Talk:Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists

Was this organisation ever referred to as "UNO"?

Currently Ukrainian Nationalist Organisation is a redirect to here, linked from UNO (disambiguation). Some websites [1][2] support that this may be the case. A few [3] suggest there may have been a parallel organisation in Canada known as UNO.

Currently UNO is not mentioned in the article, in which case the link from UNO (disambiguation) is not sustainable and will need to be removed.

I am aware that articles such as this can be sensitive so I am cautious to go ahead and edit them considering I am not familiar with their content. Can someone confirm whether this organisation is or was ever called UNO and whether it should be disambiguated as such? If it should be, can you also update the article so that such a link is supported?

Thank you, --MegaSloth (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian organization which you refer to is called "Ukrainska Natsional'ne Obiednennia", (UNO in Ukrainian) which translates as Ukrainian National Federation (UNF in English). It was established after a visit by Yevhen Konovalets in the 1930's with former Sich Riflemen taking on prominent positions within the organization. Alignment after WWII was primarilly with the Melnyk faction, but political activism in the organization in the organization has been very tepid, especially with the recent induction of many ethnic Ukrainians from Ukraine. the former Yugoslavia and Poland. It is more a stronger supporter of sports and to a lesser degree arts. Bandurist (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that has clarified what the Canadian organisation is. Does this mean that OUN is never referred to as UNO? --MegaSloth (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversial?=

Only participation Theodor Oberländer, Roman Shukhevych and the Nachtigall Battalion in the Lviv civilian massacre are controverisal. Facts are from yadwashem site and from Motyka book. There is nothing controversial in it. OUN supporters killed many Jews, this are facts.--Paweł5586 (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily in Lviv at the beginning of the war. See here}: "The Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) has declassified documents, proving that OUN [the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists is not connected with the anti-Jewish action in Lviv in 1941.

According to an UNIAN correspondent, SBU archive representative, candidate of historical sciences Oleksander Ishchuk showed the declassified documents, which provide an objective basis to state that OUN is not connected with violent actions against the civil population of Lviv in July 1941.

In particular, according to O.Ishchuk, the declassified documents of SBU indicate that on July 4-7 of 1941, representatives of Gestapo, who arrived in Lviv, turned to Ukrainian circles with demand to carry out a three-day massacre of Jews. “The OUN leadership, having got to know about that, informed its members that it was a German provocation in order to compromise Ukrainians with massacres”, the document reads.

“The SBU documents confirm that OUN members were trying to avoid taking part in actions against the Jewish population in Lviv, there were no official instructions on this issue”, O.Ishchuk stressed.

At the same time, the historian pointed out that none of the Soviet criminal cases, brought against OUN-UPA members, and kept in the SBU archive, has ever mentioned murdering civil population.

The scientist stressed that thanks to declassifying the documents, now historians have grounds to state that the OUN leadership refused to take part in Jewish massacres in Lviv in 1941."Faustian (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

See John-Paul Himka comment regarding SBU "document" [4]. While SBU is not scholar institution - see instead

• І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 (No ISBN)

p.232 OUN(b) militia participation in the extermination ofr Jews. At Lwiw OUN(b) militia joined the SS 2 July 1941

• ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN 966-02-2535-0

p 261 (OUN(B) Крайовий провід ОУН(б) на матірних українських землях) call to exterminate Russians Poles ,Jews and - date 1 July 1941

• [www.history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/Upa/2.pdf] Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, p.63
• [5] Dr. Franziska Bruder Radicalization of the Ukrainian Nationalist Policy in the context of the Holocaust

There is nothing controversial in it. OUN-B supporters killed many Jews, this are facts - per Paweł5586Jo0doe (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that different scholars disagree mean that there is some sort of controversy. It is pure OR to state that one scholar is correct and another is not. We just report what the state of affairs is. Obviously OUN police participated in ghetto clearing and the final solution in Volyn, but with respect to the actions in Lviv there is disagreement.Faustian (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but SBU is not reliable source. Are they historians? No. They are government security agency. They could prepare documents. Ukrainian pages arent reliable too. See photos on yadwashem pages. --Paweł5586 (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article, it stated SBU archive representative, candidate of historical sciences Oleksander Ishchuk.... And "At the same time, the historian pointed out that none of the Soviet criminal cases, brought against OUN-UPA members, and kept in the SBU archive, has ever mentioned murdering civil population." We don't just pick information that is convenient for our POV, we report what is out there. And there is disagreement amongst historians about what happened in Lviv.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So there is only one historian mentioned. I have changed article a little, it should be ok now, but Birczanin reverted. My version is ok?--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be in the same section as antisemitism. I'll make some adjustments. Keep in mind that whent here is disagreement among hisotrians we do not write, based on one of the competing POVs, "The OUN did this..." but instead write "Some historians claim the OUN did this...while others disagree." Also, the SBU historian exonerates the OUN in general in the Lviv massacres, not just Nachtigall. Himka disagrees with the SBU historian, stating that although Nachtigall did not massacre Jews evidence suggests that other OUN people did, although even he does not explicitly declare that the OUN did. Faustian (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

May be your not familiar with Ukrainian scientific practice – so a note – “public hearing” – it’s not a scientific conference. On “public hearing” all participants are “public” – regardless of their rank on it. While again SBU is nor scholar nor scientific institution per Ukrainian Legislation Scholar source deemed as such in Ukraine if published after endorsement by the Scholar Council (Наукова Рада) - an that is clearly indicate at the book. Like for instance - І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 endorsed by Scholar Council Of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and Hitorical Section of the Shevchenko University.

In which scholar source O.Ishchuk gives his opposing to Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and Hitorical Section of the Shevchenko University view. Please specify name and page. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pavel you should just note to Faustian - No place for original research. Please behave. It should be exist a WP:RS which clearly state "Controversial" othervice it would be OR - while comparsion the claims of the unknown media person with publications comes from National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine prepared by dozens of PH.D and published in history and Dr. Franziska Bruder (she got a plenty works on topics) - it's really not match WP:UNDUE nor WP:RS - there no matter to dicuss. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your link to the national academy of sciences article doesn't work.Faustian (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay the book by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is here. On page 63 it states that the Polish professors killed were specifically chosen from a group that met with Stalin and wanted to form a Polish Soviet government in oppostion tot he Polish government in exile in London. So of the 160 Polish prfessors in Lviv, only those 38 who collaborated with Stalin were killed. Speaking of Jews, you were as usual quoting selectively from the source. On page 63 the authors conclude that the OUN did not have an active organized punishment-repressive apparatus and that although individual groups of Ukrainian police participated in anti-Jewish actions (the OUN leadership itself openly admitted to this), they only played a supportive role within German organs. Individual members of the OUN took part in anti-Jewish actions in Lviv, and OUN leaflets encouraged anti-Jewish actions among the general population. But the book on page 63 did NOT attribute large-scale pogroms in Lviv to OUN units or militias. Therefore the sentence in the article "Some historians, such as Yad Vashem, have claimed that militas under the OUN's command were involved in the massacre of 6,000 Jews in Lviv soon after that city's fall to German forces,[29][30][31]. although this claim is controversial and disputed by other historians (see The Lviv pogroms controversy (1941))" is accurate. Please be honest when you claim things based on sources. And please stop forcing other editors to waste their time disproving your false claims. Faustian (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

