The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This is complex. And we truly have a lack of consensus, not a kick the can down the road and re-nominate n/c either. Well thought out input from established editors has been roughly matched by those taking a different POV, equally relatively policy based. A discussion on spinning out or refining the content similarly did not attain consensus. The community appears divided on this.
NB: I have disregarded the nom and their !votes as, aside from the GS issue, much was not policy based. There was similarly no merit to any of the "speedy" !votes as these didn't meet the criteria.
NB2: going to explicitly say that you do not need to come to me if you believe this merits DRV I have re-read this discussion three times and do not see any consensus. StarMississippi 03:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting a malformed AfD request, see below. 162 etc. (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a useless list containing only 3 items, and a POV pusher. I suggest to merge it to the article Canadian war memorials. The three items should get added to the said article, and this page should become a redirect. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. GizzyCatBella🍁 08:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close or Keep. This is a notable topic that satisfied WP:GNG and also WP:NLIST. Of course it's a difficult topic, and it's a topic that has indeed be something where misinformation is pushed, but we should not avoid difficult topics. This has been discussed extensively at Talk:List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada but we have not reached consensus, discussion has included if the title is best, and also deletion and also merging.
We should keep this due to the significant coverage in reliable sources. Examples:
One of these is a monument to Roman Shukhevych, his collaboration with Nazis is well document on his page.
WP:NLIST is satisfied as many sources deal with these collectively, some as mentioned above, others clearly do, I don't think I need to list them.
In reply to the POV pushing that is being accused, what is the point of view that is being pushed? Is it that these are Nazi memorials? That is very well documented in reliable sources. I see why this is a difficult topic and at a difficult time, I am sympathetic, but there is no original research happening here. Canada has Nazi memorials and it's hitting the news, being a notable topic, and an appropriate one for Wikipedia.
Delete. This "list" only has three entries (two of which have Wikipedia articles), and I agree with the proposer that the title is needlessly NPOV. 162 etc. (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the following reasons:
This is a WP:POVFORKWP:CONTENTFORK. The content included to the 3-item list is already covered on a number of other pages. (see comment by Tristario about this below)
The listing is simply not supported by the best available and presumably scholarly source, i.e. the chapter from the book by Per Anders Rudling (see here) who is by no means a pro-Ukrainian author (rather the opposite based on our page about him). According to the book, none of the memorials commemorate specifically "Nazi" or 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), contrary to the page under discussion. In particular, the memorial in Edmonton was established by Ukrainian War Veterans’ Society in Edmonton, not a Nazi or SS organization. Further, this monument was erected by three different Ukrainian nationalist organizations and dedicated to several different military formations of Ukrainian nationalists during WW II. Same is about the second monument ("Glory to UPA"): it is dedicated to several different military formations of Ukrainian nationalists during WW II, according to the book.
The "Nazi monuments", as defined in the title, would normally mean either monuments built by Nazi (e.g. Nazi architecture) or monuments commemorating Nazism (with swastikas,etc.). In this case, the text on Memorials say to "Those who died for the freedom of Ukraine". The opinion by vandals and some others that all Ukrainian veterans commemorated by these memorials at the cemeteries were Nazi is just that, an opinion, and hardly a reasonable one (it was incited from Russian embassy, according to sources). Calling them "Nazi monuments" in the title, in WP voice, essentially as a matter of fact and describing them as such on the page I think is "inherently POV". All or most sources describe this as a controversy, not a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The initial version of this page had four examples, one was French. You started a merge discussion asking that the French example be removed. So it's only about Ukraine because you pushed the article in that direction. This seems unfair. CT55555 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not start an official "merge" discussion, which would be an RfC. I started a section on talk to clarify opinions. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The french example was removed because it wasn't a monument Tristario (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I think you elaborated the point about the content fork in your comment below already.My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:My_very_best_wishes, Changing what was said after people already replied is inconsistent with the behavioural guidelines at WP:TALK#REPLIEDOnce others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. Please put back what you said before, then strikethrough if you want to take it back, then put in the new comments. It's very unfair on those of us who have replied, to retroactively change what you said. CT55555(talk) 04:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My change did not affect anything related to responses, i.e. the use of French source and note about "merge" discussion. Yes, I can strike through my entire previous comment and write a new one (if you insist), but I do not think it will be more readable. That would not be helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you change (expand) the original comment, it makes the replies to it seem like they neglected some points. I should not have to insist that you follow guidelines in the context of you now obviously knowing you have strayed from them. CT55555(talk) 04:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I added point #2. If you want to address it, please do it here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're still completely focussed on changing the name, which is a surmountable problem and not a reason to delete. Check out WP:ATD.
