Yes 👍. The next step after that would be to review and clear all not reliable and primary sources from the article (not peer-reviewed academic journals, not academically focused books published by a not reputable publisher, and sources published by a not reputable institution) following --> [1] - GizzyCatBella🍁13:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not think this page includes (or should include) anything about antisemitism in Poland or Holocaust. Hence, the DS sourcing restrictions do not apply to the page. If there are any claims specifically related to Poland during WWII, then such claims would be covered. No one objects to replacing "Russian" by "Soviet" in the title. Other than that, I do not see any solid proposals. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I can see one potential "scope" issue. Do the communist Polish government after WWII qualify as "Soviet"? Maybe (I am not certain), but it certainly does not qualify as "Russian" (current title). My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Polish communist post-war government certainly doesn't qualify as "Soviet", only Soviet units (mainly NKVD and Smersh) active in Poland count as Soviet Marcelus (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
If we cleared everything about Poland, then I guess yes... but is this even possible since UPA fought the Soviets in Poland? What if someone adds Poland-related content in the future? I can see that easly happening. Will we start over again removing non schoolary sources, or we keep removong Poland related content? - GizzyCatBella🍁15:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
If the scope will be defined as "Soviet" rather than "Russian" (I think it should), then we probably can not remove Poland because it was a Soviet satellite state. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: The author of the piece already decided the scope & the title. Scope: Ukrainian insurgent Army (UPA) war against Russian occupation (both 1st & 2nd Russian occupation) of western Ukraine. 1st Russian occupation was 1939-1941; 2nd Russian occupation began in 1944. At the time of both 1st & 2nd Russian occupations, western Ukraine had been part of Poland as a result of Poland 'taking' western Ukraine for itself after the Polish defeated Ukraine in 1919 in the Polish-Ukraine war.) OUN was founded in Poland around 1929 because members of OUN opposed Polish rule. In 1942, OUN members founded UPA & they operated between 1942-1960. Given that's the scope, the current title makes sense. By the way, as far as calling it "Russian occupation" - in 1939 New York Times article [2]"Occupation Complete," the article describes it as Russian occupation and writes, "the sphere of interest of Russia and Germany is reported to be complete." There are several other 1939 NYT articles that call Russia "Russia" and refer to Stalin & Hitler's invasion of Poland as "occupation." Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@My very best wishes Certainly there shouldn't be a separate section about UPA clashes with Communist Poland (same for Czechoslovakia), they should be mentioned only as a context for UPA-Soviet fighting Marcelus (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@My very best wishes Soviet referes to Soviet Union, communist Poland wasn't part of the SU. It doesn't mean it cannot be mentioned, but it wasn't Soviet so fights between Polish military and Ukrainians are out of the scope of the article. Of course it doesn't mean they cannot be mentioned or every mention of Poland should be purged Marcelus (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The Soviet Union was led by Russia and at least in the US, the term "Russia" was commonly used to refer to both. But before we decide any terminology is it agreeable that the scope be?:
Time period: Resistance that happened approx 1939 - 1956 (maybe 1960) (with a pause during WW2)
Resistance to: Russia or Russia-led Soviet Union Russia-involved
@North8000: yes, that is the same scope the author intended. But there was no pause during WW2. The UPA was created in 1942 and WW2 didn't end until 1945. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
First, I have no personal opinion, I was just trying to gel something out of the conversations. My intent / meaning was to exclude resistance against occupation by other individual non-Russian countries in the Soviet Union, e.g. by Poland. North8000 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Stalin was born in the Russian Empire. Also, during WW2, newspapers used "Russia" when discussing Russia invading Poland & occupying western Ukraine. From New York Times [3] on October 8, 1939 "German Army Completes March to Border Set With Russia" The NYT is referring to the border Germany & Russia agreed to in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, also known as: the Hitler-Stalin Pact[4]. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Point 2@BetsyRMadison it matters not if the 1939 New York Times articles uses Russia to describe the Soviet Union, that just shows their ignorance of geopolitics at the time. It would be WP:UNDUE weight when you put it up against historians, let alone, a slap in the face to WP:TITLE which looks for article titles to precise and concise. Just because the author decided on the scope and title of the article to reflect her POV does not mean that is how the article will be. There is a such thing as consensus through WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and as far as I can see from the discussions above or from the AFD, there is no consensus to move away from a NPOV. Likewise, the U.S. is just one country in the World and most Europeans, specifically, historians don't view Ukraine as part Russia during that period but as part of the Soviet Union.
NYT is a RS and they say 'Russian occupation.' Also, historians (that I've read) call the period between 1939-1941 the "1st occupation" and the period beginning 1944 the "2nd occupation." Like it or not, good or bad, wiki editors have to go by what RS say, not by what you or I wish an RS says. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The NYT also used derogatory (and sometimes racist) comments in their 1930s/1940s articles, so does that mean we now use those descriptions when writing about those people or countries because as you say "NYT is a RS...." and "Like it or not, good or bad, wiki editors have to go by what RS say, not by what you or I wish an RS says." No we go by consensus and policy and as pointed out in WP:UNDUE weight it states clearly:
Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
@IP 79.155.36.178 Agreed. No need for further comments regarding NYT and Russian - Soviet. They were fighting against the Soviet Union not Russia. Russia did not exist at the time. It’s okay. 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁18:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
You're mistaken. From 1917-1991, Russia did exist: "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic" (a.k.a. "Russia"). And, the RS says "Russia." You know the wiki rules, we have to go by what the RS says, not by what you or I wish it said. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: You'd be wrong. UPA was against "Russian occupation," they weren't against the "Soviet Union." Keyword is: "occupation." Every step of the way, UPA fought to rid western Ukraine of Russian occupation -- UPA never fought to dissolve the Soviet Union. Do you see the difference? BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison:UPA never fought to dissolve the Soviet Union That's not true. OUN-UPA even organised in November 1943 a Conference of Enslaved Nations of Europea and Asia, which goals was to exactly dissolve Soviet Union. That was very much their goals since very early on. Do you know anything about the topic you talk so much about? Marcelus (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the 1943 first (not last) Conference of Enslaved Nations of Europea and Asia. And 1943 goal was be free of Russian occupation And that 1943 Conference has nothing to with the scope of this article.
The scope of this article is outlining that at every step of the way & in every battle OUN-UPA fought to rid western Ukraine of Russian occupation, not to 'dissolve' the Soviet Union. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I strongly support Soviet vs Russian. Russian is a common but not precise description of the dominant ethnic group in the USSR. USSR was called Russia during the Cold War, but it was less Russian than Russian Federation is today. War against Russia implies war against just the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, whereas the war was against the larger USSR. Of course, we all know that realistically ethnic Russians controlled the state, just like they do today, but that's a detail that's less relevant here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Lol! I don't think you can unilaterally mandate that NYT is suddenly not a RS just because you don't like what they wrote in their news feed. That's not how it works on wiki. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
How many people told you here so far that the Soviet Union wasn't RussiaBetsyRMadison? 4-5? You know, believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. (copy/paste from WP:LISTEN) - GizzyCatBella🍁22:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The RS repeatedly says "Russia." You know wiki's rules: We have to go by what RS says, not what wiki editors wish the RS had said. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
"Russia" was an informal term. The article however is Soviet Union. If NYT uses "Little Russia",[5] should it be used to refer to Ukraine at that time? Or "the Ukraine" in this article? Mellk (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mellk: From 1917-1991 "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic" (a.k.a. "Russia"). So when you say "Russia was an informal term" do you mean "informal" like people calling "United States of America" - America - USA?
That's exactly why this article is POV mess. Many editors have explained to you why the term "Russian" has to go, yet for some reason you keep repeating it, as if doing so would make it a fact. M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
USSR and RFSFR is not the same thing. Calling USSR "Russia" and all its people "Russians" is considered incorrect. I noticed you said that Stalin was born in the Russian Empire as part of your argument, so does that mean all Ukrainians who were born in and died in the Empire and/or USSR are all in fact Russians? Anyway, it seems like others do not agree with this perspective and there is no point in repeating the argument, there is a reason why it is pretty much consistently "Soviet" and "Soviet Union" throughout the wiki. Mellk (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Stalin was born in the Russian Empire. I don't know what the Ukraine Constitution said about Ukraine citizenship in 1991 when they finally gained independence from communist Russia. If their Constitution is anything like US Articles of Confederation, then all Ukrainians got Ukraine citizens. I'm very curious as to why anyone in the world wants to pretend that Joseph Stalin was not born in the Russian Empire, he was. That's a fact. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
And last thing, at those times it was referred to as "the Ukraine" but we do not do that here. Mellk (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mellk: uhhh... I never said the USSR is the same as the RFSFR - so I don't know why are implying that I did. hmm... Also, I don't make up the rules here - and you all know the rules. So I don't know why you think it matters to me if other editors don't like words used by RS. It makes no difference to me. None. I couldn't care any less. If any wiki editor doesn't like wiki's rules there are plenty of blogs that'll let you all post your original research: DailyKos, Facebook, etc. Here's an idea: How about you ask the author of the piece why they use Russian occupation. Just a thought. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
So why bring up RFSFR? Anyway does not matter, it is based on WP:COMMONNAME and if you think "Russia"/"Russian" should be used, then you can attempt a WP:RM for Soviet Union (but expect snowclose). Anyway, this is pointless now, I do not have anything else to add. Mellk (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mellk: I only brought up the fact (here [6]) that Russia did exist from 1917-1991 when another editor (above) falsely claimed Russia did not exist in the period. That's the only reason I brought it up. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey BetsyRMadison, how about studying Wikipedia itself?
During World War II, it was engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Soviet Union...
🤔 hmnn...and it's all sourced. Are you still going to argue with now up to 9 editors or you gonna drop the stick? - GizzyCatBella🍁01:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
umm... that's not a "quote" (evidenced by the fact that there are no quotation marks). It's sentence written by wiki editors. It's not a quote so no, it's not sourced quote. No offence to wikipedia, but wikipedia is not an educational source. There are many factual errors in many wiki articles, (due to editors 'voting' on what they claim 'facts' and 'truth'are) wikipedia is certainly not a reliable source for any real or accurate history.
You're wrong. You said it was a quote, and it's not quote. In fact, you said it's a quote that's sourced, and it's not. Learn the difference between a real sourced quote versus sentence written by some random wiki editor. Lol! BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison in the last 4 hours 5 hours you repeated the same argument here 3times4 times already:
1 - You know wiki's rules: We have to go by what RS says, not what wiki editors wish the RS had said. -->[7]
2 - the RS says "Russia." You know the wiki rules, we have to go by what the RS says, not by what you or I wish it said. -->[8]
3 - Like it or not, wiki editors have to go by what RS say, not by what you or I wish an RS says. -->[9]
I probably failed to make it clear that I was asking about scope and not wording. So the remaining scope question is: Is there any resistance besides that against the soviet union that should be included in the scope of the article? North8000 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you BetsyRMadison as one of the key experts in help sort this out. But, as such, if you forgive me, let me ask you a tough question to help sort this out. What would be your proposed limits to the the scope of this article? By your "and other anti-communist movements" and in "Poland & Czechoslovakia" such would seem to advocate the scope being all anti-communist movements in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Ukraine during 1939-1960. Is that the scope for this article that you advocate? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
You're very welcome @North8000:. OUN-UPA carried out operations along with other anti-communist movements as described within the article here ( [11]) and for more information about the anti-communist resistance here [12]BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. But to the specifics of my question, what do you advocate that the scope of this article be? Would it be all anti-communist efforts by UPN? North8000 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: - you're welcome - The scope of this article has been laid out by the author. The article, with it's scope, was put up for AFD Deletion and it is a "Keep." The article, with it's scope, is a "Keep." So I don't see any need to change the scope. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree on many aspects although I might agree your preferred end result if you would only elucidate it. The AFD result was to keep the article, not to agree with every aspect of it. In fact, quite the opposite; there was widespread input (included in the close) that the article needs changes. Also, Wikipedia articles are a group effort, there is no singular "author" nor any special status given to one. So, why not help us move along by saying what YOU think that scope of this srticle should be? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: I agree with you on the "not to agree with every aspect." I apologize if my comment suggested otherwise. The changes have to do possible POV issues, etc., but not the scope. The scope of the article is: (1941-1960) UPA's war against Russian occupation. That's the scope. As I've repeatedly said, I think the current scope is beneficial & worthy. Best regards to you & yours, BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
As you are seeking input for my exasperated question of a few days ago, I don't have a lot of input except that this is still a question that needs to be resolved. There is a lot of POV deletion going on, but the material is retrievable so I have stepped away for a few days. I have said I would work on the article but I am a copyeditor/translator who sometimes rescues machine translations (where POV issues are common) not a subject matter expert. This doesn't mean that I don't understand NPOV or have thoughts about how it applies to the articles I work on, as when I read and edit I do take in information.