To summarize: you argued against the phrase in the article that "Some historians, such as Yad Vashem, have claimed that militas under the OUN's command were involved in the massacre of 6,000 Jews in Lviv soon after that city's fall to German forces,[29][30][31]. although this claim is controversial and disputed by other historians (see The Lviv pogroms controversy (1941))." You did so by claiming that the document by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences contradicts what is written, adding that that document "comes from National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine prepared by dozens of PH.D and published in history." Fortunately I am able to read Ukrainian and the information from that document contradicts your claim. This is exactly the sort of behavior that got you blocked for a year in the first place, and I suspect permantly banned from Russian wikipedia also.Faustian (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - individual groups of Ukrainian police participated in anti-Jewish actions (the OUN leadership itself openly admitted to this), they only played a supportive role within German organs. Individual members of the OUN took part in anti-Jewish actions in Lviv, and OUN leaflets encouraged anti-Jewish actions among the general population . While no such exact text regarding Polish professors - translation is incorrect. Thanks. Could you provide a link to WP:RS which indicate this claim is controversial? Three sources by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences sources clearly indicates OUN-B militia participated in anti-Jewish actions. Please do not wate your time on mistranslation - google did translation much more precisely.Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And here you go cherrypicking my own quotes. Here is the translation: "the OUN did not have an active organized punishment-repressive apparatus' and that although individual groups of Ukrainian police participated in anti-Jewish actions (the OUN leadership itself openly admitted to this), they only played a supportive role within German organs. Individual members of the OUN took part in anti-Jewish actions in Lviv, and OUN leaflets encouraged anti-Jewish actions among the general population. But the book on page 63 did NOT attribute large-scale pogroms in Lviv to OUN units or militias. Point out where OUN militias were mentioned? They weren't. So the source does not state what you claim it does. Now please don't force other editors to waste their time tracking down your dishonest use of sources.23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have one more source, but in Polish - Jarosław Hrycak (Ukrainian historian). He also write about massacres by OUN police and more - source. Could you understand it Faustian? I think it can be used as source.--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly a good source. Thank you! We ought to focus specifically on OUN's participation, not only on that of the police forces. Many of the police, but not all, were OUN members but if the source doesn't explictly mention them then refering to actions by police in general in this article would be inapropriate. Although it provides a "mixed" view of OUN participation in the murder of Jews. From the article: "W uchwałach programowych podjętych na II (Krakowskim) Wielkim Zgromadzeniu OUN-B (kwiecień 1941) potępiono pogromy antyżydowskie, ponieważ odciągały one uwagę Ukraińców od prawdziwego wroga – reżimu bolszewickiego.

Ale równocześnie stwierdzono, że Żydzi są jego najbardziej oddanym sprzymierzeńcem i awangardą moskiewskiego imperializmu na Ukrainie." Translated: "In the resolutions adopted on the second program (Krakowski) Grand Assembly of the OUN-B (April 1941) condemned anti-Jewish pogroms, since they distracted attention from the real enemy of the Ukrainians - the Bolshevik regime. But at the same time, it was found that the Jews were the most devoted ally of imperialism and Moscow's avant-garde in Ukraine." That pretty much captures the essence of the OUN's attitude towards Jews and mirrors what John-Paul Himka concluded. Interestingly, our friend JoeDoe just repeated the last part of that in his one-sided presentation of the OUN.

Further in that article "Jak w praktyce OUN-B rozstrzygała kwestię swoich programowych rozbieżności w stosunku do Żydów i pogromów antyżydowskich? Źródła i historiografia przynoszą sprzeczne świadectwa. Polscy historycy twierdzą, że banderowcy współpracowali z Einsatzgruppen, w szczególności dostarczając listy proskrypcyjne i uczestnicząc w mordowaniu Żydów. Zachodni historycy (zarówno ukraińscy, jak i żydowscy) zwracają uwagę na doniesienia źródeł niemieckich, że banderowcy na centralnej i wschodniej Ukrainie wydawali Żydom fałszywe paszporty i tym samym ratowali im życie. Organizatorzy aktu 30 czerwca 1941 roku zrzucają odpowiedzialność za pogromy antyżydowskie w Galicji na „szumowiny” korzystające z tymczasowego chaosu. Osobiście ostrzegali oni członków OUN-B, by nie dali się sprowokować do żadnych akcji antyżydowskich i antypolskich. Według ich świadectw, członek OUN-B Iwan Rawłyk, który przejął kierownictwo lokalnej policji, twardą ręką zwalczał pogromy we Lwowie. Wraz z rodziną został stracony przez gestapo, między innymi za odmowę podjęcia współpracy na odcinku antypolskim i antyżydowskim." Translated: "How, in practice, did the OUN-B program to adjudicate the issue of discrepancies in their attitudes toward Jews and anti-Jewish pogroms? Sources and Historiography bring conflicting testimony. Polish historians claim that Bandera cooperated with the Einsatzgruppen, in particular by providing a proskrypcyjne (?) and participating in the murder of Jews. Western historians (both Ukrainian and Jewish) draw attention to the German source reported that the Bandera on the central and eastern Ukraine issued false passports to Jews and thus saved their lives. Organizers Act 30, 1941 shifted the responsibility for anti-Jewish pogroms in Galicia onto the "scum" in the temporary chaos. Personally, they warned members of the OUN-B, so as not to let themselves be provoked into taking part in any anti-Jewish and anti-Polish acts. According to their documents, a member of the OUN-B, Ivan Rawłyk, who took over management of the local police, fought against the Lviv pogroms. He and his family were executed by the Gestapo, inter alia, for refusing to cooperate on anti-Polish and anti-Jewish acts."

Basically this source seems to confirm that the OUN's attitude towards the Jews was ambivalent.14:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Better situation explained at І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 yes OUN-B really don't want to spend time on pogroms they plan to exterminate all Jews (see www.history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/Upa/2.pdf] Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, p.63 but luckyly does not have ' organized punishment-repressive apparatus' - thus last getto was in Dubno even in late 1943 (so - also exterminated by "Ukrainian" militia - see Weisberg, Moshe, "Life and Death of Dubno Ghetto 1946). Please use Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences works. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider this poorly cited Motyka book you keep putting in all of your edits a legit source, but instead a smokescreen since you don't even cite page numbers and it's not in english. The 'yadwashem site' is hardly credible.--Львівське (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OUN-B logo instead OUN

Guess why adopted in 1941 logo given instead of official OUN logo? Article need to be split - legal OUN and OUN-B appeared in April 1941. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Would be nice if the editors which twice [6] [7] hasreverted well sourced OUN logo explain how Organization in 1932 able to use logo created in 1941 for OUN-R. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hrycak

How about this:

However, the remaining local Jews, who for many Ukrainians in Galicia were considered to be the Bolshevik helpers and associates of the NKVD. Germany forced them to clean up dead bodies. The whole operation was accompanied by violence and beatings, in which participated also by local Ukrainians. Says the Jewish alone in Lviv at the beginning of July 1941 during a three-day pogrom killed between two and six thousand Jews. In late July and August 1941, the Ukrainian police, the so-called "days Petlura, even killed about five thousand Jews in Lvov, mostly representatives of the intelligentsia. In the early days of German occupation, and state the same sources, the anti-Jewish pogroms took place in fifty eight cities and towns of western Ukraine, killing them twenty-four thousand Jews.

So participation OUN police in killing Jews is clear now?--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this info is important and belongs somewhere on wikipedia, but not in the OUN article. Is more about police than OUN. The OUN may not have controlled all the police in July 1941 (they eventually did later, in Volyn); if these crimes were thr work of the OUN I'm sure Hrycak would have said so.Faustian (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Per .К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004 OUN-B controlled own militia (no ther militia was - only OUN-B) well into mid September 1941.

Even given a report by OUN-B from 22 July 1941 (see also ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN 966-02-2535-0 ) - about "milita" activity "Звіт другову Стецькові від ОУН на МУЗ"- report noted "discruptions of Hungarians" which released Jews and Poles and even protect them from OUN-B militiaJo0doe (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know you can quote selectively to support your POV.Faustian (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Plase prove your insertion by providing "full citation" (if such exist). Source [8] also used text from ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN 966-02-2535-0) - see at page p.37 - Our militia is now arresting together with the Germans numerous Jews. Before their liquidation the Jews are defending themselves with all kinds of methods, mainly with money. I was unable to find any documents or citation at ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN 966-02-2535-0 which prove any existance of OUN-B intend to not to exterminate Jews,Poles Russians. Can you? Please specify a page number. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realize you are asking to prove a negative. "I was unable to find any documents or citation at ОУН в 1941 році: документи: В 2-х ч Ін-т історії України НАН України К. 2006 ISBN 966-02-2535-0 which prove any existance of OUN-B intend to not to exterminate Jews,Poles Russians. Can you?"Faustian (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So can you provide a page number(s) and citation from mentioned above sources which can confirm OUN-B 1941 efforts to save/protects/treat equially Jews, Poles, and Russians. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Faustian look into yadwashem pages: Members of Einsatzgruppe C, German soldiers, and Ukrainian nationalists and rabble began to murder Jews. Ukrainian nationalist means OUN. Next source: Encouraged by German forces to begin violent actions against the Jewish population in Lvov, Ukrainian nationalists massacred about 4,000 Jews in early July 1941. Third source: The pogroms were organized by Ukrainian nationalist circles with German encouragement.