Nonetheless, one source not saying something, is not the say as the source rejecting something.
We're in a weird spot here with you continuing to imply that a monument to a Waffen-SS group is not a Nazi monument, even weirder when reliable sources concur. CT55five55(talk) 05:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not distort what I said. Yes, of course Waffen-SS were worst of the Nazi. I am only saying that according to the scholarly source (see link above), each of two monuments was dedicated to members of several different Ukrainian military units, only one which was 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician). Therefore, just calling all of them "Nazi" is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as this is a notable issue in Canada (see sources) but I’m open to adjusting the title. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every subject in the list is individually notable (all three of them). That's why we have such pages. But I do not think this is a legitimate list as a POV fork. If it was a regular page, if it was titled differently and written differently, as I suggested on talk, then maybe. But in the present state I think it better be deleted.My very best wishes (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD is policy and directs us clearly that If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deletingCT55555 (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content of this article is already covered by the articles 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), Roman Shukhevych statue (Edmonton) and St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Cemetery. I don't see any good reasons why we need a separate three entry list of these monuments/memorials - not every collection of three items needs to be made into a separate article listing them on wikipedia - WP:CONTENTFORK also applies here. There has also been a great deal of difficulty of choosing a WP:NPOV name for this article - Some people want the name "Nazi monuments", but there is only one source, which is a biased source and arguable an opinion piece, which (without attribution or scarequotes, and per WP:HEADLINES in the body of the article) refers to them directly as "nazi monuments". There is also this source, which quotes a historian that pushes back against the straightout "Nazi" label. In terms of the wording used by sources, they typically say nazi collaborators (or some variant) when talking about the nazi connection, but there's a lot of variety in how the sources in the article label these monuments, and they usually quote different viewpoints, making it hard to decide on a label. The nature of making a list like this where you group items like this together is that you have to make a judgement on what the best collective description is - and that naturally brings in WP:NPOV issues, which is a difficulty that isn't necessary to deal with in the first place, since I think this falls under WP:CONTENTFORK--Tristario (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read WP:FORK and cannot see how it applies to any wikipedia article, it's about people plagiarising the encyclopaedia off the encyclopaedia. CT55555 (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guideline WP:POVFORK states that a PV Fork is a clearly defined thing that occurs when a disagreement is unresolved and then someone creates an article. That didn't happen here. This guideline is being quoted incorrectly. I didn't fork this out of anything, I was just writing an article about a journalist and learned about these monuments, saw there was no article and created one. Please, let's quote the right policy, which is WP:GNG and WP:NLIST and discuss it in relation to them. CT55555 (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of people when they say WP:FORK or WP:POVFORK actually mean WP:CONTENTFORK, which is what I linked to in my vote, and which does apply here. WP:POVFORK also says that's how they "generally arise" - it doesn't say that's how POVFORKS always arise. Tristario (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to make so many comments, but the arguments to delete have shifted, so this seems necessary. WP:CONTENTFORKING is not inherently bad or good, it's just a thing that happens. What needs to be avoid is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, as they duplicate content. Of course this is a list, and some items do have their own article, but that is quite normal. Nowhere on wikipedia deals with these types of monuments collectively, so this is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. CT55555 (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article just includes information about each monument, which is something already covered in other articles, so it is redundant. Tristario (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some clarity is needed here. Is the proposal:
to delete the article because it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST, or
to delete the article because there's a protracted dispute over its title? Because WP:LOUSYTITLE is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem.
The arguments at the talk page are chiefly about NPOV in the title, which is of course a perfectly valid concern. But this article was nominated for AFD in the middle of the second move proposal by the AFD nominator, and the nominator has made it clear both here and at the article talk page that a move to their preferred title is acceptable.