I see a couple of different possibilities: if the topic is "anti-Soviet resistance" then it seems to me that this means the period of Soviet occupation. There were two, but for purposes of editor sanity I think we should pick one, and the one that is closest the the way this is written is 1944-1960. There are also valid arguments that the scope is 1919-1960, but this is a lot of history that imho should be split up. One way to do this would be the Bolshevik upraising in Kyiv to the German invasion, Nazi occupation with its own article because there is a lot of material there, and 1944 on. Another would be trying to split it up by country, but I don't think this is a good approach for a period when several borders changed several times. If on the other hand the title is "war against Russian occupation" then this would seem to mean that 1941 should be expanded out of the background section and a lot of material needs to be added, including about that Russian occupation. Either way, I think that activities in the Baltic states with the Forest brothers and in Czechoslovakia tring to get to the American zone would be pertinent, but due weight would be somewhat different based on the article focus. Similarly, if the focus is activities post-1944 on, then the mutual massacres in Poland in 1945 are highly pertinent and so is their background including 1941. If the article is about nationalist movements resisting Russian expansionism, with a focus on the UPA and OUN, then you need to talk about the partition of the countries in question by the quote unquote Great Powers that fueled these nationalist movements. Either way, wikipedia readers are ill-served by hyperfocus on the attempt to infiltrate the Nazi occupation. It happened but so did the agreement between Stalin and Hitler, which has been removed from the article, and bludgeoning the reader with context-free and detail-free assertions that the Ukrainians were Nazis is undue.
As I have previously noted, we are supposed to start from sources, not preconceptions. If people were resisting Soviets/Russians then the reasons why are pertinent, so the partition of Poland should at least be mentioned and so should the famines, in addition to the Ukrainian police units. I am open to hearing that I am wrong about any of that but it should be based on more than an assertion that I am ignorant. That's a very insulting remark in english, which some editors here may not realize, and has a lot of negative connotations beyond simply "does not know certain things." Elinruby (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
If we are going to be describing the content (which I support) then the scope of 1919-1960 is better. But given that this doesn't exist in the article yet, for now I think it would be fine to just write a bit about the early years in a small background section. As it grows, we can consider either splitting stuff out or changing the scope of the article. Which, right now, is very much (according to the infobox) August 1941 - April 1960.
I agree with "pretty much everyone". Maybe we could start with a timeline of events? This would allow some progress to be made on *what* happened, and then add in the adjectives and adverbs, with attention to referencing. Elinruby (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I agree with you. I feel it's a good idea to have 1 or 2 sentences describing the events of the early years in the background. If it's done the way you suggest, then that's the place where we'd put a short blurb on the reasons why OUN initially had an allegiance with Germany and were against Poland & then Russian occupation. I also feel the current topic/scope/focus of Ukrainian insurgents in Poland taking their battle one step further by creating an armed militia, UPA, to battle against Russian/Soviet occupation between 1941-1960 is a historically beneficial and worthy topic/scope. As with any article that highlights & focuses specifically on the battles of one military branch (even though UPA was underground military branch); then there's no reason to get into the weeds by including long paragraphs on things outside the scope of the battles. If it's done properly, the way you suggest, then using a few sentences of the allegiance shift preceding & during those battles will come out inside subsections that discusses those battles. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Think we have a different view between ages....older editors will see a difference between the Soviet Union vs Russia because of nationhood.... as this how our contemporary historians would write about this aswell.... interesting to see people thinking the Soviet Union was a cohesive entityRoman Šporlûk; Roman Szporluk (2000). Russia, Ukraine, and the Breakup of the Soviet Union. Hoover Institution Press. ISBN978-0-8179-9542-3. OCLC1036653529. To understand why the USSR broke up the way it did, it is necessary to understand the relationship between the two most important nations of the USSR--Russia and Ukraine--during the Soviet period and before, as well as the parallel but interrelated processes of nation formation in both states. Moxy-02:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Us old folks can put it even more simply than that. During the cold war, in common conversation in the US the word most often used to refer to the Soviet Union / USSR was "Russia". This is not due to some type of analysis, it was just common verbal shorthand North8000 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Speaking as someone that might be defined as an oldie, I think it is somewhat more than simply a difference between older versus younger editors’ viewpoints but rather geopolitical viewpoints and the availability of technology for research. Europeans did not and do not view the Soviet Union as just simply Russia. The clue is in the term Soviet and European nations were and are fully aware of this meaning. Also, I don’t think anyone views that the Soviet Union was a cohesive entity, just as I don’t think anyone views the European Union, the United Kingdom, or the United States as cohesive entities as they exist today. There seems to be political framing holdovers where some editors are trying to equate the present-day Russian Federation with that of the previous Soviet Socialist Russia and the Soviet Union. There are many wiki articles related to the Soviet Union and yet none refer to Russia in the title. I have seen a similar argument being put forward that refers to England instead of the United Kingdom or Germany in place of the European Union. While it is the case in all big states/nations/countries, there is inevitably a hierarchy of power, and this can be viewed in different ways, such as economic development or other means, but to define all the entities within that grand entity as the one that is perceived to be more powerful/important or aesthetically pleasing to the contributor, is just lazy and academically corrupt. It is also non-productive to what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be, and which Wikipedia aspires to be. Likewise, I don’t think it is essential for this article to understand the breakup of the USSR but rather understand the USSR during the period the article is referring to, which I believe the most favoured position is 1919-1960. It is also worth knowing were soldiers or battalions from other Soviet Socialist Republics present during any of the conflicts with the Ukrainian Insurgent Army? I am sure no-one here condones the actions by Russia on Ukraine, and with that in mind I hope we can get to a solution that leaves out all the emotion and gives us an article acceptable in any encyclopaedia.79.154.51.48 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Actually the argument was at one point being unblushingly made that since Ukraine was an SSR and had joined voluntarily (!) there therefore had been no resistance, because there was no occupation. We do seem to have moved on from that, but somebody was just complaining the other day that Ukraine had since its independence removed symbols of the Soviets. I am not advocating that we take this view seriously, merely pointing out that it's been voiced in this thread. I think 1919-1960 comes from me, and I usually follow it by pointing out that the current article is long, and starts with the second Soviet invasion in 1944. The point has been made that excluding the German occupation excludes the collaboration with the Germans, which I find legitimate as an objection, as well as the exclusion of some of the bloodier events of 1945, possibly because of the focus on "resistance". I don't know and am no longer trying to speak for the original editor, since she is no longer excluded by anything but intimidation. But it does seem to me that this is also not the only thing that happened in the period. If we expand the scope to include the Nazi occupation, all of the mass deportations and killings by everybody in the period should be included, since at least some historians see a dispute over territory, and Timothy Snyder in particular discusses a nationalism rooted in ethnicity vs one rooted in land borders. Not unlike Israel-Palestine, perhaps, although the analogy is mine, but I think it is valid in that both sides are absolutely convinced that the actions of their countrymen are justified. I do not claim they were/are - I am against all murder, let alone mass murder - but in many times and places people have participated in it believing that this was necessary. Let's start with today's Russian army, for example. It's committing atrocities, but Russian citizens believe that they are saving their homeland from evil forces. Is this not part of history? I am myself in favor of a dispassionate telling of as many of the narratives as possible. Saying that the UPA were Nazis because they were Nazis is circular reasoning. Anti-Semitism was prevalent and part of the propaganda of the times, much like the Putinist narratives about evil Ukrainians are widely accepted in Russia today. People tend to believe what they have heard enough. So let's talk about the propaganda. Elinruby (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
There's one more phenomena in the US that you didn't mention. I'd bet 50% of folks in the US don't know what the UK is. And the same for maybe 40% for USSR during the cold war. And there are some in between. That knew the difference, but between being common shorthand and also Russia being somewhat dominant in the USSR they used "Russia" when discussing the USSR. I only mention this because you might see some less rigorous US sources from the era using "Russia" to refer to the USSR. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Status and let's split the rest into questions
Although the term Russian vs. Soviet is being debated (lets temporarily call that Soviet/Russian), regarding the target of the armed action, there is little or no argument for including other targets (such as Poland) in the scope of the article.
@North8000: prior to Stalin collaborating with Hitler to invade Poland and wage genocide, the OUN was an underground organization against Poland occupying western Ukraine. And that's because Poland (not Russia) took western Ukraine for themselves in 1919 after Polish-Ukraine war. Now fast forward to 1939 when Stalin collaborated with Hitler (Nazis) to invade Poland, illegally occupy western Ukraine, & wage genocide - that's when/why, in 1941-42 OUN formed their army, Ukrainian Insurgent Army (in Ukrainian: Ukrayins'ka Povstans'ka Armiya,) whose acronym is UPA. So in that regard, the OUN & Poland should at the very least be included the article's Background section & possibly others as well. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I didn't mean to say to exclude anything from the article. What I really meant was to exclude it from the article title decisionmaking.North8000 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
And in titles, whatever the official entity might be, the two strongest possibilities for naming the target of the resistance are "Russian" and "Soviet". Which of those do you prefer?North8000 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
No question. That's not really a question. UPA waged the war against the troops of Soviet Union, they were also fighting Soviet Ukrainian troops. Just drop it. Marcelus (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Only to solidify, I concur with the two respondents. So the target of the resistance will be called "Soviet"North8000 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"Ukrainian insurgent army" vs. "Ukrainian" (armed)
Regarding the combatant in the title, these are the two lead possibilities (caps on "insurgent army" can be decided later). Which of those do you prefer?North8000 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
No strong opinion on this one, but I believe covering the whole Ukrainian resistance makes more sense, we will not have to cover Banderites and criminal UPA that much. - GizzyCatBella🍁17:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: The Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) is literally the name of military armed wing of the OUN that was formed in Ukraine during 1942-1960. The Ukrainian Insurgent Army, in Ukraine: "Ukrayins'ka Povstans'ka Armiya," thus abbreviated "UPA." Therefore, it makes no sense to change their name to anything else and makes no sense to call them anything else. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: If we are talking about the fight against the Soviets after 1944, it makes no difference whether we speak about "armed resistance of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army" or "Ukrainian armed resistance", because due to the fact that other organizations were broken up or incorporated (often by force) into the UPA, it remained the only significant underground army in Ukraine. On the other hand, if we wanted to add the fighting against the Soviet partisans (1942-45) or the first anti-Soviet uprising (1941) in the main part of the article, and not only in the "Background" section, then the term "Ukrainian Armed Resistance" should be used, but with the addition of dates (1941-1960). However, I would opt for the phrase "Anti-Soviet armed resistance of Ukrainian Insurgent Army" and focus on the fights of this organization, with emphasis on the events after 1944. Anyway, this is how the article is written at the moment (e.g. fights with Soviet partisans are almost not mentioned).Marcelus (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, it looks like agreement that the name of the combatant in the title is to be Ukrainian Insurgent Army This is also the status quo, and (only) to solidify, I also go with that. North8000 (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Preliminary brainstorming on title ideas
My idea would be to wait until the above two questions are answered. But both the prior proposed title change and the above feedback (so far) calling an antagonist "Soviet" and all discussion so far seems to agree on the other antagonist being the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (with caps). Some title possibilities that incorporate those are:
Anti-Soviet armed resistance of Ukrainian Insurgent Army
Anti-Soviet armed resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army
Anti-Soviet resistance of Ukrainian Insurgent Army
Anti-Soviet resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army
hmm, is the word “armed” needed? Was there an unarmed resistance? We don’t talk about the French armed resistance, and it was an analogous group. The title just seems awkward. If we are going with Ukrainian Insurgent Army post 1944 I suggest Ukrainian Insurgent Army anti-Soviet resistance or even Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance after 1944, if this was essentially the same thing (?) Elinruby (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I missed that. Probably because if we just said "By Ukraine" "armed" would be needed. But being by an army pretty much says that. I added 2 more. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby Quote from above French armed resistance, and it was an analogous group.