So not only militia took part in massacres. It seems to me, that in this case the situation is clear. We have many sources, even pictures.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yadwashem is one source, right? It's already in the article. Himka considers Yadvashem to be mistaken.Faustian (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to add at least 3 (three) sources Ін-т історії України НАН України . Could you indicate a Himka consideration that the Dr. Franziska Bruder The International Institute for Holocaust Research No. 12 -June 2008 p.37 ISSN 1565-8643 [9] has be to be mistaken - page number and name of source please. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hrycak link doesn't work. Nor could I find any other copies of this paper on the Web. What exactly did Hrycak write and in what context? Did he say that OUN condemned ALL Jewish pogroms in history? Only one pogrom? Several? What did this OUN condemnation actually say and where and when was it issued?

24.5.186.1 (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Ostap Bender

Link doesn't work anynore, it's been taken down. but the relevant stuff is posted on this talk page under the heading controversial. Hrrycak wrote, ""W uchwałach programowych podjętych na II (Krakowskim) Wielkim Zgromadzeniu OUN-B (kwiecień 1941) potępiono pogromy antyżydowskie, ponieważ odciągały one uwagę Ukraińców od prawdziwego wroga – reżimu bolszewickiego." I'm restoring it.Faustian (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you specify a page at [10] where appeared a text which "condemned anti-Jewish pogroms" - I can't find claim which can be deemed as such. Noone from known to me scholar, including Friedman, gives a similar assesment of the Second General Congress of OUN-B. Can you suggest a more details for source (page number, publisher, a year of issue). ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comments above. We base info on secondary not primary sources. Publish your interpretation, and we'll use it. Otherwise defer to Hrycak's claims. Hyrycak wrote: "Ale równocześnie stwierdzono, że Żydzi są jego najbardziej oddanym sprzymierzeńcem i awangardą moskiewskiego imperializmu na Ukrainie." Translated: "In the resolutions adopted on the second program (Krakowski) Grand Assembly of the OUN-B (April 1941) condemned anti-Jewish pogroms, since they distracted attention from the real enemy of the Ukrainians - the Bolshevik regime. But at the same time, it was found that the Jews were the most devoted ally of imperialism and Moscow's avant-garde in Ukraine."Faustian (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest me a page number and publisher and year of issue of Hrycak text. I already note above a Philip Friedman. Ukrainian-Jewish Relations During the Nazi Occupation. at Yivo annual of Jewish social science Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1959 p 265 - start from ...make it amply clear, that adopting the Nazi political platform and lot of other scholar sources with clearly indicated page number( for instance - see [11] Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, pp.62-63) by Institute of History - National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) , publisher which suggest similar assesment of the point 17 at Grand Assembly of the OUN-B (April 1941). Seems to me Hrycak was simply misquoted- [12] Ідеологія і практика українського націоналізму в 30-х роках пригадує нацизм і, передусім, італійський фашизм. . ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The quote I provided was his, word for word. So he was not misquoted. Your quote doesn't contradict this - "the ideology and practice of Ukrainian nationalism in the 1930's reminds one of Nazism and above all Italian fascism." You as usual quote selectively. Hrycak notes "Насправді Бандера не мав безпосереднього зв'язку з винищенням поляків на Волині в 1943 році, за що його часто осуджують. Я не кажу, що якщо б він був тоді в Україні, то не дійшло б до різні на Волині, але Бандера не був безпосередньо причетний ані до творення УПА в 1942 році, ані до її діяльності." (saying he had nothing to do with the murder of Poles, although if he had been in Ukraine it might have still happened). Furthermore, "Бандера хотів саме такого націоналізму: з одного боку - ксенофобського, агресивного, радикального, а з іншого - романтичного, героїчного, красивого. Його головною ідеєю була національна революція, національний здвиг." Translated: Bandera wanted a nationalism that was not only xenophobic, aggressive and radical but also romantic, heroic and beautiful. He compares Bandera to the Russian narodniks, more than to the Nazis. "Позиція Бандери була близька до російських народовців." But you conveniently ignored that, didn't quote it do you? It's interesting how you take a balanced article and just pick out the specific bits of info that serve your POV. Faustian (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I just ask for page number and year of issue for Hrytsak. Also for sentence Бандера не мав безпосереднього зв'язку з винищенням поляків google suggest - he have not direct relation to the murder of Poles. His indirect relation described well at Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, pp.62-63) by Institute of History - National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.Thanks P.S. Just a page and yearJo0doe (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No page or year for website interview. Text is transcribed here. Sorry that you don't like info that doesn't match your POV.Faustian (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you to follow WP:V, WP:RS,WP:CITE policy before use of the website interview. It would be nice if you fix artilce in accordance to above mentioned sources - to follow the scholar [13] assesment of the event described - see anti-Semitism took one of the key places in UNO program documentations. " April 1941, on the UNO Congress in Krakow, struggling Jews was practically legalized: “Jews are the support for Bolshevist regime in Ukraine, and therefore Ukrainian Nationalists’ Organization fights Jews…”. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

New section suggestion

National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine publications present a dozens of scholar texts which describe the sources which Bandera's OUN used for funding. Indeed intresting to note that the so called "Бойовий фонд ОУН" (Military fund of OUN) at large extend from 1940 composed from the Jews - victim of the Holocaust belonging - gold, dimonds, jewellery and intresting to note - a stamps collections. "Military fund" was not captured by Soviets and was "evacuated" through Vienna in 1944. A section "OUN funding" would be intact. Suggestions?Jo0doe (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. For verification purposes please use only sources available on-line or published by western institutions - we can't check offline writings available only in Kiev.Faustian (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you specify me restiction at WP:V - regarding National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine publications available at Parliament library? Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Guess still unable to find Toynbee, T.R.V. (1954). Survey of International Affairs: Hitler's Europe 1939-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. (page # missing). From you past edits [14]Jo0doe (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you choose to insert info from sources that can only be verified by going to the library of the Ukrainian parliament then expect your edits to be removed.Faustian (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I second that --Львівське (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I hope your opinions will be intresting for some usersJo0doe (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ehy don't you post relevant scans to your Flikr page!--Galassi (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To the Gallows

"The OUN was willing to support Nazi antisemitic policies if doing so would help their cause. A slogan put forth by the Bandera group and recorded in the July 16, 1941 Einsatzgruppen report stated: "Long live Ukraine without Jews, Poles and Germans; Poles behind the river San, Germans to Berlin, and Jews to the gallows"." All available web material points back to Wikipedia. Does anyone have access to the actual slogan?.--Galassi (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's in the Friedman work, and referenced to it. I'll doublecheck whenever I see that book again but I don't own it. The article shouldn't be just a collection of antisemtic quotes, one is enough to illustrate the OUN's attitude. But there are plenty from the period in 1941 when the OUN was particularly interested in forging an alliance with the Germans (Himka's article online has some also). Faustian (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've access to actual leaflet - it stored in same collection as this one [15]. If it will be usefull I'll upload it to WP - but it's August 1942 leafletJo0doe (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although the info is sourced to a secondary source so the primary one is unnecesary.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's only few line from the an A3 size leaflet - for educational proposes it's would be relevant to present all document, I suggestJo0doe (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Institute of History - National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

Source published in 2004 (for Parliament Commission) [16] [17] got nice text to describe OUN after WWII - see pp.471-472 for OUN-B Jo0doe (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Life long adherence to theXenophobia of the OUN-B described at p.472. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

