WikiProject iconMilitary history Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
Additional information:
/ 
Note icon
This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.
WikiProject iconUkraine Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEurope Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Requested move 26 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance. Rough consensus to move. It was a conflict involving the Soviet Union as a country, not just Russia. The name change fixes that problem. Since other countries participated in the conflict maybe a different name would be more appropiate. A new RM can be created to address that different problem. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

This WP:BADNAC is a WP:SUPERVOTE, it is not an assessment of consensus (rough or otherwise). Generally, non-admins should close requests involving WP:ACDS-covered pages very cautiously, if at all. Contested moves usually should have fairly in-depth closing summaries (diff). This close would be subpar under any circumstance. No objection to another move request, but I'm move protecting the page at admin level (will log), so that only admins could move it. I don't have an intimate familiarity with the historiography, but probably Soviet should supplant Russian if the current title is kept (?). Or maybe there's a better a title, I dunno. Either way, no consensus and back to the status quo ante, for now. P.S. Multiple editors participated who do not meet the WP:500/30 requirement, but I don't think this really alters the outcome. El_C 20:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation → Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance movement – Although I have always liked to recognize the Soviet Union for what it was, a Russian empire, referring to it as such on Wikipedia is too informal. Occupation here is also a POV term. Another title is needed, and since per this article's own infobox not only the UPA participated in this conflict, I am proposing "Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance movement". Maybe "movement" can be dropped. Super Ψ Dro 21:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Soviet refers to pre-1991 Soviet Union, so the page move doesn't have any relevance of it. 180.254.173.13 (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Soviet refers to pre-1991 Soviet Union" yeah, that's what the article is about. Super Ψ Dro 09:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance movement was from the beginning of occupation in 1917 to the end in 1991. This article is only for Ukrainian Insurgent Army resistance 1944-1950s. --Sakateka (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Were there more instances of armed resistance against Soviet domination apart of this and the Soviet–Ukrainian War (which shouldn't be included into this article)? If so, we could just add them into the article and expand its scope. Super Ψ Dro 13:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It was officially the Soviet Union and historians, specifically from those areas will describe it as such. It is no different as saying the government of England instead of the Government of the United Kingdom, which is as the country is known as. Also many in Ireland would like to view their period under British rule as occupation. It's too informal, too loaded and needs to maintain a neutral stance 79.155.36.178 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, not to mention that the current title is a violation to WP:TITLE and in particular to its sections Neutrality in article titles or WP:NPOVTITLE, and Precision and disambiguation or WP:PRECISE. Leaving it as it is would create a precedent that others could avail of to push their POV which violates WP:NPOV. The article makes it clear that the Ukrainian resistance came up against Soviet Union forces in multiple parts of the article by mentioning Soviet Union. Clearly this would indicate that those Soviet Forces were more than just Russian but also from other parts of the Soviet Union, such as maybe Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldovia, or maybe even Ukraine, as not all Ukrainians were hostile to the Soviet Union during this period that the article is documenting and many were members of the upper hierarchy within the Soviet Union including those that were the leader of the Soviet Union. In the period this article covers, according to its editor, User:Sakateka, above, 1944-1950, the leader of the Soviet Union was Joseph Stalin and he was from Georgia and not Russia and so, while I sympathise with what is currently going on in the Ukraine at the moment, we cannot condone such slippery slope actions that would place the integrity of this project into disrepute. The title of the article should therefore be changed to a neutral, more precise title. 79.155.36.178 (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been some weeks and there has been no movement on the direction of this article. I question the neutrality of this article and it's viability considering pretty much what is covered here can be viewed on Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany, and the Stepan Bandera articles. However, this article, similarly to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany, has some neutrality issues such as skipping over negative actions associated with the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, such as the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia amongst others. Nonetheless, that is an discussion for another day and today we need to resolve the title to a more precise, concise and neutral title. There was a similar discussion on the Talk:List of wars between Russia and Ukraine and there is currently another similar debate ongoing on the [Talk:Russian information war against Ukraine] article.