French armed resistance was not analogous group. French group was anti-Fascist did not commit war crimes, genocides or did not murder Jews as Ukrainian Insurgent Army. These two groups are completely different. - GizzyCatBella🍁21:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
You’re pretty wrong about the French resistance. It included a lot of people including the Marseille mafia, if they were getting paid. But I was thinking of it as an assortment of initiatives that definitely were at times both armed and organized. At times such initiatives intervened in the genocide, such as the SNCF strike to prevent deportations in Lyons, but it was fundamentally a nationalist movement, if you’re looking at the history rather than the Hollywood depiction of it. And I am pretty sure war crimes were involved, with shooting prisoners coming to mind as the most likely. Sorry to disillusion you.Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
No, I’m not disillusioned, don’t worry 🙂. French resistance was not the same as fascist UPA, but you are welcome to hold the view you want, (privately not in Wikipedia voice). - GizzyCatBella🍁23:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
LOL at the idea that you're the person to be policing what anyone says or where. Clearly you haven't looked at the links, but don't drag the French resistance into your delusions, please. Elinruby (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
and I stand by the statement, lol. They fought *occupiers*. They welcomed people who invaded to *overthrow* the occupiers. Some of them were collaborators. The *mafia* was part of it. Don’t get your history from movies. See the links I posted, or take a look at Liberation of France. They were similarly decentralized and capable of violence. I do realize that you want to demonize the UPA but don’t do it by comparing them to the French resistance, because that won’t go the way you think. This is just an attempt at distraction though, I don’t have the time to argue with a wall today Elinruby (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
1 - Don’t get your history from movies - no, I don't
2 - I do realize that you want to demonize the UPA.. - no, I don't
OK. Welp. Coulda fooled me. You're still pretty mistaken about the French resistance though, and even if you aren't *trying* to be off-topic you are.Elinruby (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Resistance may not be armed, that is rather obvious. A boycott, for example, is a form of non-armed resistance. That is why the phrase "Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance" is wrong, because such resistance existed until the fall of the Soviet Union, but we are focusing on the guerrilla fights that died out in the 1950s (the last group was broken up in the early 1960s). I understand the argument that since we are talking about the army then "armed resistance" is already implied. But still, "UPA" is just a name of an organization, an army can exist but not fight, it can also fight and use other forms of resistance. So I think "Anti-Soviet armed resistance of Ukrainian Insurgent Army" is the best possible option, even if a bit awkward.Marcelus (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
since I am here in spite of myself, yes, it is true that an army can exist but not be at war. But there is a lot of discussion in the article of propaganda fwiw. I am not necessarily opposed to "armed"; I just find the title awkward, and am throwing ideas around in a section titled "brainstorming" Elinruby (talk)
I guess "armed" makes it more direct / clear that it is that type rather than implying "armed" by being by an army. North8000 (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, the above results of the 2 sub-questions help firm this up. So I think we're down to these possibilities. Please give your opinion on each of them: North8000 (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Anti-Soviet armed resistance of Ukrainian Insurgent Army
Anti-Soviet armed resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army
Anti-Soviet resistance of Ukrainian Insurgent Army
Anti-Soviet resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army
of those, #4 and #2 if we really must. I feel like it would be better to flip it around, but I can’t quite seem to enunciate a better option, ie Ukrainian Insurgent Army resistance to....Soviet occupation? Also is this the common name? Piotrus might have been suggesting that “partisan” is better. I don’t have strong feelings about the name mind you. I just figure nobody wants to go through this again, so let’s get it right Elinruby (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm. I would actually support UPA insurgency against Soviet occupation, but I don’t know if there are still strong feelings about the Soviet occupation part. But I like UPA better than Ukrainian Insurgent Army because anyone at all familiar with the period knows what a partisan is — the terminology was used in France and Spain as well — and if I understood Piotrus correctly on his talk page a while back, partisan is a better translation than insurgent, at least from Polish, and given the acronym apparently Ukrainian as well?
It also gets us away from “war”, which is good since they were not a country. OTOH I don’t think they were against the Soviets per se, just the occupation. Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
striking the part about not a war because not a country. a) They considered themselves the representatives of a country b) I wandered back into the articles on DRC Congo last night, long story, but not sure what I was thinking when I said this because my previous time there should have imprinted on me that of course being a country is not a prerequisite to waging war. Well, I know I was thinking that this might be in the legal definition, but I took a look at the page on the International Criminal Court this morning and apparently they disagree, and they would know. Elinruby (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby: the exact English to Ukraine translation for "Ukraine Insurgent Army" is "Ukrayinsʹka Povstansʹka Armiya" (UPA). And you're correct, the UPA was an army without a country. And, even though they were an army without a country (as were several armies in WWII) they waged war against Soviet/Russian occupation. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
IMO a Ukrainian acronym that few in English know is not so good for an English title. North8000 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking it's a daughter article, but I guess you are right. Much of what I said above was just a suggestion in hopes of moving discussion forward, but I really really don't like "against the Soviet Union", as, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me they were against the Soviet Union occupying Ukraine rather than against the Soviet Union within its own borders Elinruby (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I assume you’re joking. Actually, scratch that. Synonym would be child (vs. parent) or spin-off. I am back to being unavailable for ridiculous questions. Elinruby (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Since the scope of article is about UPA's war against Soviet Occupation'; then that's what should be reflected in the title. In fact, that should be the title. If you all are hell-bent on replacing "Russian Occupation" with "Soviet Occupation" then at least that title will still reflect what the article is about. The titles in #1-#4 are redundant. UPA is an army, so naturally they're armed. So saying "Anti-Soviet Armed Resistance By An Army" is redundant & it's the type of redundancy that's left with no meaning with respect to the scope of what this article is about. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Wrong & wrong. In 1939 Joseph Stalin collaborated with Hitler (the Nazis), invaded Poland, and illegally occupied west Ukraine. During the Russian/Soviet occupation, OUN formed an army called Ukrayinsʹka Povstansʹka Armiya (UPA) who waged war (guerilla war) against Soviet/Russian Occupation. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Just so that we inch forward and not backward, we sort of already decided on ""Ukrainian insurgent army" and "Soviet". So who has a good idea for a title with those in it? North8000 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: if those are the words, then the title should be "Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Soviet Occupation" That way the title will reflect what the article is about. As for the word "occupation:" According to sourced historians (plural), the Museum of the History Of Polish Jews, and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: all use the word "occupied" when discussing in 1939. the Soviets "occupied" Poland (western Ukraine). Now, if any editor feels like arguing over the word "occupied" with those historians, the Holocaust Museum, or Museum of History of Polish Jews, go for it, knock yourself out. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I gotta say, "war" goes a long way towards remedying the unwieldiness I was complaining about. I like this one, except that occupation should not be capitalized Elinruby (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby: I'm ok with not capitalizing "occupation." I think it's imperative to remember that historian Timothy Snyder (and other historians) call the period 1939-1940 the "Soviet occupation" and describe the period after 1944, the "second Soviet occupation."[16] So yeah, it was an occupation. And that fact used to be in the article, but an editor removed it and should not have. Now the only questions wiki editors need to answer is: 1) Does wiki want to use the words/terms our historian sources use? -or- 2) Does wiki want to ignore our sources, reinvent & rewrite history by using the fake-words that some wiki editors 'like?' I think the answer is simple. We use terms our sources use. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Well at least you finally admit it was an "occupation." Now lets all work together, "inch forward," to improve the article by including the language our sources use and avoid/stop deleting historical facts, sections, etc., that are important & relevant facts that pertain to the limited scope of the article and which will improve the article. I feel we all need to keep in mind the scope of the article is very limited: UPA's war against Russian/Soviet occupation. Period. That's it. That's all it's about. So one thing we need to do is to not get caught up in tangential information that will deviate & diverge from that limited scope. Thanks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
:::OK so. I agree that Snyder is a great source, but in your quotes above the word is not capitalized? You may have missed the fact that I am agreeing with you. Again, my education and wiki experience with World War 2 have to do with the Western Front, where we talk about the German occupation. Lower case. Or Vichy régime for the puppet government. The Germans had a specific word, ie proper noun, for the part of Poland/Ukraine they occupied, but I don't think this is true of the Soviets. (And the proper noun did not apply to the entire territory of modern Ukraine, and that's the Germans not the Soviets) I am ready to be educated on this -- sometimes it is possible to make progress by being the person who has to have things explained to them -- but at the moment, it seems to me that as a matter of English, the Soviet occupation was not a singular system or event, it was an occupation like any other, one of many over the course of history in many other places as well. And there is resistance to calling it that at all, mind you, let alone capitalizing it like the Potato Famine or the Holocaust. Was there a specific word the Soviets used to refer to their administration here? Some equivalent to Vichy? Maybe that would help. And yes, there has been a lot of POV deletion, but later for that. Let's get the actual title straight so we have a scope defined. Elinruby (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The Ukrainian article on the subject is called: Боротьба УПА проти радянської армії, which translates as UPA fight/struggle against Soviet army. So even there the terms war and occupation are not used. The term "war" is rather associated with a conflict that has clearly defined sides, beginning and end; for guerrilla fighting, other terms like "armed resistance", "conflict" or "fighting" are better suited. I continue to advocate the use of the term 'armed resistance' as the most precise. Its use also clearly indicates that the UPA fought against the Soviets from the very beginning, and not from a certain point (as in the German case). I also think that we should speak of 'anti-Soviet armed resistance', because it was resistance not only against the Soviet army (Red Army), but also against other formations of that state (NKVD, Smersh), and against its authority and ideology as such.Marcelus (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Is "army" (vs. military) the best English word for what was used in the Ukrainian title? Also, just confirming, was the armed struggle primarily against the army/military? North8000 (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: I'm not sure what you mean by "armed struggle primarily against the army/military" so I'll answer this way: It was an armed struggle against Soviet occupation. Yes, "army" is the best word to use because "army" is part of the official name they were given when they were created. In world history, all historians use the word "army" when discussing "UPA" (Ukrainian Insurgency Army) because: 1) That's their name, 2) UPA was an army created by Ukrainians. 3) Therefore, Ukrainians used their Ukrainian language (not English, but Ukrainian) to name "UPA." 3) In Ukrainian language, "UPA" = "Ukrayinsʹka Povstansʹka Armiya" and that's why their acronym is "UPA." 4) The Ukraine-to-English translation of "Ukrayinsʹka Povstansʹka Armiya" = "Ukrainian Insurgent Army." And that's why Historians use the word "army" to discuss them; and, as you can see, we (and historians) already use the "English" words/translation to discuss them: "Ukrainian Insurgent Army." Once again, it's important to keep in mind that this article's limit scope is only about: a limited time period, when one army (UPA), was created to fight against Soviet occupation in western Ukraine in order to gain independence. That's it: One army, one period of time, fighting Soviet occupation. It makes no sense to re-name UPA and dismantle their name, because re-naming them will be historically inaccurate. My suggestion is that we just stick with their real name (the name all historians use) and stay focused on the article's scope. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
As for the title of this article I would be in favour of either #2 or #4. In the even where agreement cannot be met, may I recommend "Ukrainian Insurgent Army military activity (insert years here)" or "Ukrainian Insurgent Army military activity against Soviet Forces".79.154.24.134 (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@79.154.24.134: The scope of this article is not to determine what type of army UPA was. Plus, that's making determinations is not what wiki editors are ever supposed to do. Oh & I notice that you use the word "Army" in your list of named "Armies" -- and wiki editors should do the same, use the word "army," when discussing "Ukrainian Insurgent Army." BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I doubly screwed up when I asked my "army" question,the second screwup was not noticing that my intended question was already answered. And I created quite mess. We already decided on "Ukrainian insurgent army". Recapping, I intended to question the word "army" as the target of the armed resistance in the translation from the Ukrainian title. My question was already answered by the person who posted the title, it was "we should speak of 'anti-Soviet armed resistance', because it was resistance not only against the Soviet army (Red Army), but also against other formations of that state (NKVD, Smersh), and against its authority and ideology as such" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
So, we already decided on "Anti-Soviet" and by the "Ukrainian Insurgent Army". Who can suggest a best title idea that incorporates those? North8000 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)"
Personally I like Anti-Soviet Resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.