So if this article is deleted WP:GNG and/or WP:NLIST, then it's also deleted under an alternative title, such as List of Ukrainian Insurgent Army monuments in Canada, or Ukrainian World War II memorials in Canada, correct? Storchy (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main arguments for the deletion are WP:CONTENTFORK (which people often equate or mix up with WP:FORK or WP:POVFORK) or WP:POVFORK, and that it isn't a good list (which arguably relates to WP:NLIST). The issues over the title are related to the content forking, because creating an (unnecessary) article like this where you need to create a generalized label creates NPOV difficulties, and it can be argued the existence of the article pushes a particular POV. I prefer deletion over a name change (for reasons in my above comment), but people are allowed to have preferences for multiple options, that doesn't necessarily undermine their arguments. I assume if it's deleted it's deleted under any name. Tristario (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Because the encyclopedia shouldn’t demonize national groups. Shukhevych was not a Nazi and the article about him doesn’t define him as one, and the Canadian organizations associated with the monument are not Nazi organizations. The members of the Galicia Division, one of the German foreign legions, were not Nazis and the article about the unit does not define them or the unit as such, and neither is St. Michael’s church and cemetery in Edmonton Nazi organizations. Nor was the Ukrainian Insurgent Army a Nazi military, and the article about it doesn’t define it as such, nor are St. Volodymyr cathedral and cemetery in Oakville Nazi. Reliable sources do not call any of these things “Nazi.” The existence of this list violates WP:LIBEL, and the topic falls within the purview of WP:ACDS as falling under Eastern European subjects. —MichaelZ. 15:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why WP:RS call these controversial statutes 'Nazi' monuments in Canada? (page 126) Are we supposed to follow WP:RS or the opinion of a few Wikipedians? Tell me all you folks because I'm lost. 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good article in the Time of Israel (Russia’s ‘denazification’ lie and the whitewash of Roman Shukhevych) about the problem today’s Ukraine is facing, the problem, that if not addressed, will always haunt Ukraine. (always). - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t say Shukhevych was a Nazi or his memorial is Nazi. Stop wasting our time. —MichaelZ. 17:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? Please cite the page number and quote the text. Google won’t show me the content, and the only search result it returns is a quote of a scare quote: “Russia tweets about ‘Nazi’ monuments in Canada amid ongoing concerns over political interference.”
@CT55555 by the way. This is probably a good title for our article --> [2] - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has the same problems as the previous one. It’s needlessly pushing a POV and there’s no any reason to keep this list. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 17:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another Golinkin opinion piece in the Nation labelling Ukrainians Nazis is not a reliable source. He also wrote a vague but nasty screed about Azov battalion/regiment/movement that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. —MichaelZ. 19:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.. and @Mzajac you need to stop calling Rudlingfringe okay? You know which our policy apply here, don’t you? Get familiar with this letter please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That letter defends only his one article.[3] He doesn’t call anything “Nazi” in that piece and he doesn’t slag the UCC and UCCLA as “ultranationalist” in it. He does that elsewhere, and no one familiar with the subject is defending those statements and they are fringe.
But stop trying to muddy the waters. You still haven’t demonstrated that Rudling calls these “Nazi monuments.” I asked you to quote and cite, but you’re still defending your statement and link that shows nothing. —MichaelZ. 19:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after splitting out St. Michael’s Cemetery, Edmonton as a separate stub - there's enough sourcing here to show its notability. Each of the entries is notable in its own right and we should end up with an article on each, but they are not "Nazi monuments", and grouping them under such a concept is badly justified WP:SYNTH. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae You say above that they are notNazi monuments. Is this your opinion based on WP:OR or you have a source that precisely says that those aren’t Nazi monuments? If you do have such source, could you demonstrate that to us? This question is also directed to user Thriley, who established is !vote on your comment by simply saying per Elmidae.