@GizzyCatBella: I agree with you that the glorification of the UPA in this article is extremely disturbing. Both the current title (which references a non-existent "Russian occupation" of Ukraine during the 1940s-50s) and the proposed title have serious problems. It seems to me that neither the "oppose" nor the "support" option resolves at the main problem here, which is the entire framing of the article and its glorification of a genocidal fascist movement. The best option is probably to delete the article. Any content worth saving can be merged into Ukrainian Insurgent Army. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the first thing that I noticed. Perhaps we should nominate it for deletion instead, you are right. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thucydides411: and @GizzyCatBella: - you both are suggesting the article be deleted because of what you both perceive as 'glorifying' the UPA role in genocide. Do you two mind giving me exact example of that? I've read the article several times and I don't view the same way. So if you don't mind giving me examples, I'd appreciate it. Thank you - BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
glorifying' the UPA role in genocide ? Who said that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: - Directly above you said it and so did @Thucydides411:. In fact, the reason you've both say you want to delete the whole page is because you both allege it 'glorifying' UPA role in genocide. So can you please tell me specifically where you think the article does that? Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where did we say quote --> "glorifying' UPA role in genocide" ? Link the diff's. Come on BetsyRMadison 🙂 stop it, read our comments again - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: & @Thucydides411: said it in your comments that highlighted in green
Thucydides411 wrote, "the article and its glorification of a genocidal fascist movement..." You replied "Yes, that was the first thing that I noticed. Perhaps we should nominate it for deletion instead." So do you mind answering my question now? Can you tell me specifically what part of the article you think "glorifies" UPA role genocide? Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thucydides411 - See [2] - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Your "oppose" !vote can easily be misconstrued as being in favour of keeping the current title. M.Bitton (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "Russian" has to go, but the proposed title seems too broad for the current scope. The alternate proposal, Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance, is better and I support it as an improvement. Srnec (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GizzyCatBella. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the title is fine and accurate the way it is. During this same period in history, the New York Times used the term "Russian occupied" when describing areas Russia occupied. Here are a few links to NYT using that term [3], [4], & [5]. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Russia did not even exist as an independent country during the time of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was much more than just Russia. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was a founding member of the USSR, and two of the most prominent Soviet leaders (Nikita Kruschev and Leonid Brezhnev) were themselves from Ukraine. I have to be blunt: claiming that "Russia" "occupied" Ukraine is just plain ignorant, and I'm surprised that this article has survived for an entire month. I'd also like to add that this article is laughably POV. Take the "Result" description, for example: "The defeat of the UPA, the defeat of the liberation movement". For those who don't know, the UPA is widely considered to have been a fascist movement. During WWII, they collaborated with the Nazis and carried out an attempted genocide against Jews and Poles in Western Ukraine. Calling them a "liberation movement" in Wikivoice is insanely POV. Finally, rather than just renaming this article, I would propose deleting it and merging any content worth saving into Ukrainian Insurgent Army. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: I've read the section you linked to several times. Can you please tell me specifically what part you think "glorifies" the Holocaust because I don't see any part of that article as doing that. Thanks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t say the article glorifies the Holocaust but that it glorifies UPA. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella:I don't see any part of that article as glorifying the UPA's role in any genocide. Can you be specific and tell me exactly what part you think does? Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRMadison - Ukrainian Insurgent Army was a Nazi-allied organization responsible for numerous war crimes including the mass murder of Jews and Poles. You can find more about it in widely available historical textbooks, films or even here on Wikipedia, sorry I have no time to educate you now. This article illustrates UPA as freedom combatants in a flattering light which was not what that group was about. The article has various other WP:NPOV issues, but I don’t think it is worth discussing at this point. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: you did not answer my question. Let's try again. You allege that this article "glorifies" UPAs role in genocide. I asked you to tell me what specific part of the article you think does that. So, do you mind answering my question? Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not allege that. You said that I wrote glorifies UPAs role in genocide So I’m asking you again to provide the diff's where said that or stop misrepresenting my comments - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Yes, you did allege it. Here's where both you & Thucydides411 said it (Both your comments are in green)