It's simple, to the point, and probably most accurate, since there other forms of resistance utilised besides the use of arms, for example, sabotage, etc. Cononsense (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC
@BetsyRMadison I think you need to re-read what I had actually wrote. I haven't made any claim to not utilise the word Army when describing the UPA. Why would I, that is the name they gave themselves, as you noted in your response to me, I applied the term army in my article title suggestions. Nor have I suggested that we should determine what type of army they were, but rather, I merely pointed out that we cannot just give their point of view at how they viewed themselves. There are other voices that have been recorded by historians that view the UPA as a paramilitary organisation at best and as terrorists at worst, rather than the freedom fighters you keep portraying them as. A point that needs to be noted is that the UPA did not just fight for Ukraine to be free from Soviet control, but more, for an ethnically pure Ukraine. For Instance, in pages 1032-1035 of Norman Davies's book Europe: A History, he describes how the UPA "butchers" (his word) Ukrainians that hid and protected Poles from their "slaughter" (his word) and Ukrainians who were in what they termed as "wild marriages" or inter-national marriages with Poles. This view needs to be recorded, so I wouldn't be keen on utilizing the term occupation when you consider these people that were also killed by the UPA were Ukrainians, unless of course, you believe these people were oppressing the UPA.
I agree with Cononsense, It is simple and it is practical and if you want to limit the scope of the article in years, then you can by putting the years inside brackets if you choose. 79.154.24.134 (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@79.154.24.134: yes, thank you. I did misread what you wrote. I apologize for that. And I do agree with you, as I have said repeatedly, we must use the words historians use, and stop making up our own words to put in this article. And, to be historically accurate, in 1939-41, during the 1st Soviet occupation (term historians use), OUN created UPA as an army to fight against Soviet occupation. I don't know a single historian who says UPA was chartered to "ethnically cleanse" and I don't think that's what Norman Davies was implying. Davies was describing 1 specific battle, not their chartered purpose. And I agree, that battle should be discussed in the article & it's background (what led to it) and put in the article the way historians describe it & not the way you, or I, or any other editor would describe it. Additionally, I think you have me confused with a different editor, as I have never used the term "freedom fighter" to describe them or anyone else. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison:And, to be historically accurate, in 1939-41, during the 1st Soviet occupation (term historians use), OUN created UPA as an army to fight against Soviet occupation. Once again you are showing your absolute lack of knowledge on this topic, which poses a question whether your opinions should be taken into account. UPA wasn't created to fight Soviets and it wasn't created during the first Soviet occupation. UPA was created in February-March 1943 to organise anti-German uprising and the genocide of Polish people in Volhynia. And it wasn't 1 specific battle, but a series of mass killing that lasted from 1943 to 1945 and consumed lifes of 100k innocent people.Marcelus (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Marcelus: OUN was discussing the creation of UPA in late 1939-41 after Stalin collaborated with the Nazis, invaded Poland and occupy western Ukraine. The first detachments of the Polissya Sich UPA were formed by Bulba-Borovets on June 28, 1941. According to the OUN-B the official date of emergence of the UPA is October 14, 1942, although some historians postpone the emergence period for about 6 months, when OUN units began to officially be called the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Oh & hey I'd love to read all those the books you've written about this topic. I'm sure they're great, right up there with Timothy Snyder's book. What are their titles? Your repeated personal attacks on multiple editors is duly noted. I suggest you re-read WP:CIVIL. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison: I am not attacking anyone personally, I'm pointing your lack of knowledge, which we shouldn't avoid if we are writing an encyclopedia. Bulba-Borovets and his UPA has nothing in common with OUN, OUN-B or Banderist UPA. And even his UPA was created in early 1942 (it's not the same formation as Polesian Sich).Marcelus (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison After apologising for misquoting me, within the same statement you do it again. I did not write that Norman Davies implied that there was ethnic cleansing, I wrote he said it and I provided the page numbers in his book (Europe: A History pages 1032-1035) which you can read yourself. He most defiantly was not referencing a battle at all since these people were unarmed. Clearly you have not read the book. So, I suggest you do read it. Second, it's not that you don't know a single historian that points this fact out, but rather you are stuck with Timothy Snyder as your only source. I have presented you with other historians in previous comments, such as, Stephen Wheatcroft, Robert Conquest, Norman Stone, Robert I. Frost, and Jan Darasz. I suggest you read them up, and so then you can know 6 historians that agree there was ethnic cleansing, including Ukrainians that married to Poles as they defined these marriages as "Wild Marriage". There are plenty of historical and news articles about this subject on the internet, such as here, and here,and here, and here. In this last citation focus on the words on the events by the historian and not the journalist on the film made of the incident. 79.154.24.134 (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@79.154.24.134: You're correct, I should not have used the word "battle" to describe the atrocities/massacre/genocide that UPA waged in 1943 against Poles in Volhynia. And, if that is discussed in the article, we should use the terms historians use. Also, after re-reading your & my comments, I feel you and I are in agreement with each other, but, somehow, we're talking past each other. Maybe a translational barrier on my part? Therefore, I'll try to be more clear: Yes, all historians that I've read do agree that there was 'cleansing' going on. In fact, some historians use the term a 'cleanings within cleansings.' And yes, we should use the terms historians use to describe those activities in the article's sections where those activities are discussed. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: I don't recall "agreeing" to a title change. And I don't recall "agreeing" to using "Anti-Soviet" in the title. Best I can see, a title change was never agreed to. In the 1st (original) title change suggestion from: "Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation" → "Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance movement": 6 opposed & 6 supported. And in that discussion most agreed to using "Soviet occupation" instead of "Russian occupation." In the 2nd title change suggestion, from: "Ukrainian Insurant Army war" against Soviet occupation → "Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance." 5 opposed, 4 supported and again, people preferred "Soviet occupation" over "Russian occupation." And not only was a title change never agreed to, you (one editor) unilaterally decided to change the title and then you only gave 4 choices to pick from, where all 4 choices had the word "Anti-Soviet" in it - which was never agreed to. None of this was agreed to. Also important is that I don't see where the other editors, like: @Moxy:, @Super Dromaeosaurus:, @Sakateka:, @AjaxSmack:, @Vami IV:, @Fnlayson:, @Staberinde:, @Eurohunter:, @My very best wishes:, @XavierItzm: who were involved in the two "title" discussion (above) agreed to any of the 4 choices you gave. Now, maybe everyone will agree, but as of now, that's not the case and changing title should not be unilaterally decided. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
So that's two people who like: Anti-Soviet Resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent ArmyNorth8000 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000 Can you see now how deeply problematic the existence of this WP:POVFORK article is as editors with knowledge of the subject indicated multiple times before? PS. @Thank you IP 79...134 for a great comment. - GizzyCatBella🍁16:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, there's a whole 'nother discussion. But what do you think of the title? North8000 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess..anything is better than the fallacious current title. How about Anti-Soviet hostilities by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army? - GizzyCatBella🍁17:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: I don't like the title "Anti-Soviet Resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army" -- it's redundant: "Resistance by an Army" oh my goodness, who knew an army would resist. Also, it doesn't fit the scope of the article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Proper names and capitalization play a role here, possibly leading to some of the disagreement.
Secondly (and maybe this is obvious, and it just hasn't been stated yet): it's lower-case 'a' anti-Soviet when in sentence-medial position; the 'A' is capitalized only when sentence-initial, and in the article title. Thus a link from some other article might be: "...and there was also significant [[anti-Soviet resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army]]."
Whether it's "UPA" or "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" it's a proper name, thus all initial caps in English. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. The consequence of that is that "UPA resistance..." or "resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army" is not redundant. Also, the XYZ Army might be engaged in lots of things: logistics, procurement, engineering, training, weapons development, counterintelligence, military court-martials, recruiting, and... resistance. Leaving "resistance" out of the title widens the scope of the article considerably; including it, keeps the scope much narrower, so you just have to decide what the article is about, first, before you can decide whether to remove resistance.
For completeness, I ran ngrams on every possible version of "anti-Soviet" (with/without caps on A or S, with/without hypen) and "anti-Soviet" is by far the most common.
Ok, so far, three folks support that, one opposes, and there have been no alternative proposals. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Ummm I oppose that on several grounds and said so above. Not that I blame you for losing track in this mess. It seems to me that the were not "anti-Soviet" but anti-occupation. They were nationalists. If there is some sort of ideological barrier to calling the occupation an occupation, why not Ukrainian Insurgent Army resistance? I would agree to that, although I still prefer "war against Soviet occupation" and I think Marcelus is wrong in his objections. Elinruby (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Or if people prefer, Ukrainian Insurgent Army resistance (1944-1960) 02:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
IMO occupation is the reason for the resistance and the Soviets the target of the resistance. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Title change has not been agreed to
In the above section, @North8000: wrote: "So, we already decided on "Anti-Soviet" and by the "Ukrainian Insurgent Army". Who can suggest a best title idea that incorporates those?"