U don't see such a phrase there.--Galassi (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sheptytsky vs. OUN

Interesting article about this very decent man, will be incorporated when I have more time (unless someone else wants to): [18]. It doesn't surprise me.... Faustian (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Excessive Rudling citations

While Rudling's work is reliable and ought to be cited, Rudling has also been described as not completely objective and indeed has been described as a "radical revisionist": [19]. The lengthy footnotes and quotations comprising several paragraphs, from Rudling's work, seem to be excessive, given that he is not completely objective. His claims seem to be be given undue weight here and should be trimmed down considerably.Faustian (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

agreed on weight; his name definitely throws up a flag when I see it used in articles. --Львівське (говорити) 03:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There is more Rudling text here than there is about the OUN's prewar activities.Faustian (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you suggest happen? I don't want to revert or blank or anything like that at the moment, him and I have been going back and forth on the Svoboda article so I don't want it to be some multi-article edit war -Львівське (говорити) 05:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he can trim down or summarize what Rudling stated? OR quote a sentence per note and leave it in the ref section, rather than have a seperate note section devoted to mostly Rudling quotations.Faustian (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The separate note section on Rudling is a bit too much, I agree. For the stuff that's cited inline - which parts specifically? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove that entire notes section. Take whatever info is relevant to this topic (many details, such as how Svoboda was formed, are not) and incorporate it into the body of the article. A sentence or two direct quote, no more, embedded in the ref section is fine.Faustian (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I could theoretically remove all the notes added to support the few new sentences that cite two Rudling and one Shekhovtsov papers. However, this article is currently faulted for citing too few sources, and I'd argue it needs more academic sources, not less. I have more sources on the OUN and could add them over the next few days. Regarding Kuzio's piece, it's not published in a peer review journal… and to be fair to both Rudling and Shekhovtsov, both have written on extreme-right Russian nationalism, from the Soviet period through to today. -Darouet (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Kuzio's piece is not a reliable source for an article (other than as a description of Taras Kuzio's opinion), I linked to it here for discussion purposes. I would remove all the notes, and place most of the info into the article's body. The Svoboda stuff does not belong in the lede though it can be briefly mentioned in the body. When referencing the statements, including a sentence or direct quote within the ref is fine. Also be careful of Rudling, as he is not very objective (I will demonstrate this later). It is safer to stick to verifiable facts that Rudling provides in reliable sources, rather than Rudling's opinions.Faustian (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

We need actual academic sources, not websites, for this article, and material written in the last 15 years would be a plus. Also, if the beginning of the article states that the OUN is and organization that was founded… it should describe who the current members of the OUN are. Svoboda, the Congress, etc. all trace their heritage back to the OUN, sometimes proudly. That should definitely be in the intro. I'm surprised you haven't written about it yet here. -Darouet (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that one sentence about Svoboda claiming to trace their heritage to the OUN is sufficient for the lede. The article is about OUN, not Svoboda.Faustian (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I added one sentence in the first paragraph linking to the modern parties because the article begins, "The OUN is… -Darouet (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Examples of Rudling "Objectivity"

Here: [20], an exchange in the Globe and Mail between Rudling and Lubomyr Luciuk in which Rudling largely smears most of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Rudling quotes:

"Ukrainian Waffen-SS Division Galizien, a deeply anti-Semitic organization under the command of Heinrich Himmler, whose officers were trained in the Dachau concentration camp, took personal oaths to Adolf Hitler, and units of which partook in war crimes"

• The Division like the entire Waffen SS was under Himmler's command. His involvement with the Division was almost nil. He approved it being formed, and reviewed it a couple of times during the war. Bringing him up is simply inflammatory.
• The claim that the officers were trained "in the Dachau concentration camp" is simply a lie. Rudling himself here in an interview states "Officers and NCO’s of the Waffen-SS Galizien were trained in Dachau, in the vicinity of the concentration camp." [21] The city of Dachau, near Munich, contained the camp as well as training facilities.
• "Took personal oaths to Adolf Hitler" all Waffen-SS units did this. The Galciian one was differentiated from other Waffen SS units: [22]. German Waffen SS oath: "I swear to you Adolf Hitler, as Leader and Chancellor of the Reich, loyalty and valor. I vow to you and all those you place over me obedience until death, so help me God." Galician Oath: "I swear by God this holy oath, that in the struggle against Bolshevism I will give the Commander-in-Chief of the German Armed Forces, Adolf Hitler, absolute obedience, and if it be his will, as a fearless soldier, I will always be prepared to lay down my life for this oath."

"In 1943-44, the UPA murdered around 100,000 Polish nationals and thousands of Jews in Volhynia and Galicia."

• This is the maximum estimate in the range. Consensus among sources is 40,000-60,000 in Volhynia and 25,000-40,000 in Galicia (this is covored extensively in Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia). If an apologist for UPA stated that it killed "about 65,000 Poles" (the lowest estimate) he would rightly be accused of bias.Faustian (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Faustian, I don't really know what you're getting at. You are arguing that Rudling's academic and peer reviewed journal articles are biased, because what appear to be his comments - below a newspaper article online a few years ago - are not 100% consistent with an interview he gave for a different newspaper, and with a website you've linked that also includes an oath to Adolf Hitler? What does this have to do with anything? -Darouet (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I am providing evidence showing that Rudling himself is biased, so his works ought to be used and viewed carefully.Faustian (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Faustian, academics publish reviews of one another's work all the time, sometimes very critical, in which they warn of bias or mistakes in scholarship. Do you know of any such critiques of Rudling's work, or do you just have links to random websites? -Darouet (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

D, why do you have an issue with these sources being "random websites" but when an academic like Kuzio provides his assessment of Rudling it's also just his 'opinion'. Not everything needs to be in journals, you know. --Львівське (говорити) 16:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that Rudling, himself merely a recent graduate and a current postgrad, has yet attained the academic stature to attract peer-reviewed critiques. What you casually dismiss as "random websites" is actually proof of Rudling being wrong and/or dishonest. He is a man who in comments at a major Canadian newspaper claimed that officers were trained "in the Dachau concentration camp" (with the obvious an strong implication that they were participants in the Holocaust!) while in an interview stated ""Officers and NCO’s of the Waffen-SS Galizien were trained in Dachau, in the vicinity of the concentration camp." I wonder why you dismiss this as merely being "not 100% consistent." Falsely claiming that someone was training inside a concentration camp during the Holocaust is a very serious accusation, one that should not be dismissed lightly.Faustian (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I respect and am interested in Kuzio's opinion, as much as I respect and am interested in his publications, though from a professional and editorial perspective I recognize the difference between them. You do too, right Львівське? Publications are peer reviewed: when Kuzio publishes, he prepares his manuscript carefully and accordingly. His manuscript is then vetted and corrected by both editors and anonymous academics, and Kuzio himself improves his manuscript in the process.

Of course I wasn't at the conference Kuzio refers to, so I can't evaluate his impressions of the tone. Nevertheless, in general I agree with certain points he makes: that attention to western Ukrainian nationalism doesn't excuse southern/eastern Ukrainian or Russian nationalism. That remembering Nazi collaboration and crimes should also cause us to remember Soviet crimes. That the persecution of minorities isn't a fault only of western Ukrainian nationalists.

But I'm skeptical of any implication - and I'm not sure Kuzio means to imply this - that Rudling or Shekhovtsov are apologists for the USSR, Russia, or Putin. Their papers are very critical, and actually they accuse the Party of Regions of promoting extreme-right forces for electoral purposes. They also don't shy away from describing Soviet persecution. But again, I'm basing this off of their published pieces… I don't know their personal opinions. And Faustian, I'm not going to cite comments below a newspaper article that are attributed to Rudling for the same reason: these aren't scholarly publications, they were prepared as such, they weren't reviewed as such, and I'm not even wholly confident of attribution. Trying to cast doubt on the scholarship of important historians without using scholarly publications is a hopeless and unhelpful enterprise. -Darouet (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're really concerned about Rudling or Shekhovtsov's reliability, why don't you take his credentials, and the links you have found, to the reliable source noticeboard? I'd be happy to try to make sure the article PDFs get made available, somehow, if that'd be helpful… and the book Rudling published in, with Wodak and Richardson as editors, is partially available online. -Darouet (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I just posted something there, mentioning you both so that you'll get a notice of the thread. -Darouet (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

CIA support

The sentence: "During the Cold War, the OUN was covertly supported by western intelligence agencies, including the CIA" is cited to Rudling. Can we get the actual text from the source?