Thucydides411 wrote, "the article and its glorification of a genocidal fascist movement..." You replied "Yes, that was the first thing that I noticed. Perhaps we should nominate it for deletion instead." So do you mind answering my question now? You & Thucydides411 both want the entire article because you both allege it "glorifies" UPA role in genocide. Can you tell me specifically what part of the article you think "glorifies" UPA role genocide? Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I didn’t say that, correct? 🙂. Just let it go @BetsyRMadison - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: It's clear to anyone reading that you said it. And now it's clear that you can't support your allegations. Which means you've requested this entire article be deleted because you allege it 'glorifies UPA'; yet you can't point to any part of the article that does it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, bingo! You finally got it, I said that the article glorifies UPA not glorifies UPA role in genocide - 👍 GizzyCatBella🍁 22:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: You're changing the original reason you said you want the article deleted. Originally you said the entire article should be deleted because of it "glorification of a genocidal fascist movement." Thucydides411, its glorification of a genocidal fascist movement..." You replied "Yes, that was the first thing that I noticed. Perhaps we should nominate it for deletion instead." I feel that when you make allegations against an article and request the article be deleted based off your allegations; the least you should do is prove your allegations, but here you've shown that you can't prove your original allegations. But, since now you say you want it deleted because you now allege it "glorifies UPA" - Can you tell me what specific part of the article you think does that? I don't think the article glorifies UPA, so can you please tell me specifically why you think it does? Thank you BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I’ll try later (a little busy now) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate it. Oh and remember, I'm asking about specifics within the article that you base your allegations on. Thanks again. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the people claiming a group was fascist need to do a little more to prove it than tell people to educate themselves. Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think people editing Wikipedia should have at least a basic understanding of the subject they're editing. The UPA's fascist ideology and its role in perpetrating the Holocaust are extremely well known. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, could you explain that statement a bit better? I could swear that you just said that people who disagree with you are ignorant, but surely I misunderstood, because that would be discussing editors, and possibly a personal attack Elinruby (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a war between the Soviet Union and Ukraine. It was a conflict between the Soviet Union and various Ukrainian nationalist groups (e.g., the OUN-B and the UPA). Those groups did not represent the Ukrainian government (which at the time was the Ukrainian SSR) or the Ukrainian people as a whole. Calling this the "Soviet–Ukrainian War" suggests a conflict between two states, rather than an insurgency within the Soviet Union. Finally, we should not be making up our own terms. "Soviet–Ukrainian War" is not a generally recognized term for the UPA insurgency in Ukraine, as far as I can tell. There was an actual, entirely different Soviet–Ukrainian War more than 20 years earlier. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article should use Soviet or Soviet Union in the name for the time. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV

I've placed a notice at WP:NPOVN about this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[6]. Moxy- 22:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: I don't know if it's just my computer, but when I click on your link I get a message that says "The link you used is outdated." BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same here - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the editor didn’t paste what they intended to. But if you click WP:NPOV it’s there, towards the end Elinruby (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ahh... thank you kindly Elinruby! BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bad link.....[7] yes just a Master's thesis] .... but it demonstrates the point of view of the ukrainians on what many call an occupation. later expanded on.... culminating in a book Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe (1 October 2014). Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist. BoD – Books on Demand. pp. 545–. ISBN 978-3-8382-0604-2. OCLC 894134967..Moxy- 23:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically someone's schoolwork. A master's thesis does not carry much weight in the scholarly community. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I demonstrated it moves on from there as they become an academic professor of International affairs. Just a source for everyone to read.....over American media junk. Moxy- 23:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good Moxy. Thanks for the new link. I have it in PDF form now and will read it later this evening. Switching back to this article, I feel @Sakateka: did a brilliant job with it. Ukraine's history of gaining independence from Russia is very complex. Since 1917, with the formation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, Russia's been waging war to control Ukraine. In 1930s, Russia killed around 4 million Ukrainians in "Holodomor." Then, from 1933-1941, Stalin & Hitler were allies. In 1939, Stalin & Hitler together invaded Poland. Finally in 1941, when Hitler turned on his friend Stalin, and invaded Russian-controlled Ukraine. At that time, Germans promised Ukrainian nationalists that if they fought along side Germans, Germany would give them an independent state at the end of the war. So naturally, Ukraine nationalists felt they were more likely to get Ukrainian independence under Nazi occupation than under Soviet occupation. But sadly and sickeningly in the process Ukrainians felt forced to participate in the Holocaust in order to gain independence from Russia. So now the questions become: do we say Ukrainian nationalists were “bad guys” because they fought against the Soviets with the German army - or - do we say they were “good guys” because they fought for independence for Ukraine?