But, I don't recall "agreeing" to a title change. And I don't recall "agreeing" to using the term "Anti-Soviet" in the title. Best I can see, a title change was never agreed to. In the 1st (original) title change suggestion from: "Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation" → "Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance movement": 6 opposed & 6 supported. And in that discussion most agreed to using "Soviet occupation" instead of "Russian occupation." In the 2nd title change suggestion, from: "Ukrainian Insurant Army war" against Soviet occupation → "Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance." 5 opposed, 4 supported and again, people preferred "Soviet occupation" over "Russian occupation." And not only was a title change never agreed to, you (one editor) unilaterally decided to change the title and then you only gave 4 choices to pick from, where all 4 choices had the word "Anti-Soviet" in it - which was never agreed to. None of this was agreed to. Also important is that I don't see where the other editors, like: @Moxy:, @Super Dromaeosaurus:, @Sakateka:, @AjaxSmack:, @Vami IV:, @Fnlayson:, @Staberinde:, @Eurohunter:, @My very best wishes:, @XavierItzm: who were involved in the two "title" discussion (above) agreed to any of the 4 choices you gave. Now, maybe everyone will agree, but as of now, that's not the case and, you know I love you North8000, but changing the title should not be unilaterally decided. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
TLDR. So the scope was agreed to be restricted to the UPA or what? Know by the way that the only thing holding me back from moving the article back to the title agreed on the last RM is that this discussion has obviously taken a lot of time from editors and I don't wish to unnecessarily complicate it more. But whoever did it should refrain from doing it again. SuperΨDro21:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison: Because it's not a voting. You can claim that it was Russian occupation and have 100 people supporting you but it won't change a fact that it was Soviet, you can also claim that UPA was created in 1941 and have 100 people supporting you, but if one person will point out that such claim is factually wrong, then your claim won't prevail. Marcelus (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This article touches upon not only Ukrainian Insurgent Army but also Bukovinian Ukrainian Self-Defense Army and another organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (Melnyk). This means that instead of "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" it should simply be "Ukrainian", meaning the title should be Ukrainian war against Soviet occupation or Ukrainian war against Russian occupation (whichever is preferred). As there were (and still are) more similar Ukrainian wars against Russian occupation, then it can be specified Ukrainian war against Russian occupation (1941–1960). I didn't know where to put this comment because the discussion is simply too large, so excuse this if it is not located in the adequate place - if there is a better location for this message on this talk page, please move it there.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cukrakalnis: Which is wrong because UPA was created in early 1943, and the article isn't about the 1st occupation of Western Ukraine, it focuses on the 2nd one, and Soviets entered Volhynia in 1944 Marcelus (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Including Ukrainian Insurgent Army into the article's name breaks with how similar war articles are typically called - no one calls the French invasion of Russia as Grande Armée war against the Russian Empire. Ergo, just Ukrainian instead of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Furthermore, the anti-Soviet uprising of 1941 is a continuous part of the Ukrainian struggle, so its inclusion in the time framing seems warranted if the article's scope is expanded beyond UPA (as should be self-evident from the titles I suggested). Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
That's not correct. In real history, according to historians & US Holocaust Memorial Museum [18] (who we use as sources) the very first detachments of the UPA were formed by former UPR officer Taras Bulba-Borovets on June 28, 1941 & were called "Polissya Sich UPA." In August 1941, Borovets appointed Petro Smorodskyi commander. In December 1941 Bulba changed the name from "Polissian Sich" to "Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)". 1943, OUN took charge of UPA. Now, if you want to argue with historians, USHMM, & all of our other sources, and tell them they've been wrong all these years, then go for it. Knock yourself out. But wiki goes by what our sources say & they say: 1941 UPA was established by Taras Bulba Borovets. And our sources use the terms "1st Russian occupation" and "1st Soviet occupation" and "2nd Russian occupation" and "2nd Soviet occupation." (Remember, we must stick to what our sources say, not what you or I wish they'd say.) BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cukrakalnis:Bukovinian Ukrainian Self-Defense Army didn't fight against Soviet Army but retreated with Germans, the remaining soldiers joined Bukovinian kuren of UPA. Same goes for OUN-M partisan units they either retreated with Germans or joined, or were forced to join, UPA. The article cannot be called Ukrainian war against Russian occupation (1941–1960) because it wasn't war against Russian occupation Marcelus (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
You keep *saying* that. It *was* though, although apparently not wherever you learned your history. Isn't this fundamentally a difference in the national narratives about the Ukrainian–Soviet War? We are supposed to explain such controversies when we encounter them, not bludgeon one another over the head. Can't we all just get along here and talk about this like grownups? I even refrained from indenting an extra eight colons for emphasis. Since it annoys you so much. I think your worldview is rather rigid, and being annoyed by indentation is hilarious, but fine. We can write that the Soviets saw it that way, I can indent one colon only when addressing you, but there are also other narratives that need to be told here. 08:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
You have to use one colon when you are editing Wikipedia talk page, because that's a rule. Indentation is important to keep the layout of discussion clean and understandable. Colons aren't used for emphasis. Also you don't have to emphises anything here, try to keep discussion factual. My worldview is irrelevant here, because it's not a matter of views or opinions, UPA resisted the rule of Soviet Union, not Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, because RFSR didn't even has its own army. End of story. Marcelus (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
it wasn't war against Russian occupation yes it was. How do you think the Ukrainian fighters viewed their enemies: Soviets or Russians? Of course, the latter. (Proof: Russians get out of the Ukraine! - just one poster of many.) That's who they saw as their enemy. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Soviets saw UPA as Ukrainian-German nazis, so we should call it Soviet war against Ukrainian-German Nazis then? The article should be neutrally titled, it describes the clash between UPA and Soviet Union forces.Marcelus (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Modern Russians (a sizeable part of them, at the very least) see Ukrainians as Nazis, ergo their desire to """denazify""", i.e. genocide and destroy, Ukraine right now. Perhaps Russo-Ukrainian War, or more precisely 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, should be renamed to something more neutral? Hmmmm, I don't know, maybe call it the Special Military Operation? Russian media/propaganda says that pointing out that it's an invasion is clearly evident of a Western POV/lies. That's the logical conclusion of Marcelus' proposal to take into account the Soviet distortions. (Just to be sure, I am all against the Russian invasion, I am just pointing out that taking account all POVs is not always justifiable.) Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I personally think that 1944 was chosen as the time period because of the Eurovision song and its topic, but the original author has been thoroughly intimidated and says she can't argue with any more Russian stuff, so at this point it becomes a matter of what we are willing to write. 1941 is not currently in the article at all (or wasn't) but I am not necessarily against it if somebody wants to write it.Elinruby (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
That's insane claim. 1944 was starting date of the original article. Article has to start somewhere. In early 1944 Soviet Army entered Western Ukraine, and then the UPA guerilla has started, and it lasted up until 1960. That's the scope of the article. Compare it to Guerrilla war in the Baltic states, it starts in 1945 and ends in 1956, but it doesn't mean ther was no anti-Soviet uprising in 1941 or in general resistance at that time and before. Marcelus (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Come on Cukrakalnis that's a stawman, how "Special Operation" is neutral? You can do better than that. There is nothing logical in what you are saying.Marcelus (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cukrakalnis: Can you qoute the relvant part of the article, because I don't see there such a claim. It only says Russia was one of the republics in union Marcelus (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
At the very top, just below the article's title and just above By Martin McCauley, it is written: Alternate titles: Russia, Sojuz Sovetskich Socialisticeskich Respublik, Sovetsky Soyuz, Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik, U.S.S.R., Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cukrakalnis: according to historians & our other sources, you are correct, it was a "Russian occupation." Some of our sources call it "Russian occupation" while other of our sources call it "Soviet occupation." Also, Marcelus is mistaken about the year UPA established. According to our sources, in June 1941 the very first detachments of the UPA were formed by former UPR officer Taras Bulba-Borovets & were called "Polissya Sich UPA." In August 1941, Borovets appointed Petro Smorodskyi commander. In December 1941 Bulba changed the name from "Polissian Sich" to "Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)". In 1943, OUN took charge of UPA. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Marcelus: thank you for proving my point. I always thought a sense of proportion (and humor) was important, myself, but multiculturalism has its drawbacks as well... how about addressing my point? I think you have me confused with BetsyRMadison. I am not taking issue with "Soviet". (Although I your contention about the army confusing. What was the Red Army then?) I am asking you to look at a link about the Ukrainian-Soviet War that described a difference between the Ukrainian and Soviet historigraphy, specifically with reference to to your contention above, because you seem to disagree that there was an occupation. If you could just stop assuming your own superiority for a moment and explain yourself, it would advance this discussion tremendously. If you are still banging on about how it wasn't Russian, it depends what year we are talking about but sure, in 1944 it was the Soviet Union. I frequently say Russian because it is currently true, but I was, if you recall, against the move back to this name. So can we please focus here? The Ukrainians say they were occupied, the Russians say they liberated them, and I am admittedly unfamiliar with the Polish position on this, but I am doing my best to respect all points of view here, in the face of a lot of ugliness may I add, and a whole lot of stereotypes that I would find offensive if they applied to me at all. Please consider the possibility that many people in the world have been taught a different history than you, and get back to me when you can do that. Elinruby (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Red Army was was the army and air force of the Soviet Union, what's confusing about that for you? You can add paragraph or chapter, if you have knowledge and proper sources, desciribing how both sides were seeing this conflict and how did they call it. But the title must remain WP:NPOV. It was a conflict between UPA and Soviet Union forces.Marcelus (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
ok so you agree that there was an occupation then? Your issue above is with "Russian"? Mmm. I don't feel like parsing WP:COMMONNAME, so... I use Russian but I can agree that the name of the country in 1944 and 1921 was USSR, yes. I am going to ignore your apparent belief that you need to explain NPOV to me for the momemt (but why?) and ask how you feel about Soviet occupation? Could this possibly have been what they were resisting? Trying to feel out what this non-neutral stuff is that you feel you have to oppose. Is it just "Russian"? Elinruby (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Historians (who we use as sources) and our other sources call the period: 1939-1941 the "Russian occupation" while some of our other sources call it 1st Soviet occupation. Historians call the period 1944, the 2nd Soviet occupation. On wiki we use the terms our source use, not the words you use, or I use, or any other editor uses. And on this issue, our sources call it an "occupation" so naturally, we should too. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I don't have wiki-minutes to engage in all of that. If you have an idea for a title (including the current one) please propose it. North8000 (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I support any of the four title choices given above with a preference for using "armed" (yes there is unarmed resistance) and the article "the" (i.e. "...by the..." or "...of the..."). I oppose the current title's use of "occupation" as inaccurate/POV in regard to non-Second Polish Republic areas and strongly oppose the anachronistic and confusing use of "Russian". Yes, I know that "Russian" is shorthand for "Soviet" even in serious sources of that time, but Wikipedia should seek to be accurate and to avoid confusion with the current Russian war in Ukraine. — AjaxSmack19:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Question - not arguing; this is a genuine question - what areas that were not the Second Polish Republic were not occupied by/part of the Soviet Union and yet could be considered "Ukraine"? I've been clicking around and all I am getting is maybe Crimea, but were the UPA even active there? As somebody who has been advocating "occupation" I am trying to evaluate what you said about it; sorry if it seems like a ridiculous question, but there is a lot of that going around. There seems to be a lot of heat about Russian vs Soviet, btw, but I personally am indifferent. I often use "Russian" but for this article "Soviet" may perhaps be more correct. I can't get excited about it either way. I have suggested a number of possibilities above, and will come back an actually list them later. Probably willing to strike the ones that contain "occupation" if I somebody will enunciate the objection to it. Elinruby (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't have much of an opinion on this, you folks are far more expert on this. I was only trying to help navigate towards a result on something that looks likely to go for 500,000 more words / 4 more months with no result. I did plan to pile on whichever way a consensus went in order to help solidify it/ stabilize the situation.
While there is nothing that could align with everybody's thoughts it looks like Anti-Soviet Resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army aligns more with them, and has some support. And I'd say we include emphasizing the possibility that it could be changed again. If we could get a consensus for this, I'd stick around to help get through that step. Or, if somebody has another proposal that reasonably aligns with the majority of feedback received, I'd also stick around to help. Otherwise I don't see much progress that I can help with here and would plan to bow out. Also acknowledging that we also have the semi-abandoned RFC requested move on this open which looks headed to a "moot" or "no consensus on the proposed title, and a consensus against the current title" closure if closed, all of which mean no decision on a new title. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2022's in (UTC)
I like this approach. Re: the "Anti-Soviet Resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army" name, let me reiterate my support by linking Resistance movement#Examples of resistance movements. It's more or less what I, as a lay person, think of when trying to search for a article for subjects of similar groups in other places in a world. So I hope it's a good enough, concise, pragmatic, and descriptive pick of a title that I hope others can agree to. Cononsense (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: Let's cut to the chase. Anti-Soviet resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army is ok name, I would prefer armed resistance, but just resistance is also ok. We need to ignore the constant mumbling about "war against occupation" and "Russian occupation" because these are ideas aren't historically accurate and are just result of pushing politcised views. 2 or 3 editors keep repeating the same pointless arguments, stretching this discussion endlessly (about 3/4 of the entire discussion is completely off topic and should be deleted), trying to wear us all out and thus force their own POV.Marcelus (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I also prefer "armed" but may I suggest that others who are OK with "Anti-Soviet resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army" support it, and indicate their preference on adding armed" separately. ? Ping @Cononsense:North8000 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I like this title with or without "armed". (I was in favour of "armed" before", but with "Army" in the title [i.e. keeping a narrower focus in the article], I no longer see it as necessary.) — AjaxSmack21:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I would really prefer to include occupation unless somebody will use their words and tell me why it's inaccurate. I am seeing glimmers of why it might be POV with respect to Poland, which won the war against the Soviets, but that doesn't apply after 1939. And further clicking around says Crimea was occupied in 1944 and the Soviets deported many tens of thousands of people to Siberia. The map that AjaxSmack posted says he might maybe be talking about Bessarabia; if so fine but was the UPA ever active there? I mean, I like my discussions with some facts in them, and I don't recall seeing that in the article. I mean -- the German Occupation of France didn't include St Pierre & Miquelon. I have offered to drop the advocacy of "occupation" if somebody can give me one good reason why I should, and so far I am hearing crickets. Do we agree that the scope of the article is the second Soviet invasion? Elinruby (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
One reason could be to name it by who they targeted (Soviets) rather than the reason for doing so (occupation). Also, "Soviets" makes the title more specific than occupation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
That's why I object to it. They weren't attacking the Soviet Union within its own borders, they were resisting what they saw as an unjust occupation. I get that the official Soviet version was that they were liberated, but since when does Stalin get equal weight let alone the deciding voice in what Wikipedia calls it? Given Stalin's version of "liberation" I just can't take that seriously. If there is something inaccurate about the statement, as I can see there might be if we were talking about Poland/Ukraine in the 1920s, that would be one thing, but we seem to be agreed that the scope is 1944 on. I repeat, if somebody can explain to me why it would be inaccurate, I will stop saying occupation could be included. So far I have gotten insults and dismissal and that really isn't ok, even though I have chosen not to make an issue of this so far. Elinruby (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC) aaaaand Bessarabia was occupied by the Soviets in 1944 Elinruby (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Using "resistance" doesn't imply they were attacking Soviet Union territory, it imply that they were defending themselves, resisting, Soviet invasion. Waht's more nobody here insist on using nor uses term "liberation". Also you aren't fully factually correct. UPA was planning to send raids within SU territory (Belarus, Caucasus, Russia proper) in order to instigate anti-Soviet uprisings there. They failed to do so, because the groups were destroyed before they manage to reach their destination. They also were portraying themselves as the main anti-Soviet body that leads wider anti-Soviet liberation movement. I insist you to at least the article, it's not perfect, but you have there basic factography, it will be much easier to talk about when you'll have at least a grasp of UPA history.Marcelus (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I have read the article. I have worked extensively on the article, and the references. I stopped because my edits were consistently deleted without explanation, so I decided to wait until a decision was reached on the scope of the article. Please stop insulting my intelligence. Just tell me what the issue is with "occupation'; it's a really simple question that keeps not getting answered, so I suspect NNPOV ideological reasons. Yes, the article says they did, or wanted to, contact the Forest Brothers. So? They considered themselves occupied as well. I don't see the issue and need to see at least one reference to begin to see the issue. If their self-portrayal was a bit aspirational, again, so? This does not make Ukraine any less occupied. Elinruby (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby: I'm not insulting your intelligence, but pointing out your obvious lack of knowledge on the topic. Firstly, the phrase 'war against occupation' does not sound good, war is waged against a specific enemy, not against occupation. Secondly, occupation is a legal concept. From the point of view of international law, western Ukraine was part of Poland until August 1945. So, the (second) occupation of these territories lasted from the beginning of 1944 until the middle of 1945, when the border was established by the Polish-Soviet treaty and Western Ukraine was incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR. And yet the UPA resistance lasted much longer. Moreover, they did not fight against the Soviet occupation of Polish territory, as the statement about the occupation might suggest. Of course, from the UPA's perspective, the whole of Ukraine was occupied by the Soviets/Russians, and such information should be included in the article (I encourage you to write a chapter about it), but the title of the article should be clear, communicative and devoid of controversial phrases.Marcelus (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Pretty sure there is much discussion in the article of resistance against Russian occupation of Poland, actually. Or was. In particular attacks on recruiting offices. Also, please cite this "international law" you speak of, snicker. These was no such thing in 1944. Disagreeing with the Soviet narrative is not the same thing as lack of knowledge, sorry.Elinruby (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
There was no international law in 1944? Are you serious right now? Pretty sure there is much discussion in the article of resistance against Russian occupation of Poland, actually what you mean by that? UPA didn't defend the Polish soveregnity over Ukrainian territory, quite contrary. Also be clearer, do not use colloquial language. This conversation has been going on for so long, mainly because your statements look like this: unclear points, sentences cut off in the middle, deliberate watering down of the topic, manipulation of others' statements, not using correct indentations. Marcelus (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Marcelus: your repeated, relentless personal attacks against multiple editors on here is disruptive and is causing a hostile environment. The edit button is for fixing mistakes - and all editors make mistakes, even you. As a matter of fact, when you make editing mistakes, you flat refuse to allow the factually correct information to be put inside the article & you force us to keep your false erroneous information in. Example: all historians report the number of 'Ukrainians arrested in 1941 are 5,418 (not 5,500)'.
(here [19] & [20]). (Source: Snyder, Timothy. Brandon, Ray. "Stalin and Europe: Imitation and Domination, 1928-1953." 2014. Oxford Press. pp 148-149.). Yet, for some strange reason you force us to keep your wrong info in the article which does nothing to improve the article. We're all human, we're all volunteers, so please stop the disruptive personal attacks & remember, you've written as many books on this topic as every other editor: None. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's stop with the aspersions, please. Yes I am serious. Look up League of Nations and when it was that it collapsed. UPA was against Soviet occupation of territory it considered Ukrainian. It was especially against conscription into the Red Army. I realize that the Polish disagreed that these were Ukrainina territories. It's ridiculous that people can't see these as equally valid narratives and are insisting on replacing one nationalist account with another. I can understand ignorance and I can be amused by arrogance but I am running out of the patience to do both. You realize that you just said that although Western Ukraine was incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR, this was the end of Soviet occupation? In Poland perhaps, which is not the topic of the article Elinruby (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
League of Nations was dissolved in 1946, year after the creation of UN. Also LoN does not equal international law. I don't know why are you trying make it out to be a Polish thing or where do you see pushing of Polish POV here. UPA was against Soviet occupation of territory it considered Ukrainian. It was especially against conscription into the Red Army. That's all true and should be included in the article. Doesn't justify still use of word "occupation" in the title. From the legal point of view the state of Soviet occupation in western Ukraine ended in 1946.Marcelus (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
On paper. It collapsed in 1939. Read past the infobox. I mean, the whole Nazi thing wasn't exactly the rule of international law, was it now. Where was this international law you speak of when they were deporting Tatars to Siberia, shooting Jews in the forests, and cranking up the Final Solution, hmm? The last measure the LoN took was expelling Russia in 1939, as it happens. I am talking about the League of Nations because what other legitimate basis would there be for international law? Sure there were treaties, but these were simply handshakes between individual countries, and there was no means of enforcing them. There isn't much means of enforcing treaties at the United Nations now, but at least there is censure, as Russia is learning. Nice try, but there was no "international law" that made the word 'occupation' inaccurate. I am still listening, but it also wasn't *not* an occupation of Ukraine because Poland signed a treaty with the Soviet Union. Try again. I see a pushing of the Polish PoV because it is there, and patronizing me to boot ;) And maybe the Polish PoV needed to be pushed, depending on what the scope of the article is -- I have been open to that idea -- but not to the exclusion of the Ukrainian, Jewish and Russian narratives. You may know your Polish history; I am willing to believe that you do. But you don't seem to know a lot about international law. Or modern diplomatic history Elinruby (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Nazi conquest wasn't recognised internationally, so that's why we are talking about occupations. The postwar borders were legitmised by the series of treaties, Soviet Union claimed to be fully sovereign on the Ukrainian territory and was universally recognised as such. You still failed to point out where is a Polish POV. Polish POV would be to claim that Soviet Union occupied not only Ukraine, but also Poland and the rest of the Eastern Bloc until 1989/91. Polish POV would be to claim that Ukraine occupy Lviv and the rest of Polish territories to this day. But I don't claim any of such things. Overall I understand your point of view. In the colloquial sense Ukraine was occupied, because its people were denied right to self-determination. Western Ukraine was also occupied in some sense, because it was an object of harsh military rule after the war, which consumed lifes of thousands. I understand that and all of that can and should be included in the article. But the title needs to be short, communicative and devoided of any ambiguous statement. If such answer doesn't satidfy you I am sorry, but really there is nothing more to add on this topic on my side. Marcelus (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Cough. I am not talking about occupations because of the Nazis. I see a couple of editors hell-bent on denying Soviet occupations and slinging a lot of mud to do it. Not to mention distorting history. We’ve reached a point where everybody just wants this to be over, and I can respect that, but you’re really wrong about both treaties and international law, and I am tired of assuming that your insults are due to your language issues and do bit constitute personal attacks, especially now that you have clarified and doubled down on them. But this thread has been beaten to death enough, so I will address that elsewhere. Given some of the recent input, the SPA is moot, so shrug. Everyone is tired and we need a scope to address the POV issues. I will check back in a bit to see if we have one yet. Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby - You admitted to not having knowledge concerning this particular subject yourself
...I am a copyeditor/translator who sometimes rescues machine translations (where POV issues are common) not a subject matter expert.. ---> [22] - GizzyCatBella🍁06:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Elinruby The above notice left by Macelus wasn’t addressed to you. @MarcelusYes. As I stated earlier anything with "Soviet" in it is better than the present erroneous title, but ideally, I would like to see Anti-Soviet hostilities by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. - GizzyCatBella🍁09:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I'm going to pile on into any consensus to help solidify / move forward. Maybe wait one more day? North8000 (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Marcelus, I like this title. I also think the ip user supported it.