AFAIK, the CIA got hold of a couple of OUN associated figures like Lebed and gave them sanctuary in return for intel. I'm not aware however of any direct - if covert - support for UPA. I guess it'd be sort of like saying that because the CIA snagged up some German scientists like Von Braun that means they supported neo-Nazis in West Germany. Which of course they didn't. The sentence looks like a big wide stretch of original research. But let's see what Rudling says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK the OUN/UPA did have material support from the CIA --Львівське (говорити) 05:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, details? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. I have the text from the Rudling paper, and Rudling cites a number of other sources. -Darouet (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Rudling, Per Anders. “The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right: The Case of VO Svoboda.” In Analysing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text, Eds. Ruth Wodak and John E. Richardson. Routledge, New York, 2013, p.230:

"During the Cold War, US, West German, and British intelligence utilized various OUN wings in ideological warfare and covert actions against the Soviet Union (Breitman and Goda, 2010: 73– 98; Breitman, Goda, Naftali and Wolfe, 2005). Funded by the CIA, which sponsored Lebed’s immigration to the United States and protected him from prosecution for war crimes, OUN(z) activists formed the core of the Proloh Research and Publishing Association, a pro-nationalist semiacademic publisher. The United States was repelled by the radicalism of the OUN(b), by far the largest Ukrainian émigré political party, and did not support their aim of a violent, possibly nuclear, confrontation with the Soviet Union, aiming at its breakup into a galaxy of successor states. The aim of rolling back Soviet communism did not translate into US support for the establishment of an authoritarian, nuclear Ukraine under OUN rule. As committed totalitarians, the OUN(b) cooperated mostly with Franco’s Spain, Chiang Kai- Shek’s Taiwan and with other eastern European far-right émigré groups, including former ministers of Tiso’s Slovakia, the successors of the Ustasha, the Romanian Legionnaires, and former Nazis.

"The OUN wings disagreed on strategy and ideology but shared a commitment to the manufacture of a historical past based on victimization and heroism. The émigrés developed an entire literature that denied the OUN’s fascism, its collaboration with Nazi Germany, and its participation in atrocities, instead presenting the organization as composed of democrats and pluralists who had rescued Jews during the Holocaust. The diaspora narrative was contradictory, combining celebrations of the supposedly anti-Nazi resistance struggle of the OUN-UPA with celebrations of the Waffen - SS Galizien, a Ukrainian collaborationist formation established by Heinrich Himmler in 1943 (Rudling, 2011a, 2011c, 2012a)."

I hope that helps, Volunteer Marek. -Darouet (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist organisation

https://www.academia.edu/454566/Terrorists_or_National_Heroes_Politics_of_the_OUN_and_the_UPA_In_Ukraine Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Banderists

Would someone make a page called Banderist/s redirecting here--74.57.167.219 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism

This article states: "Antisemitism was an attribute OUN shared with other agrarian radical right-wing Eastern European organizations". However that is a very biased statement. Antisemitism was allover also among the communists and other left-wing parties, in the Ukraine and abroad. Don't ask me why (that warrants a study of it's own) but it was. So it would be nice if this article would be changed accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.23.138 (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

OUN and antisemitism

The section is relatively long comparing to limited nimber of Jewish victims of OUN. There is no "OUN and antipolonism" section. Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930140122/http://www.kices.org/downloads/KICES_WP_04.pdf to http://www.kices.org/downloads/KICES_WP_04.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325095016/http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/2.pdf to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615050644/http://www.gazeta.lviv.ua/articles/2005/10/07/9554/ to http://www.gazeta.lviv.ua/articles/2005/10/07/9554/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411144040/http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/11.pdf to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528190021/http://wyborcza.pl/1,86758,5198591,Bandera___romantyczny_terrorysta.html to http://wyborcza.pl/1,86758,5198591,Bandera___romantyczny_terrorysta.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/chronology/1939-1941/1941/chronology_1941_13.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/chronology/1939-1941/1941/chronology_1941_18.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Current status

The article is vague about the current status of OUN.

• The lede starts with two references to the organisation in the past tense.
• The infobox states that current leader is Bohdan Chervak. There is no further discussion or source to support this statement.
• Last paragraphs in lede suggests a number of contemporary organisations "claim to be inheritors of the OUN's political traditions" (which is quite vague but (apparently) supported by a source)
• Some discussion in History section suggest OUN-B morphed into Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (KUN). If so, this would require more than the sole Kiyv Post article behind it [23]. The discussion in the history section also seems to differentiate clearly between OUN and KUN, as if OUN is a distinct active organisation.

Just posting thoughts. Will try to find time to clear this up. Jabbi (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm also interested in what the current status is. However, I would be very skeptical that there is any one "true" successor to the OUN, or even if it could be argued that there is, whether it would be appropriate to treat it as if it is the same organization (rather than discussing it a bit on this page, and it having its own separate page).

Almost all sources treat the OUN as a historical entity, and therefore I think that is the same approach we should take on this page Tristario (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand your concern Tristario, I would counter however that

• there are contemporary, local news sources, which we have little reason to doubt, such as [24] that refer to it casually, like a known current entity in contemporary Ukraine
• the Ukrainian article speaks in present tense and has considerable contemporary content
• there is information on the purported homepage of the organisation [25] stating some of the same information as is on the Ukrainian article

I think that Western research has focused on the history of OUN, as it is contested. Here we run the risk of misrepresenting an active, and possible quite relevant organisation in contemporary Ukraine as an historical entity because of the systemic bias in English Wikipedia.

Unless I am mistaken (which might be the case as I am mostly familiar with sources pertaining to Stepan Bandera, and less so with OUN in general) remember that the "almost all sources" you are referring to are mostly in English speaking academic journals specifically focusing on historical events.

--Jabbi (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Source nb4 in this article (rudling) says that there are four organizations that claim to be heirs to the OUN, which makes me think that it is more complicated than any single true successor. Source 14 next to that, by Umland and Shekhovtsov (Shekhovtsov is Ukrainian and Umland is based in Ukraine) also refers to the CUN as a direct heir, but doesn't treat it as the same entity as the OUN. That Kyiv Post article also isn't very clear whether it is "the" OUN, or just a political party calling itself the OUN

It does seem correct to say that there are organizations which could be called heirs or successors to the OUN, but from what I'm seeing in the sources, treating them as the same as the historical OUN is an oversimplification. The information in the Ukrainian article on the present entity called OUN is also not that straightforward - it says it was created by old members of the OUN-B that did not agree with leadership in the diaspora. It's not exactly saying it's the same entity Tristario (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

These are valid points you make Tristario. I note that Rudling's source seems to be a blog post by Taras Kuzio, which I've located here. There's a lot to consider so I will just leave the link without any further comment at this stage.

One point I will make however, we are discussing the history of the OUN, whether it is continuous or fractious (and it seems to me there are several points in time where this unclear for different reasons). With regards to the source you mention (Rudling, nb4) he says "Today, no fewer than four organizations claim to be the heirs to Stepan Bandera" and Stepan Bandera does not equal OUN. Therefore this source is not really relevant to the question about OUN's integrity through time. --Jabbi (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't quite read that source correctly, you're right (although that source does contain some relevant information). Anyway, I think that a cautious approach should be taken to this. I agree that this is something that we should include some more (well sourced) detail about in this article, and it's something worth further investigating and getting clarity on Tristario (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

POV in lead

This sentence seems problematic to me: The role of the OUN remains contested in historiography, as these later political inheritors developed literature denying the organization's fascist political heritage and collaboration with Nazi Germany, while also celebrating the SS Division Galicia It implies that the only reason the role of the OUN is contentious today is that some ex-OUN people wrote some fake history, which is a very slanted claim, and that the only people who deny that they are fascist also celebrate the SS, which is simply not true. The wording is based on a slightly cherrypicked version of one single author. I also think that the simplistic designation "fascist" in the infobox is problematic. Many scholars see them as fascist, most certainly see them as having a kinship with fascism, but there are scholars don't see them as fascist. I think we need to be more careful in wikivoice to attribute these designations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis Bob. The sentence in the lede about how the role of OUN is contested oversimplifies facts that need to be collected and stated in a more objective fashion. Whether OUN should be classified as "fascist" or something else, I don't know. It seems justified as Dontsov's ideas were fascist if I understand correctly. --Jabbi (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The leader of the "old" group Andriy Melnyk claimed in a letter sent to the German minister of foreign affairs Joachim von Ribbentrop on 2 May 1938 that the OUN was ideologically akin to similar movements in Europe, especially to National Socialism in Germany and Fascism in Italy". from Anti-Soviet resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army GizzyCatBella🍁 04:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting source, yet it is a primary source and organisations cannot be classified by what their historical leaders claimed them to be. On that note, it seems the content on the page is rather heavily slanted towards historical content about the OUN whereas it seems to be active today and have an near uninterrupted history since 1929. This informational brochure from their website seems to indicate that since 2012 the OUN has been an united front for several organisations. --Jabbi (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Bandera, Melnyk, Lebed, Stetsko and Dontsov remain revered figures in the Nationalist firmament; their fascist ideology barely camouflaged by the “integral nationalist’ label. Nationalist Ukrainian scholars and journalists have laboured hard to portray Ukrainian Nationalism as a righteous national liberation movement and to distance it from the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini. Frequently, they elaborate on spurious distinctions without a significant difference. GizzyCatBella🍁 17:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

OUN leaders emulated the Nazi’s organizational structure and portions of its political ideology. Both wings of the OUN had an affinity for Nazi-style organization, based on the dictatorial fiihrerprinzip that placed a single leader above the law itself. GizzyCatBella🍁 18:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley I've added another source. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

While a number of scholars see them as fascist, there are also some that argue against that label. So yes I agree that the lede should probably be altered to adhere to WP:NPOV better Tristario (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, definitely a bunch of key scholars see them as fascist, in particular the authoritative and widely cited Rossoliński-Liebe,[26] but for example this is a very solid article contesting this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48610446 It notes that Two contradictory and almost mutually exclusive trends still compete in historiography: one emphasizes the liberation character of the nationalists' struggle for an independent state, rejecting or ignoring extremist, xenophobic, and totalitarian elements in their ideology and practice (Vyatrovych, 2006; Mirchuk, 2007; Kvit, 2013); the other exposes the extremist, totalitarian, and “fascist” nature of the nationalist movement, denying any liberation and democratic elements in them (Poliszczuk, 2003; Grott, 2010; Rossolinski-Liebe, 2014). Scholars listed as opposing the fascism designation include Kasyanov, Motyl, Hrytsak, and Lysiak-Rudnytsky (described as "still authoritative in academic circles"). Although I strongly disagree with his analysis, Stanley Payne, one of the most acclaimed historians of fascism, stringently opposes the idea they were fascist: Was OUN ever really “fascist”? There were elements in it that favored fascism, but it was not so much a revolutionary movement as a composite radical nationalism. Highly authoritarian and violently antisemitic, yes, but that was rather common in the East European politics of the era. I would characterize it at the extreme end of the radical right, but not fully fascist. Its only difference from Putinism was the antisemitism, otherwise this is the pot calling the kettle black. Bandera is still honored by some not as a “fascist,” but as the principal leader of Ukrainian independence in WWII, the Ukrainian Piłsudski in a much more radical conflict.[27] In short, we need to remove it from the infobox and explore this properly in the "Ideology" section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Alexander John Motyl disagrees with the label of fascism here. Here Raul Cârstocea expresses a number of reservations about the fascist label too, although he doesn't say it isn't fascist. I wonder whether an alternative could be to leave fascism in the infobox, but add "Disputed" in brackets after it Tristario (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that would be better than the status quo so I've done that. We can't simply list an ideology as fact when this is so heavily contested. Would be better to use the above sources in the body to show that many scholars have analysed them as fascist while some others have contested that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree Tristario (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Why only 3 scholars are listed here despite me providing additional references (see this conversation) describing OUN as fascists? .. and then this? By the way, those minority views could be mentioned but at the moment the article would have an UNDUE weight. The consensus among scholars (as far as I know) is that OUN was far right fascist. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus would you consider restoring at least some of these opinions? GizzyCatBella🍁 14:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella Not really, these authors are doing mental gymnastic to not use the label "fascist" and replace it with other labels, that essentially mean the same. Zaitsev proposed "Ustashism" which was also a fascist movement. but with the primary differences between them arising from the lack of a nation state and the national liberation goals, it's an empty statement, it's a result of Italy being independent and Ukraine not, that's just accidental property. Motyl says basically the same. Payne's only argument that movements like OUN were "common in the East European politics", which is an empty statement again. Fascism can be common, it doesn't change the fact that it's fascist. None of these authors is worth quoting. Marcelus (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

More scholars than the ones that I just listed have questioned or disputed whether the OUN is fascist. Those are all respected scholars and I don't think it is reasonable to say that no scholar at all disputing that it was fascist can be included. So this is definitely a view that is WP:DUE. As for the "Ustashism" label, yes they are widely considered to be fascist, but the particular argument he is making here is that these movements actually comprise a different (but similar) type of ideology. And this is also WP:OR - you may disagree with the arguments they're making and consider it to be mental gymnastics, but that doesn't make this undue to include.

As for the question of which weight is the right weight to give, perhaps I gave a bit too much weight to scholars opposing the fascist description. I'm not exactly sure what the right weight to give is Tristario (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR, but something called "thinking", if you will look hard enough you will find the source for basically everything. None of them actually proved that OUN shouldn't be called fascist, in the best case they explained why they became fascist. But that's a totally different thing Marcelus (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That's what WP:OR is, you're welcome to disagree with them but that's irrelevant to whether we decide whether they are WP:DUE. And there's a limited number of scholars in this area, the fact that there's a not insignificant number (including non ukrainian ones) that question whether it should be described as fascist means this is definitely due. I didn't have to look hard to find scholars that put forward arguments like this Tristario (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No, WP:OR would be if I alone would start arguing against one view using primary sources. Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you call it, it isn't based in wikipedia policy to simply exclude views because you disagree with them when they are WP:DUE and verifiable and attributable to respected scholars and strong sources. I'm fine with reducing the amount of weight I gave to scholars opposing describing the OUN as fascist Tristario (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree with them. They are not what they claim to be. There is nothing to agree or disagree with here. Marcelus (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, that may be the case, but the fact that you think that has no relevance to the inclusion of this content Tristario (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Quote - The trial also marked the first time OUN members performed a fascist salute in public: Vira Svientsitska, as she was taking the stand, turned toward her fellow defendants, raised her right arm, and declared "Slava Ukraini!" (Glory to Ukraine). All the defendants were found guilty and received life imprisonment; at the end of the verdict, Bandera shouted "Iron and blood will decide between us." His fellow OUN members responded.. Quote - ..was Bandera. As he entered, he performed a fascist salute, raising his right arm and shouting "Slava!" or "Slava Ukraïni!" All the defendants in the courtroom answered him in the same manner.

Quote - The question of whether OUN was fascist has exercised a number of scholars, particularly since the rehabilitation of the nationalists in independent Ukraine. OUN certainly looked fascist. At the trials of the OUN leaders in 1935-36, OUN defendants and witnesses shocked the courtroom by giving what a Polish newspaper called "the Hitlerite greeting."This was a salute typical of the fascist movements of the time. Although widespread earlier in OUN, the form of the salute was defined for the first time in a programmatic document at the Banderite Assembly of 1941: "The organizational greeting has the form of raising the extended right arm to the right, higher than the crown of the head. The mandatory words of the full greeting: 'Glory to Ukraine!' with the answer 'Glory to the he- roes.'" The same document stipulated that the (Banderite) OUN was to have its own flag, in red and black which alluded to the German nationalist and national socialist concept of blood and soil GizzyCatBella🍁 13:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This is detail worth including in the article, but not enough for "is fascist" in the lead. If the "question" has "vexed" scholars, it's not a settled question. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The only potential issue here I see is the mention of the SS Galizien - the division was not explicitly associated with OUN and it was supported by one of its wings (Melnykites) but more or less opposed by the other (Banderites). Other than that, yup, they were fascist. Volunteer Marek 23:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus Volunteer Marek, Bobfrombrockley, and I don't think the SS Division Galicia should be included in the lede - it's misleading because it was not explicitly associated with the OUN (and it was opposed to one of the wings of the OUN). Furthermore it doesn't follow WP:NPOV to put it in the lede like that since there's only one author connecting that to defending the OUN, and it doesn't follow WP:LEDE either since this isn't covered in the body of the article. Tristario (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the same issue or a different one, but am I alone in thinking this sentence is incredibly specific and complex for the lead, and should move to the body: One of the reasons the role of the OUN remains contested in historiography, is the fact that some of these later political inheritors developed literature justifying or denying the organization's fascist political heritage and collaboration with Nazi Germany]] and even celebrating the SS Division Galicia. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the part about the SS division galicia is definitely problematic (for reasons above). Besides that, as it is that sentence isn't really following WP:LEDE since this isn't really covered in the body (as far as I can see), and it isn't particularly following WP:NPOV either since we're basing the complex issue of the treatment of the OUN in the present day and in historiography on a single source (and also covering that complex issue in a single sentence).

What would you suggest doing instead though (beyond just moving it to the body)? Do you have thoughts about how to approach this? Tristario (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tristario The lede says The ideology of the OUN has been described as influenced by works of Dmytro Dontsov, Italian Fascism and German Nazism, opinions about it certainly do not vary. Marcelus (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm flexible about the phrasing of that sentence (which wasn't written by me, but by Gizzycatbella), it's likely it could be phrased better. However, including that sentence without including that opinions vary follows neither WP:LEDE, as it does not summarize the body of the article well (where there are varying opinions on these things), nor does it follow WP:NPOV well, as there has been debate in the scholarly literature over the nature of the connection between the ideology of the OUN and other fascist movements and in particular debate over the extent and the nature of the influence of nazism.

Sure, perhaps everyone can agree that it has been influenced at least a little bit by those ideologies - but that's not what we're implying here, we're implying a substantial influence and that it is fascist and ideologically akin to them, and if we don't include that opinions vary - we're implying that everyone agrees on that, which is not true, and is not following WP:NPOV Tristario (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but for me it is the case of WP:FALSEBALANCE, you have minority of researchers that are doing their best not to clasify OUN as fascist. Also the sentence is phrased in such a way to avoid confusion. OUN relation with fascism depends primaly on the definition of fascism you choose, but the answer to the question: were they ideology influenced by Dontsov, Italian Fascism and German Nazism is simple yes or no. There are no opinions about facts. These influence is confirmed by sources. Marcelus (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not false balance, there's a significant number of scholars (some listed above) that have questioned whether it should be described as fascist (and there's also all the varying views on the nature and the extent of the influence etc.). Himka says the question of whether it is fascist has "exercised a number of scholars". We're still giving more weight to the fascist description, I'm not suggesting treating those views as if they're equal.

Anyway I think this sentence should be rewritten since it's very WP:WEASELy, it's trying to give the impression of saying something meaningful when what's it's saying is actually quite unclear (it could mean anything from saying that one scholar has said it's a little bit influenced by those ideologies to every scholar saying it's almost identical to those ideologies). And it doesn't summarize the body well either (so it's not following WP:LEDE), and it doesn't follow WP:NPOV, since it's not respresenting the balance of views and descriptions in the literature well.

If you want, you can try writing or suggesting a sentence that addresses those issues, otherwise I can try writing a description that addresses those issues (and we can adjust or discuss if necessary from there) Tristario (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

What would you suggest doing instead though: Not sure. I'd start by moving it out of lead to an appropriate section in the body, but I'm not sure where that would be. (Should there be a new section on historiography and memorialisation?) And then once moved, it needs copy editing for clarity. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It probably should be moved down, but for the moment perhaps I'll just attribute it, remove the part about the galicia division, and reword it if necessary to make sure it's verifiable Tristario (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Infobox

In this edit GizzyCatBella says definition of Fascism (opinions vary to what degree) has been discussed extensively already and should not be removed - See talk page section POV in lead. I'm appending this to that section, but I can't see in the section actual discussion of that phrase or of the infobox. What is clear in this discussion is that there are numerous reliable sources linking OUN to fascism, beyond the point of contestation, but no scholarly consensus that the OUN was itself straightforwardly fascist (several reputable scholars say it was; others say it wasn't); while three editors (Gizzy, Marcelus, Volunteer Marek) were satisfied this was enough to call it fascist, three other editors (Jabbi, Tristario, me) disagreed. In short, opinions don't vary over the degree to which it was fascist (which implies they all say it was, but some more so than others), but whether it was or not. I think therefore a summary that better reflects the consensus in the above discussion would be one that shows there is no clear consensus among scholars, e.g. Fascism (disputed). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

:Are there any scholars that say OUN was not related or not resembled Fascism at all? GizzyCatBella🍁 15:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Then we can say disputed I guess. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If pretty much all scholars at least acknowledge fascist elements I think I'm fine with "Opinions vary to what degree". If there are some that dispute it being fascist outright then "Disputed" is better. I'm not informed enough on what different scholars say on this to give a definitive answer Tristario (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think all scholars acknowledge a relationship or resemblance to fascism, but this is not the same as being fascist. However, it looks like the consensus is leaning towards the current phrasing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Disambiguation

This article confusingly (see above discussion) references more than one historical entity with the same or similar name.

• The original organization was founded in 1929
• In 1940 the OUN split into two factions:
  • OUN-B led by Stepan Bandera, often associated with emigres
  • OUN-M led by Andriy Melnyk
• From this point on it is unclear what organisation, if any, is referred to as OUN.

To preclude any misunderstanding, this page should become a disambiguation page that explains the above and links to relevant articles: Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B), Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (M), etc.

I want to state that I am starting this section, not because I think the above is necessarily the best solution, but I think an involved discussion of several editors would be helpful to move this along.

Jabbi (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Why is it necessary to split the article? Are the two modern OUN strands sufficiently different? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

5225C I think you should re-read what I stated above. I am suggesting that it might be a good idea to split this article into distinct articles, each dedicated to the organization in its different form, faction or strand as you say, but that I am not certain that would be the best way to clarify the content of the article. It is on these points that I am inviting editors such as yourself to comment.

Let me clarify further. After the split into two factions in 1940, they became distinct enough to be considered separate entities. You will note for instance that the infobox of this article displays different emblems for each faction. Personally, I have mostly studied the history of Stepan Bandera the leader and namesake of OUN-B, and would say that, when historians talk about OUN post 1940 it is always with a reference to either OUN-B or OUN-M, never just OUN because there was a complete split.

My understanding is, that it would be inaccurate to say that these two factions survived long past their namesakes however, when exactly they ceased to be relevant is a difficult question. A blog post by Taras Kuzio states that OUN-B founded the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists as its political arm in 1992. The Ukrainian Wikipedia makes a clear distinction between OUN-B and OUN-M.

Morever, the OUN seems to be an active organisation today, with unclear connections to OUN-B. Consider that the article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia has substantial information about contemporary OUN having registered various assets post 1990, uk:Організація_українських_націоналістів#Символіка_ОУН.

Why is it stated that the OUN was an organisation? When was it discontinued? The current lede is then incorrect on more than one level, it says: "The ideology of the OUN has been described as similar to Italian Fascism.[5]" But this then only applies to OUN in the period 1929-43 (that the source focuses on). What about from the split in 1940? Does this apply to OUN-B or OUN-M or both? Or neither? This article is too muddled about what organisation it is talking about during what period? Why is there such a focus on the ideological analysis of the organisation during the 1930s? My suspicion is that most of the content and focus of the article is in fact on OUN-B. Jabbi (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

A further note, Roman Shukhevych's infobox indicates he was a member of OUN (1929–1940) and then OUN-B (1940–1950) Note also that Mykola Plaviuk was the "Leader of the OUN" from 1981-2012, and that OUN is said to be a political party in his infobox. Indicating that OUN was at least not dissolved (if dormant). Jabbi (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Why would you turn this page into disambiguation if there is a long history of the organisation (1929-1940) before the split? Marcelus (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Thanks for your input. The rationale for that decision could be that, although there was a substantial history of the organization before the split (like you point out), it is better known for it's WW2 and post-WW2 activities. Bandera himself is almost synonymous with the OUN, as far as I can understand - by many referenced as *the* leader of the OUN, while scholars are more careful with the -B or -M distinction. Other more seasoned editors are welcome to correct me if I am wrong, but consider Beinn Bhreac, the name for a number of mountains or hills in Scotland. There are 14 different such mountains or hills in the UK, but it is not clear which one of them is the most commonly referenced one. Currently its a stalemate. That's one way to look at the circumstances with OUN. I think everyone should be able to agree that it's unclear at the moment, and needs to be clarified. Conversely, it could also make sense to move all post split content onto their respective pages, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (M). (But then the two factions apparently merged again in 2012) --Jabbi (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Prewar activity of OUN is equally important as the wartime activity. Their post 1960 activity is irrelevant, plus the coninuity between various organisations that used this name and the original OUN(s) are uncertain. Marcelus (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You say that the post 1960 activity is irrelevant period (do you have a source for that specific year?). Is it not currently historical fabrication to unequivocally state that the OUN is a thing of the past? In a recent source (p. 90), Mykola Plaviuk is said to have partaken in a 1992 ceremony symbolising the continuity between inter-war Ukraine and post-USSR Ukraine, and the fact that Plaviuk was at the time the leader of OUN-M added another "layer" to the ceremony. This suggests to me that the factions should be branched out to their own articles so that the distinction is clear.( recording of event) Jabbi (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sources

@Tristario Are you calming that this is not a RS? If not, then please explain why you removed the information based on the above source entirely instead of moving it into the body of the article? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not claiming that isn't a reliable source, I referred to the relevant policies. You can put it in the body of the article, that's fine. As I explained in my edit summary, the lede is meant to be summarize the body of the article, typically there's not much reason why a source should only be appearing in the lede and not the body of the article Tristario (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You removed someones work entirely, why don’t you move it onto the body of the article if you don’t dispute that source instead if eliminating what that source say? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tristario - You removed valuable information such as (for example) that --> Mussolini trained Ukrainian nationalists together with Ustasa revolutionaries in Sicily, and the OUN had offices in Berlin and Vienna. Why? GizzyCatBella🍁 00:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That's still in the article, I just removed what you added to the lede, because it didn't follow WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV. The burden isn't on me to be adding this content to the article. If you insist I'll get around to adding that content to the body of the article Tristario (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it? - wait.. I’ll look - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I can’t find anything about Mussolini training them in Sicily and you removed actually 2 sources

this one -

and this one

I would appreciate it if you respected someone's work and placed that information back where you believe is appropriate. GizzyCatBella🍁 00:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The body of the article says OUN nationalists were trained by Mussolini in Sicily jointly with the Ustase, they also maintained offices in Berlin and Vienna. It's there. I accidentally removed the source, so the citation had an error, but I just added it back in.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. We actually already include views of those authors in the body of the article, by the way, but I guess we can include even more of them Tristario (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead reflecting body

Well, I am just not sure the current version of the lead properly summarizes the page. For example, the lead says: "OUN's denials of its role in the Holocaust...". OK, where their denials are described at length in the body of the page? My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree, those sentences don't reflect the body, and even contradict the analysis of Peter Potichnyj in the body. It's the perspective of Rossoliński-Liebe (we have the same content from him in two different footnotes, currently 32 and 114, but not in the body), but I'm not sure it is universally agreed by scholars. (For a very good summary of how different scholars disagree about almost everything this article covers, see David Marples: Marples, David R. (2006). "Stepan Bandera: The resurrection of a Ukrainian national hero". Europe-Asia Studies. 58 (4). Informa UK Limited: 555–566. doi:10.1080/09668130600652118. ISSN 0966-8136. JStor: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20451225 )

Less controversially, this should be in the body not lead: The OUN sought to infiltrate legal political parties, universities and other political structures and institutions.

Finally, one of the sources for the war-time image change is Sabrin's 1991 Alliance for Murder. Is this a reliable source? I can't find any info on who Sabrin is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I also couldn't identify who Sabrin is, I don't think Da Capo Press looks like a very high quality publisher, and the book is from 1991. I think generally we should be using sources at least as recent as 2000, due to new research and archives becoming available since the 1990s.

If we don't cover The OUN sought to infiltrate legal political parties, universities and other political structures and institutions in the body that should be moved to the body. If we included more detail in the body that could be added back to the lede of course. In regards to those sentences - what should be done is we should include what Rossolinski-Liebe and/or Rudling say in the body, and then do an appropriate summary in the lede Tristario (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll try and do those things now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The only thing now in the lead that might not be adequately in body is covert CIA support. That should maybe be dealt with in the body where OUN(z) is introduced. Should OUN(z) not be mentioned in the lead too? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd be able to judge better if OUN(z) were due for the lede if we included more detail on it in the body, but (as far as I can see) we only have a sentence on it in the body. In regards to the intelligence agencies - it seems important, but again with the lack of coverage in the body it's hard for me to tell if it's due for the lede. _{This article needs some work, I think} Tristario (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

(to give a more straightforward answer, I don't think we should have either the OUN(z) or the CIA in the lede until it's more clear from the body that they belong there) Tristario (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Contemporary status

Stara Marusya, why did you remove the following statement from the lead?

There is a contemporary organization claiming to be the same Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists still active in Ukraine.

-- Jabbi (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That's still in the lede, they just moved it to the end of the lede Tristario (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ohh cool, didn't notice that. Thanks --Jabbi (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting poll

Done in Ukraine in september 2022, see here -- Jabbi (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations

Editors here might want to look at the above article, which I think would benefit from use of more balanced and scholarly sources about the OUN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Economic views?

Expect for the two words in the Infobox, there is no information about this group's economic views. Was it closer to bourgeois Hitlerism or left-wing Strasserism? 2A02:3030:80B:99C2:1:0:7DE1:47AB (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

No source for saying "Slogan 'Slava Ukraini!'

There is no source for saying "Slogan: 'Slava Ukraini!'" in box.

Please provide reliable source, or it will be deleted. MBUSHIstory (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

source added Mhorg (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: A better image of Bandera

I would like to add a better image of Stepan Bandera to the article. The current photo is so heavily airbrushed that it barely resembles the actual person. The original photo was a damaged low resolution image. My preferred replacement is this one. Llados (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD, it's uncontroversial, already dicussed move, just change it Marcelus (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I unfortunately do not yet have permission to do so, I am not yet extended confirmed. Llados (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Should Fascism be added into it´s list of ideologies?

“It should be noted that the main ideas of fascism were not confined to Italy itself, but quickly spread their influence throughout the world, strengthening and formalizing the psychological and socio-political process that spontaneously erupted among various peoples after the last war: this is nationalism. Fascism itself is, first of all, nationalism - love for one's homeland and patriotic feelings, brought to self-dedication and the cult of sacrificial fanaticism.” — Mykola Stsiborskyi, one of the main political influences of the OUN in his book Natiocracy 45.144.255.228 (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)