I feel Sakateka did a great job in both those regards by neither glorifying, nor demonizing the UPA and their fight for independence from 1944-1950s. I feel the piece is neutral, fact based, and used great sources. That's my 2cents & I look forward to reading your link :) Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainians felt forced to participate in the Holocaust: This is some really unbelievable historical revisionism. OUN-B and UPA were viciously antisemitic and anti-Polish organizations with a fascist ideology, and attempted to exterminate Jews and Poles in western Ukraine. I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm not talking about Ukrainians in general, most of whom opposed the Nazis. Far more Ukrainians served in the Red Army than fought for the UPA. I'm talking specifically about the fascist organizations that this article labels a "liberation movement". -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a simpler read [8]. Moxy- 00:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thucydides411: I gave factual history. And yes, the history of UPA & OUN is very complex and dates back to 1917. And to be fair, the history is complex for many groups inside countries trying to gain independence from brutal authoritarians, like Russia, who had murdered, slaughtered, and starved millions of Ukrainians in 1930s. Also remember, this article isn't about UPA during WW2, the article is about UPA's struggle to gain independence post-WW2. And the author of this piece did a brilliant job of not glorifying and not demonizing UPA. The author stuck the facts, was neutral, and used great sources. BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still reading but this discussion could do with less foot stomping and vitriol. Elinruby (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check of the articl raises eyeborow as it totally ommitts the term "collaboration" and generally minimizes any extent in which the struggle against USSR was aided by and helped the Nazi Germany. So there are certainly NPOV issues here. That said, I do think the topic is notable enough. For example, we have sections about Polish resistance relations with various groups (Home_Army#Relations_with_ethnic_groups) that could be split into a similarly themed subarticles. Btw, there also is Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its in there but it's pretty buried. Ok, probably not the word itself come to think of it, but the article has weasel on several sides of the issues. Forced conscription is referred to as "recruitment", for example, and there is a cheerful remark somewhere about how, obviously, the Ukrainians had to be liquidated to protect the rear of the 1st Ukraininan Front of the NVKD. But yeah, there are almost certainly some due weight issues. The early part of the article is all about casualty statistics, which makes it a fairly normal and boring military history article. I just got done doing a copy edit on the part (way way down)about how in the various resettlements of the period Polish settlers wound up on land that the OUN considered to belong to Ukrainians. I still haven't found a mention of massacring women and children, which obviously needs to be included if it happened, with at least as much weight as why they thought they had to do it. Any constructive suggestions on how to remedy this are welcome. One thing that occurs to me is that while the current structure (chronological) seems innocent enough, this does have the effect of putting the Stalinist excesses further up and their own further down. My own expertise in World War 2 is about a different part of Europe, which is good and bad; I have no preconceptions, but may not see important omissions. So far I have concentrated on fixing the evils of machine translation, wikilinking as much as I can identify in the interest of clarity, and deleting or tagging some of the more obvious excursions into editorialization. Which doesn't mean I have got it all, but I am confident that it is possible to cite, for example, the mass deportations (referred to as "evictions") as we already have, for example, an article about this taking place in Crimea and I see a good reference for the Caucasus. Off-topic for this article, or course, but strong circumstantial evidence for the MO. As for collaboration, yeah, the closest it comes is the mention that they accompanied the Germans into Ukraine on the concept that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend who wants to liberate me, but soon found out that they were wrong and the whole independent Ukraine was just not going to happen. I do think that all of the displacement of the various populations should probably be in the background section, but haven't yet thought too many deep thoughts about this. I seem to recall that you speak Polish. Are you interested in verifying the Polish references? They look RS to me but you would know better and also be better able to assess whether they are misquoted. Xx236 might also we willing to help with this, come to think of it. Elinruby (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the refs here is a big task. A quick check for the Polish ones shows that some, at least, are reliable (there are many cites to Grzegorz Motyka), but whether they are used correctly (i.e. whether the content within supports the text added) is an entirely different story. Some are unclear - I have no clue what this is supposed to be (a primary source, an article, a book chapter?): "RGWA, z. 38724, op. 1, t. 9, k. 136-137, Opis działań bojowych samodzielnego oddziału do walki z bandformacjami UPA 29-30.08.44. (Polish)". There are instances of a Polish text repeated in English, ex: "Patrz też: R. Brzozowski, Tarcza na