I don't have a strong feeling against other titles, but I feel like this is a good compromise that avoids confusion for people reading this article
For reasons of conciseness, I refuse to agree to Anti-Soviet resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. The name is simply too long and unwieldy (even if factually correct) - seven words. Remember, the audience is not specialists but mostly people who have never even heard of this - overcomplicating it for them is unreasonable and counterproductive. Ergo, a name like Anti-Soviet Ukrainian war (1944–1960) or whatever the dating is, would be preferable (a mere four words). Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Seven words is not too long, per WP:CONCISE: The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. So for exactly the reason you mentioned there is no reason to shorten the title Marcelus (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
You ignored the example given below that exact phrase, where a two-word title is preferred to a seven-word title, which goes directly against what you are saying:
Ergo, stating So for exactly the reason you mentioned there is no reason to shorten the title is simply lying, pure and simple. I have no other words for that. Following WP:CONCISE, the title Anti-Soviet Ukrainian war (1944–1960), or even shorter, Soviet–Ukrainian war (1944–1960) should be preferred to Anti-Soviet resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cukrakalnis: First of all, mark you words. Secondly the example given in WP:CONCISE only confirms my point. We can concise when the shorter version isn't misleading or less informative, as it's with Rhode Island. But proposed by you "Anti-Soviet Ukrainian war (1944–1960)" isn't good choice for this very reason. It doesn't clearly identify the conflicting parties. The name is imprecise: the battles waged by the Polish underground against the Soviets in Ukraine could also be described as an 'anti-Soviet Ukrainian war', even the battles of German troops. Besides, I have never come across such a term in sources.Marcelus (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
So you saying That's insane claim. or There is nothing logical in what you are saying.on May 14 is apparently ok (among other comparable statements), but pointing out the falseness of you saying that a longer name is actually more concise causes you to say mark you words.
the battles waged by the Polish underground against the Soviets in Ukraine could also be described as an 'anti-Soviet Ukrainian war' No, that's impossible, unless you want to admit that it is possible to call the Russian invasion of Poland in 1939 as Russian invasion of Lithuania, because Lithuanian-majority areas were part of interwar Poland, or even Russian invasion of Ukraine, because Ukrainian-majority areas were also invaded. Your objection does not stand up to scrutiny. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Claiming that article starting date is 1944 because of Eurovision is insane. Also your argument about Special operation was illogical. Because that's Russian propaganda name, and the title propsed by me isn't from Soviet propaganda. Just your comparison was illogical. I don't see nothing wrong with the words I used, meanwhile you are accusing me of lying not of being wrong, and that's totally different thing, so as I said mark your words.
unless you want to admit that it is possible to call the Russian invasion of Poland in 1939 as Russian invasion of Lithuania, because Lithuanian-majority areas were part of interwar Poland, first of all it was Soviet invasion. Secondly there is a difference between "invasion of Lithuania" and "Lithuanian war", the latter can be interpreted as war that's waged on the Lithuanian territory or Lithuania is object of it (see: Crimean war or Falklands war). Also examples given by you have well-established names in literature, meanwhile UPA's resistance against Soviet doesn't have one, so the name must be precise Marcelus (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Eurovision was only mentioned as someone's personal opinion. Plus, the true justification would have been the battles that started in 1944. You called someone's opinion insane, but somehow feel insulted when I pointed out that something you said fulfills the definition of lying according to Merriam-Webster, which is marked by or containing untrue statements : false. This was undoubtedly the case in your claim that WP:CONCISE prefers a longer name instead of a shorter one (Soviet–Ukrainian war (1944–1960)), although both were accurate. Comparing the definitions of lying and insane clearly indicates that the latter is an insult, while the former is more neutral.
You clearly did not understand the point of the argument with the Special military operation, which was that taking account all POVs is not always justifiable. While it is understandable to take into account the Ukrainian POV of seeing their enemies as Russians and thus calling it a war against Russian occupation, it is unjustifiable to take into account the Soviet propaganda of seeing their enemies as Ukrainian-German Nazis.
well-established names in literature Regardless, most of these wars can be and are called in a variety of ways.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Marcelus: You're being disingenuous. You've repeatedly engaged in personally attacking editors by calling them "insane" "ignorant"[23] along with the multitude of other derogatory & condescending attacks. Your claim that there is "nothing wrong" with you repeatedly personally attacking editors is not true, it's false. Read WP:CIVIL. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison: I never did call anyone insane, I said that Elinruby claim was insane, because frankly it was. And calling someone ignorant is not personal attack, it means that such person does not have required knowledge on the topic of the article.
Cukrakalnis did you really just qouted dictionary definition of lying? Can we be serious for a moment? I am asking you again and the last time do not accuse me of a lie.
it is unjustifiable to take into account the Soviet propaganda of seeing their enemies as Ukrainian-German Nazis exactly and nobody is doing that, nobody is pushing for Soviet war against Ukrainian-German Nazis. Do you understand now why your comparison to Special Operation was illogical? Marcelus (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Marcelus: oh stop! You're being so disingenuous. You know full well that you're engaging in personal attacks when you call editors "ignorant." And, if you do not have the required knowledge to be WP:CIVIL then maybe you should avoid editing until you do. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't deny that called ignorant people who proved to be ignorant. I just do not consider it to be a personal attack Marcelus (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I did quote a dictionary definition so that you would have the benefit of knowing the precise meaning of what I said.
Can we be serious for a moment? Who is not being serious? Is bringing out a dictionary somehow not serious? In WP:CIVIL, sub-section Avoiding incivility says to Avoid condescension., which states: do not tell people to "grow up" or include any language along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages. Saying Can we be serious for a moment? is you being condescending to me, as nothing in my behaviour indicates lack of seriousness.
I am asking you again and the last time do not accuse me of a lie. Your statement fulfilled that definition I provided regarding that action. It is not me who is responsible if that is the case. You were stating that a Wiki policy that prefers shorter over longer article titles preferred the longer one, which is contradictory. It is pointless to continue this, because it seems like there is a difference between how you treat others and how you yourself want to be treated. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:CONCISE prefers the shortest titles that contain sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area, titles proposed by you does not fulfill that requirment in my opinion. Anti-Soviet resistance by Ukrainian Insurgent Army in my opinion is fulfilling it. There was no lie in what I said. That's the last message from on this matter. Marcelus (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I am in favour of this title, which I have stated previously. I believe there may be some WP:STONEWALLING going on by a small minority of editors who are stuck in their view and this has dragged this discussion on for many weeks and regardless of the progress that has made, this small minority keep driving it back but we need to now move on. I'm not sure if this suggested new title should be formally put forward in the Requested move 30 April 2022 above. If so, then let us do that and vote on it, so that we can move on to the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.24.134 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
First a couple prefaces. I'm only trying to help as a navigator on a question which, due to a combination of factors I think could otherwise be headed towards hundreds of thousand of words over months with no resolution. I come in with no opinion and would defer to the many editors here who are far more knowledgeable than me on this topic. I did say that I would "pile on" with any consensus that occurs in order to help solidify the situation and help it move forward. Another preface is there there are several terms within any prospective title, each of which has multiple possibilities leading to dozes if not hundreds of possibilities. One thing that did emerge from that earlier discussion (and the same for subsequent discussion) is that nobody expressed support for the current title, and nearly everyone expressed opposition to it. The earlier requested move was inadvertently headed into the impossibility of sorting all of this out under that one specific question and so we segued into a very large and detailed discussion which parsed out some of those individual term questions and proposed and discussed a multitude of ideas. Noting that no possibility is going to make everybody 100% happy, I eventually proposed a possibility which perhaps closest one can get to the the bulk of the feedback received and also asked for any other proposals which attempted to do the same.
Anti-Soviet Resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army With emphasizing the possibility that it could be changed again (i.e. that this would not set it in stone)
There was then a pretty overwhelming consensus for doing this, with no alternate proposals although there was quick mention of a personal preference for a possibility. After receiving a suggestion that we consider it to be decided and move on, I suggested we keep it open for an additional day. An individual who is opposed to the proposal had pinged quite a few folks which they selected and this also allowed for response from them. With my pile on I think this makes it with 6 expressing recent and specific support for the proposed title change, with two opposing it, and with the most support any alternate proposal (including the status quo possibility) receiving was 1 person. I think that this is plenty to go on and am going to try implementing the change if I'm able to. It would probably take another 1 1/2 months so 100% perfect/thorough that it could not be nit-pickable. Close the older request for move, start a brand new request for move, have it open for 30 days and then close it. I'm guessing that most folks here don't want to go through that, including several having expressed concerns about stonewalling by a few individuals. Combining this with the status quo title receiving zero or near zero support and opposition by most, if somebody wants a different title may I suggest opening a mew discussion regarding their proposal, to change it from "Anti-Soviet Resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army" to something else, which falls under "With emphasizing the possibility that it could be changed again " rather than finding fault with this (hopefully) baby step forward. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I was going to try to make the move based on the above but don't think that I can.North8000 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Can you contact a administrator to help out. Maybe someone that was involved previously, such as in closing the AfD or reverting the first move.79.154.24.134 (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
It got done. Procedurally I changed my "support" on the older RFM to "oppose" in order to help put it to bed. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: I like and appreciate your approach. I have only one comment: why "resistance" with capital letter? It's not a proper name, but common noun. Besides, speaking generally, I got the impression that some editors, for reasons unknown to me, treat the proposed title as anti-Ukrainian or as an attack on Ukraine. There have also been suggestions that the supporters of this title represent a Soviet/Russian perspective. I would ask that such insinuations cease. Marcelus (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed that too! Should we lowercase it? Also, anyone object to this interim move (until the RM is closed) for other reasons? I'm happy to move it back to the status quo ante until the RM is finally closed if there's strong opposition to it. North8000's request seemed reasonable, but it may or may not represent consensus (I don't know). El_C13:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@El C: Well, the capitalization came from me, and I'd call it my mistake, but it was the version that was reviewed by everyone. BTW, there was a very strong consensus, but it was not unanimous. There was also a secondary question (adding "armed") which we decided to leave for later. If you'd like to fix the capitalization, I think that would be ideal. Or you could leave it and we'll see if there are any other proposed tweaks or proposals and handle everything later. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Since there were objections to the title adjustment (see my talk page), I've reverted the changes and am otherwise withdrawing from the page. Sorry for the trouble. El_C16:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This has gotten more complicated between admins, and now nothing seems to be happening. May I recommend that supporters of the new name edits any comments they put in under the old open RM such as I did? If we have to go the slow route, that is a "still open" RM which can jam things up. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like we might be on the slow track here. Get the old RM closed, start a new one. (BTW I'll be off the grid over the weekend). While that's chugging along maybe we should get 1-2 little question decided and then if needed, put the result into a new RM. .
First, we consensused "Anti-Soviet Resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army". The capital "R" in resistance was my error, I assume that everyone who supported it intended to approve: Anti-Soviet Resistance by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. If anyone who supported it feels otherwise, please say so. Also with any other case questions like the caps in Ukrainian Insurgent Army.
Some folks suggested adding "armed" before "resistance, and we decided to talk about that later. But now that we're in a slow spot maybe we should decide that. Who prefers / prefers not to add "armed"? North8000 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I put a note at the RM page. Looks like it all got done including the case correction. IMO the "add armed" question seems secondary and can be left for later. I can leave now and leave this to you experts. Or I could stay and try to help navigate if there is still some big open questions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I plan to unwatch this and leave it to you experts. Ping me if I can be of any help. Happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Scattered throughout this article are bad-faith aspersions supported only by single sources that Ukrainian intellectual history has gone to great lengths to "whitewash" antisemitism and ethnic cleansing of Poles by the OUN and generally in Ukrainian nationalism. Antisemitism itself is a questionable assertion given the existence of Jews like Lev Rebet within the organization. But moreoever, I think this article is clearly biased and no longer neutral POV. There are plenty of other sources in historiography which are not as critical as Rudling and Motyka (together making up the vast majority of sources in the article and has a decidedly negative bias against Ukrainians).
I am also concerned that a particular user who had formerly been blocked from editing these topics for a number of years, GizzyCatBella is making consistent inflammatory, biased edits to this article in what appears to be an attempt to establish an agenda-driven narrative within the article.