a) Requiring me to prove a negative now? b) We'd need a preponderance of sources classifying this group as such, which I'm not seeing yet. c) The recent additions of the Draža Mihailović statue and Mount Pétain muddy the waters still further by trying to shoehorn in a Chetnik and a mountain. Are we aiming for "List of things in Canada that are vaguely related to Nazism" then? Good luck with defending that list ambit. - This is a WP:SYNTH exercise, and not made more acceptable by being emotionally agreeable to most of us. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not requiring you, I’m just asking. So you don’t have a single source that claims that those monuments aren’t Nazi. (Correct?) Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella and Elmidae: Hi. In this discussion, there are suggestion(s) to rename the article as list Ukrainian monuments in Canada. As a halfway solution, I suggest we rename it to Sri Lankan monuments. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that supposed to be funny for what? What's the purpose of your comment I was pinged to? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella and Elmidae: What I am trying to say is, as long as there are no sources saying "those aren't Sri Lankan monuments, the title "(list of) Sri Lankan monuments in Canada" should be considered as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh i see, okay. thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: that was supposed to be humor. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (maybe lean to delete) The title of the article seems wrong somehow, although irksome as a subject there is validity to it. I read through the article and agree there is a large portion of content-forking here. The St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Cemetery article seems to largely focus what is already on this page, which is directly a content-fork issue at play. The Roman Shukhevych statue (Edmonton) is more balanced with this article. I am not sure what my verdict is, whether to keep or delete. But it does feel like the article is partly working as a news service here to highlight a problem. And wikipedia is not a news service. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure yet if such a list should exist though there does seems to be a controversy over these monuments specifically, for example the Guardian has an article on the monuments and refers to a "monument dedicated to Nazi soldiers" and another to Shukhevych as a Nazi collaborator as well as the controversy they have resulted in.[4]Mellk (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid and legitimate list article containing three notable entries about related topics. Perhaps the title can be improved. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list, recognizing that two of the three entries already have articles and the third could probably have its own. But in exchange, I would recommend expanding the existing article Nazism in the Americas to include the situation in Canada, in which reference to these monuments can be made, but give better context for why they exist. Some of the existing text on the list could be incorporated there. --Masem (t) 19:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the vast majority of Wikipedia's list articles are comprised entirely (or almost entirely) of entries which have separate articles. In fact, many times having an article is a requirement for inclusion, so I'm not seeing where having separate articles is a policy-based rationale for deletion of this list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's less about policy (though the NPOV concerns listed above are of concern), and more about a more rational organization of information which then eliminates any NPOV/FORK concern. Each monument is individually notable so each can have a page, that's hopefully of no question. But instead of a list to include re-summaries of the individual articles, it seems far better to use an existing article to talk about Nazism in Canada in broad terms, and then include mention of these monuments as part of that. An extremely brief Google Scholar search on "Nazism Canada" shows numerous quality sources, so that can be built out in the suggested article. (I am surprised there's not separate ones for the US and Mexico, and I would anticipate if they had invididual articles, an article "Nazism in Canada" would also be appropriate. However, that is a separate issue). Masem (t) 20:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what about 'List of Waffen-SS monuments'? 'Nazi' is arguably an ambigous and unhelpful term, largely functioning as a slur. Saying that X and Y military units were units of Waffen-SS should be possible to verify, whether their soldiers and commanders were thouroughly National Socialists in terms of ideology and philosophy is of course much more complex to verify (and hotly contended). Also, the listing could potentially be expanded to North America or the Americas in general, if there is material for such an expansion. --Soman (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we can all see that these are SS monuments (indeed they are), why is anyone objecting to us calling them Nazi monuments. Indeed Nazi is used as a slur, but when we're talking about actual Nazis...
That said, List of Waffen-SS monuments is also correct, so I'd accept it. I think we all just need to contemplate why we're OK to label something "SS" but not "Nazi" when the SS the Nazi's paramilitary organisation, the Waffen-SS was their armed branch - the people who fought in the war for the Nazis. Our own article on the SS has the word Nazi in it exactly 100 times. Who are we all trying to not offend and why? CT55555 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Elmidae Change title to Ukrainian Monuments in Canada - add holodomor monuments et al. The grouping of these three statues (which have articles that do/could stand alone) creates an article in controversy and without NPOV. I agree that the grouping simplifies a complex issue as to push POV. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a policy that requires Wikipedia articles to not be "controversial", as opposed to NPOV, which policy requires "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." One can point to numerous articles which are written from a NPOV and yet are considered "controversial" by some editors.By POV you are presumably referring to the description of these monuments as being "Nazi monuments", but there is more than sufficient evidence to refer to the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) as a Nazi organization. Consider that the Waffen-SS was the military branch of the SS, one of the most notorious of Nazi organizations, and they fought at the direction of SS commanders. The Waffen-SS was not part of the Wehrmacht, the regular German Army, and it did not come under their supervision. It was a Nazi organization. That some, most, or all of its ordinary members were not members of the Party, I do not doubt -- for that matter, most members of the SA stormtroopers were not members of the Nazi Party, and yet that is universally, and correctly, considered to be a Nazi organization.That the Gallicia Division was a Nazi organization cannot be gainsaid, so there is no NPOV problem in calling monuments to its soldiers "Nazi monuments". (Although I, personally, would have no problem with the article being moved to List of monuments to Nazi collaborators in Canada.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The essay that establishes that we don't want articles that are strictly criticism - with certain exemptions - is WP:CRITS. That allows for articles like Criticism of Christianity where each subtopic is treated in an NPOV fashion (trying to present the article from both sides). The difficulty here is that there's primarily only negative criticism related to these monuments, though obviously we can't create a false balance either under NPOV. The better way is through the idea of grouping their discussion as a whole into a larger article describing, in a neutral way, the history of Nazism in Canada. Masem (t) 22:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information, but it actually isn't really to the point. Flibbertigibbets objected to the article as being "in controversy", which is not the same thing as being entirely critical of the subject matter. As you say, we should never insist on false balance, but if there are RS's which have positive things to say on these monuments, then we should certainly include that information, but simply because someone or some group finds an article to be "controversial" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. In any case, the primary complaint in this discussion appears to be the description of the monuments as "Nazi monuments", which, as I've pointed out above, is very firmly supported by the facts, and is not "controversial" when examined neutrally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was speaking to the "article in controversy" which is akin to "a journalist becoming the story." In my reading, the salient point of the article relates to Ukraine not about Nazi monuments in Canada, they are Ukrainian monuments in Canada (for better or worse) along with any Holodomor monuments that might be in Canada. The details in the body can cover controversy, factual, and/or perceptual changes in history. A parallel might be found in the "Lee Barracks at U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York (1962)" where the barracks simply are (independent from an analysis on Lee). There was a call in the article for Ukrainians within Canada to become more introspective about their history. The article has balance but (in my opinion) the title does not - the article is about Ukrainian monuments in Canada. (a cursory search indicates there are quite a few) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, but folding in another monument just in order to re-name the article seems like a false move to me. The three monuments are a natural grouping because they are dedicated to a Nazi military unit, which is unusual and controversial in a country such as Canada, one of the anti-Nazi allies in WWII. There is (or shouldn't be) any controversy about a memorial to the tragic loss of life in the Holodomor, so adding it to the article is not adding like to like, instead it's an attempt to provide "cover" for the controversial nature of the other monuments.I've no objection to finding another title for the article, as long as the title is accurate and makes entirely clear the nature of the monuments themselves and to whom they are dedicated. I'm not in favor, however, of whitewashing the very reason for the three monuments existing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
:Gainsaying, as per some of my other posts on this, the whole Waffen SS was ruled and categorised as Nazi's in the Nuremberg trials, not in 1943 when the regiment was formed in Ukraine, by volunteers, opposing the USSR, promised to only be tasked with that part of the eastern front, and before the full scale of the crimes and action the Hitler regime were culpable of, context and knowledge is key. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:BCFF:F9AF:F090:C065 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 30/500[reply]
Merge to Nazism in the Americas. I like GizzyCatBella's proposal. I am not convinced that this article's subjects reach WP:LISTCRIT on their own merits, but I agree that the content would be notable in a general article on the topic. We must be careful not to oversimplify or offend on what is evidently a very contentious topic. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC) 30/500[reply]
I would be OK with that merger, but I have my doubts that the nom will agree to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with GizzyCatBella and Cullen328. The subject is notable and coverage by sources is adequate, but the title needs improvement to comply with WP:NPOVTITLE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep with current title, it passes WP:LISTN. If there are concerns similar to "there are only three items in a list article", then change the title to "Nazi monuments in Canada" or similar, as the latter passes WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep passes WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. It seems much of the argument is about the article name, which should be discussed at the article talk page. "Nazi monuments in Canada" as suggested above seems most appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On seconds thoughts "Nazi memorials in Canada" would be better. Some of the monuments are not to Nazis but they still contain memorials to Nazis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and expand - I'm convinced by the argument of User:Beyond My Ken that this is not a fork of the sorts discussed above.
The proposal to merge with Nazism in the Americas isn't quite appropriate, because this article isn't actually about Nazism, but about monuments to their collaborators, why they're still there, and about their defence mostly by people who aren't even faintly Nazi, but see the monuments as vital to commemorating important aspects of national and military history. There are analogies to be made with the Confederate monuments debates in the US, and the Statue of Edward Colston in the UK: they're monuments to people who did both good and evil things with their lives, and the debates for and against their removal are notable by Wikipedia standards.