niebie, Warszawa 1978, s. 88–104... See also: R. Brzozowski, Shield in the Sky, Warsaw 1978, pp. 88–104.)". This reference is likely mangled by machine translation: "A. Kentij, Ukrajinśka Powstanśka Armija w 1944–1945 rr., s. 172–173. (Polish)(A. Kentij, Ukrayinskaya Powstanśka Army in 1944–1945, pp. 172–173)" - neither of the titles is proper Polish, it all sounds like Ukrainian rendered nto English (possibly it was machine translated from Polish to Ukrainian first?). There is a major problem with repeated citations (same work cited numerous times with slightly different page ranges), and their formatting (cite templates are not used, which among others make it time consuming to check all Polish citations, since the lang= parameter is not used). In some cases Ukrainian(?) references are provided in Latin, not Cyrillic (someone could be confused and think that's Polish - no. Ex. "UPA w switli dokumentiv z borotby za Ukrajinśku Samostijnu Sobornu Derżawu 1942–1950 rr., t. 2, s. 83; Desiat buremnych lit. Zachidno-ukrajinśki zemli w 1944–1953 rokach, s. 176."). So, errr, if you asked for a ref review, the short version is that this is a major mess, this could have a ton of hoaxes, although AGF it's probably not so bad, but fixing the refs, not to mention verifying the information, is a major task that I doubt anyone here feels like doing (which means there remains a small chance the refs are fake or don't support the text written). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ Piotrus - Yes, another problematic article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL @GizzyCatBella. It does discuss Stalinism, yes. I know you've told me it was "dandy". but we're gonna go with the soources on that, k? I asked for *constructive* suggestions from somebody who has been known to give them. Elinruby (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are talking about, my comment wasn't to you.
PS - keep in mind that you are taking responsibility for all the alterations you are making to this article, including the usage of references. See notes above table of contents. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this will refresh your memory. [9] AGF, Just possibly I was fooled by the fact that you were on my talk page, where I wasn't talking to you either, or *about* you for that matter either. I don't take kindly to threats from an editor who thinks totalitarianism is "dandy". Check yourself. I asked for an opinion on the Polish references from somebody whose opinion I respect. I now just put in the effort to get this article to where people who are here to build an encyclopedia can talk about it. If you want to fling feces, please do it in another thread and preferably on another page. I am now signing out and will not be in Wikipedia for several hours.Elinruby (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: You've done an excellent job editing! Thank you for all your hard work on this article!! It's unfortunate that some on this talk page are spending their time posting rude/disrespectful comments & unfounded allegations as opposed to spending their time improving the article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree good job. Hard to move forward when the NPOV complaint is so generic and not backed up by any contradicting sources for any type of comparison or analysis. In Canada we have many Ukrainians and are much more aware of the struggles and its contentious history during Nazi occupation.... and subsequently struggle for Independence. I don't think other countries learn about this part of the world much. Moxy- 04:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the correct Petro Oliynyk

Petro "Aeneas" Oliynyk [uk].

An IP is edit warring over this. Elinruby (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry I didn't mean to come across like that (I only reverted you once anyway). Your suggestion is an improvement over what I did, I mean including his nickname instead of just calling him a fighter. The problem was that before it was linking to the politican who was completely unrelated to this. Have a nice day. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no sweat. I did see that English Wikipedia has a different politician with this name, so I put the guy’s nickname in there to keep the ILL from going there. The Ukrainian page is the right person, according to wiki data. I mean to change it to this but lost the place in the article. If you are feeling helpful you could make the change?

As for edit warring, I dislike scolding people but let me explain that. It was ok (even good) to edit the link originally. This is the BOLD part of BRD. Your change was definitely better than leaving it linked to the wrong thing, so yay you. But I had already found the Ukrainian page and had that ILL elsewhere in the article. Not sure if it was before or after but with something this dry I don’t usually worry too much about that until the final polish. But bottom line, I had a better idea, I was pretty sure, so I reverted. At that point you were supposed to come over here and ask me what the heck I was thinking, since you are right, I didn’t implement it. Since this is a discretionary sanctions article, policies can be interpreted pretty strictly—-not that I am calling for anything of the kind at all—- and in particular that standard is really one revert not three. Which neither of us exceeded, so yay us. But see how we both would have been less grumpy if your next move had been DISCUSS? I am explaining all this because I can’t tell how new your account is; pardon me if it is coming across as patronizing or whatever, as this is not my intent. Thanks for reaching out. Elinruby (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories