Loosmark (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)