Considering this article was already marked with NPOV template just two months ago, I would say rehabilitating the article has swung too far in the opposite direction. The article reads like a screed against Ukrainian independence fighters and fails to account for the context within which these actions arose. There is scant mention of the annexation of Ukrainian land by Poles (which contributed to revanchism in the form of pogroms against Poles), there is also scant mention of the Holodomor and other brutal repressions by Soviets, etc.
tl;dr: claiming that Ukrainian WWII history has been "whitewashed" when there is still significant scholarly debate as to what happened, how it happened, and why is disingenuous at best and at worst an attempt to pervert Wikipedia for the benefit of propaganda campaigns. I think some admins need to be looking at this page. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
First, dear IP 206.45.2.52 , I don't appreciate you calling me comrade[24] and I don’t appreciate you posting repeated, identical messages on my talk page[25], [26], [27], [28]. Second, this talk page is designed to discuss content, not editors. Third, all edits of mine are properly sourced to high-quality mainstream scholarly publications, with quotations. If you disagree with any of them, suggest an alternative, reinforced by a high-quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused book by a reputable publisher) and make an edit request below. - GizzyCatBella🍁17:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I am concerned by what I view to be your biased editing. As I stated in my original comment, the vast majority of citations are coming from two sources critical of Ukraine, Rudling and Moytka. I'm not interested in fighting with you about your history on this website. I'm more concerned with this biased article. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
There's no need to continue this discussion if it will be in bad faith. I am pointing out that this article, despite using "high-quality, mainstream scholarly publications, with quotations...," only presents one side of the titular topic. This is clearly a biased article and therefore not NPOV. A historiographical source being a "high-quality, mainstream scholarly publication..." has no bearing on the fact that it usually presents one author's interpretation of primary and secondary sources. Again, the issue here is not you specifically (though I do think that your activity needs to be investigated), the issue is that the article, as a whole, is extremely biased and presents largely the arguments of Moytka and Rudling as the sole interpretation of these events. Both scholars have particularly radical positions on this subject, however, so I would actually argue against your assertion that these claims are "mainstream." Let's not make the discussion about you, and I don't think you need to poison the well by bringing my attempt to discuss some of these issues on your talk page (where they are more appropriately discussed). You refused to have that discussion on your page, so it's unclear why you are bringing it up here (other than as a bad-faith attempt to sidestep my concerns about this particular article). Cheers 206.45.2.52 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're unwilling to have a constructive discussion about the dearth of citations in this article (although that seems to be a pattern on this talk page). I'm hoping there are some more constructive regular editors who will join the discussion. In the meantime, please do not edit my talk page anymore. Thank you. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments1 person in discussion
UPA regions:
UPA-North: This comprised Northwestern Ukraine and the south- western/southcentral region of Belorussia (White Russia); UPA-South: consisted of Bukovina, the southeastern Carpathian region, and Vinnytsia’s province; UPA- East: encompassed the Ukraine’s capital city of Kiev and its surrounding area, and UPA-West: comprised the whole of Galicia, most of the Carpathian region, and parts of Southeastern Poland. --> source [29]Galicia Division : the Waffen-SS 14th Grenadier Division 1943-1945 - page 45GizzyCatBella🍁05:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
1938 UPA training camp outside Berlin
Bandera founded the Ukrainian Insurgency Army (UPA) the Abwehr set up training camps, in 1938, for young Ukrainian militants. Located outside Berlin at an isolated holiday camp on the Chiemsee, these ardent nationalists were trained in partisan warfare. They were then sent on a course of Abwehr sabotage at Quenzgut, outside Berlin, where they received training for missions in Poland and Soviet Ukraine. Since they had a common foe in the USSR and there was a large Ukrainian population in Manchuria, the Japanese supported the Abwehr II’s Ukrainian activities with funds and intelligence expertise. ---> Hitler's espionage machine : German intelligence agencies and operations during World War II[30] page 122 - GizzyCatBella🍁08:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
14,500 acts of sabotage and terrorism against the Soviets
Khrushchev understood the seriousness of the confrontation with the Ukrainian insurgents, who in 1945 were rearranged into small, well-organized and armed subunits based in local wooded mountain ranges. The UPA brigades controlled significant territories and strove to maintain national-state structures, illegal in those conditions, as an alternative to the organs of Communist power. According to official data, the Ukrainian underground carried out 14,500 acts of sabotage and terrorism, which killed no fewer than thirty thousand representatives of the Communist regime, members of the military, and local inhabitants. --> Nikita Khrushchev[31] page 38 - GizzyCatBella🍁08:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
German estimates of UPA strength
..UPA sources Claim 100,000-200,000. According to German sources the UPA had only about 40,000 men..--> THE UKRAINIAN NATIONALIST MOVEMENT AN INTERIM STUDY OCTOBER 1946 Declassified CIA document number CIA-RDP83-00764R000500040001-3 released through the CIA's CREST database. [32] page 25 - GizzyCatBella🍁13:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
In September 1939, the German Abwehr (military intelligence branch) allowed the OUN to form a battalion-sized Legion composed of 600 ex-members of the Carpathian Sich. This ‘Sushko Legion’ (named after its commander) accompanied the German forces during their invasion of Poland, but was then disbanded following the Russo-German Pact. --> Ukrainian armies, 1914-55[33] page 37 - GizzyCatBella🍁13:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
CIA’s plans to use the Ukrainians received official sanction in Washington in the summer of 1949...The first CIA-sponsored airdrop into the USSR occurred in September 1949 when two Ukrainians landed near Lvov. This mission, which the CIA coordinated and handled, sought to establish contact with the UHVR/UPA in Ukraine. --> Cold War Allies: CIA's Relations w Ukrainian Nationalists[34] page 20 - GizzyCatBella🍁13:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Reliability of Litopys
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, IP editor- I see the typo that you mention, in the Rudling reference. The passage in question is a quote from the source, and the typo ("environent") appears in the original. Thanks for pointing it out, though! PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
— Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Given that the article is full of aspersions regarding "whitewashing" of Ukrainian WWII history and "rehabilitation" of those the article has gone to great lengths to paint as "Nazi collaborators" on the basis of only Rudling and Moytka, coupled with the typical Allied tendency to fall prey to dichotomous thinking regarding WWII (Axis bad, allies good), the article seeks to attack all other interpretations of this period as non-credible and therefore not deserving of mention. However, this clearly fails the fundamental principle of NPOV as quoted above. It's unclear to me how this article went from being maligned for "rehabilitation of nazis" to swinging in the complete opposite direction and maligning all Ukrainian independence fighters as genocidal fascists. Why would there have not been a synthesis of these two views, since it is clear (even from Moytka and Rudling's citations) that other POVs exist? I think this article needs to be marked as having POV issues again and seriously rehabilitated. I'm also concerned with what appear to be concerted efforts to silence any and all opposition to the current POV, which are evident even on the current revision of this talk page. Thank you. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I used the scholarly work of the following scholars:
Ola Hnatiuk
Timothy Snyder
Rudling, Per A
Peter Longerich
Richard Breitman
J.W. Goda
Norman Davies
Rossoliński
Ivan Katchanovski
Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Two-Volume Set - various scholars
Please refer back to the message you are replying to for complaints about Rudling and Motyka. I'm not sure why you're listing the sources you have used. Despite what you may think, this has nothing to do with you specifically. Please try to stay on topic, it feels like you are derailing the conversation. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order: I'm speaking specifically about the 44 out of 140 references that are attributable to Motyka and Rudling. It's a bit below 1 in 3 citations that come from either of these scholars, and this is what seems to form the bulk of the article. As per the original message, but I will reiterate, that I don't see how presenting this narrow perspective on the topic at hand is "NPOV." Thank you. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
It's really difficult for me to go through this entire article as (a) it is full of blatant Ukrainophobia which (b) is not substantiated by other higher-order articles (for instance, this article establishes OUN-UPA as a "terrorist organization ... [seeking] a homogenous totalitarian state with all other political parties banned," without any additional context or discussion of scholarly disagreement with such an analysis... Which is a marked contrast to the article for the UPA itself, who despite being much longer makes scant reference to definitive classifications of "terrorist organization", "ethnic cleansing", totalitarianism, etc.) There is nary a paragraph on this page that doesn't use loaded language and cherry-picked sources to paint Ukrainian independence in the worst light possible. Edit: and please do not take this as an invitation to propagate this biased POV to other articles such as that for the UPA itself. I would prefer not to have to go start a new section on that talk page. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
So now all this has nothing to do with me? PS - I‘m staying on topic, and not trying to derail anything. I'll repeat once again - You are welcome to make edit requests below. I encourage you to do that. - GizzyCatBella🍁01:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I can't make edit requests for every sentence in the article, that's not realistic. Please, I'm trying to have a productive, constructive discussion. I feel like you have been hostile towards many other instances of dissent in regard to your editing. I'm trying to have a discussion about the Point of View that this article is espousing, and I would like to have it with the regular editors of the article. I'm curious as to how and why the editors believe the current article satisfies NPOV guidelines on english wikipedia...
The tone and POV in this article is significantly more critical than even that of the higher-order UPA and OUN articles. I don't think this is reasonable, and I have my suspicions that this is because such biased POV has been struck down on the other, more widely edited pages.
I can see how you're confused since you are the main editor of this article (looks like most of the last 200 edits were all you, I was not aware of this)... Yeah, there does seem to be a problem here but I'm unsure as to how to go about getting it addressed.
Despite the foregoing, I would prefer if you don't continue this discussion if you're not willing or able to have a discussion about the POV here. If that's the case and there is no interest in discussing this with other regular editors (are there any?) I guess I'll have to ping an admin and write a more cogent complaint about NPOV with respect to this article.
can't make edit requests for every sentence in the article, that's not realistic.
You changing every single sentence to your likings is not realistic and If you don’t want to make any edits request, I’m afraid I can’t help you. - GizzyCatBella🍁03:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
You can't have a discussion about the biased POV or you won't? I feel like you're unwilling to discuss this and I am wondering why? How can I help you to discuss the non-neutral POV of the article? Please, help me. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I’m at loss here, you keep talking about non-neutral POV but you do not provide any specifics nor edits requests. How do you expect me to help? - GizzyCatBella🍁04:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you seriously consider assertions such as
Ukrainian nationalism was formed under the influence of such political theorists as Dmytro Dontsov’s political thought, characterised by a need for totalitarianism, national chauvinism also antisemitism, Mykola Stsiborskyi and Yevhen Onatsky as well as Italian Fascism and German Nazism.
to be NPOV? Why is this even included in the article at all? How is this relevant at all to anti-Soviet resistance by the UPA/OUN? The notion that Ukrainian nationalism, which has existed since at least the late 19th century, is wholly attributable to 20th century fascist movements is not only ahistorical but verging on hate speech. This is content which is again, totally unsupported by the higher-order article for Ukrainian nationalism (and again, please do not take that as invitation to go introducing this biased POV regarding Ukrainian independence to that article)... 206.45.2.52 (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Claims such as ...Simon Petliura, who had organized anti-Jewish pogroms in the Ukraine after World War I. are blatantly false[35]. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of response. Have a lot going on at the moment. I hope to find some time to respond tomorrow or Friday. Thanks for being open to dialogue. Cheers. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: You need to tone down a bit. OUN was a nasty organization, but calling it terrorist in the context of anti-Soviet resistance is I think too much, they were terrorists in 1930s in Poland, but their post-war actions are better described as armed ressitance or guerrilla warfare. Also they collaborated with Germany before 1941 and in 1945, but the collaboration wasn't only a result of common political views, but most importantly it was seen as a way to achieve independence (we can argue if such view was justified or not, but that's another story). On a similar basis, they cooperated with the Western powers after 1945. Marcelus (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Marcelus That’s what the sources say but I would appreciate some help if you think the article needs some tone down. Looks like this piece has now been abandoned by everyone and it’s up to me now to fix it, but I don’t know everything. You can use sources I was able to gather (most are linked) - GizzyCatBella🍁09:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Marcelus this is more the kind of tone/POV I would expect from this article. I am not here to paint OUN/UPA as if they were Plast. (also please move my response if it is not placed correctly, I don't know if we descend from the oldest comment, but didn't feel right placing my response above GCB's) 206.45.2.52 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeh, I agree with Marcelus, i.e. "OUN was a nasty organization, but ...". In addition, some of these aspects simply do not belong to this page/subject. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The lead
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
At present the article uses a photo that has been so heavily retouched that I do not think it can even be regarded as a photograph, its more a painting based on a photo. As can be seen: the retouching is so extreme that it barely resembles the original low resolution photo. I would like to propose replacing it with this imageLlados (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Minor corrections to be made
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Spotted "underground.." (instead of "underground.") and also "Baderists" (instead of "Banderites") in here, but cannot correct these since I'm not an editor with extended confirmed user access level, so if anyone has access, time and will, feel free! MårtenEngelberg (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
02:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. Might as well. Who knows how long it'll be until... whatever happens next. El_C 15:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