The list was narrowly focused on monuments to Ukrainians, so I've added a paragraph each on the statue of Draža Mihailović (Serbian) and the mountain named for Pétain (French). But the list could be greatly expanded, at least to North America (as there are monuments to Nazis all over the US, see [5] for example). It could even be expanded to a list of monuments to Nazi collaborators worldwide. Storchy (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian monuments are present in Canada because a significant percentage of the population identify as Ukranians.
As a suggestion, add the above statues to the article, rename the article to "Ukrainian memorials in Canada" and let the readers decide.
Another consideration is the context of the current war - An interest exists in setting the narrative via the press; which has more to do with the weighting and omission of facts which are true and the context of the time.. The same concern is mentioned here;
I think that our task, as editors of an encyclopaedia is to present verifiable information. The idea that we should let readers reach their own conclusions doesn't work well for encyclopedias. We should not let Russia's propaganda efforts nor the probably-widespread sympathy for Ukrainians right now influence how we write about verifiable information.
Also we should be talking about if this article meets the notability threshold, not what it should be called. CT55555(talk) 14:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The, prewar, article I provided from "Radio Canada International" said this; "Competing narratives and quest for legitimacy." Denazification is a stated justification for war Casus belli that looks like Total war or perhaps a genocide of another flavor (we will see). The presentation of facts cannot set a narrative. As you said, "We should not let Russia's propaganda efforts nor the probably-widespread sympathy for Ukrainians right now influence how we write about verifiable information." We need, to provide balance there is quite a bit of factual and historic complexity to a topic presented out of context. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please add to the article whatever complexity you think has been missed. CT55555(talk) 15:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into a "context tag" so readers unfamiliar with this complex subject would know that there is more complexity involved. The complexity of Ukrainian history and current events resides well outside the scope of a narrowly titled article. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename most of the sources use "Nazi" i.e. they're not all directly linked to Nazism, so there must be a better title for this. The expansions made recently further highlight that there is sufficient scope to pass WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at WP:LISTN, and this article seems to meet it. Perhaps the name should be changed, but it's no cause for deletion. Surmountable problem. Those pontificating on "Russian propaganda" and avoiding controversy should gain a greater understanding of Wikipedia:Purpose. Wikipedia is not a tool for fighting a propaganda war, or simply recording uncontested claims - it's an encyclopedia. Carlp941 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Though it should be expanded and probably a new title is needed. Mellk (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per above; Article scope has merit On second thought, Delete list per Elmidae as WP:SYNTH and expand each monument as its own article individually. The current title is an incredibly shameful violation of NPOV and should not have been move-warred back to. SMDH. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(c/t) 02:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC) !vote changed - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(c/t) 06:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling monuments commemorating a Waffen-SS unit "Nazi" is "shameful"? I'm not seeing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So GhostOfDanGurney now, after you changed your !vote from keep to delete following the petite challenge by Beyond My Ken (see comment above) do you mind telling us what’s incredibly shameful about calling the monuments commemorating soldiers of the Nazi Party's Schutzstaffel (Waffen SS) division - Nazis? Because I'm also lost here. Oh...and one more side question that might be useful for the closer of this RfC.. what made you change your mind? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The monuments clearly say “to those who fought for the freedom of Ukraine”. Please stop spreading russian propaganda. This are NOT Nazi monuments. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 10:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough WP:RS stating that they are Nazi monuments and grouping them together. I'm skeptical that the list is canonical enough to satisfy WP:LISTCRIT and that it does not, as some have suggested above, contradict WP:POVFORK, since there are equally-reliable sources that disagree with this labelling. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC) 30/500[reply]
I think there is an important difference between a source being silent on a topic and disagreeing with it. Are there any reliable sources saying these are not Nazi monuments? CT55555(talk) 13:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all three of the sources you cite in the beginning of this AfD describe views that disagree with this characterisation (particularly your second one, pg 115-120). This is why I would vastly prefer it being in an article, since greater context can be provided. The only subject on this list with a separate article does describe some level of disagreement about how the Edmonton statue should be labeled, and I think that model is the way forward. This is why I don't think it's a canonical enough list for WP:LISTCRIT.
Having said that, not sure if I should be posting here given what Gizzy has stated at the bottom of the AfD. Forgive me if I have broken some kind of rule. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)30/500[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth. Some of your comments towards the nominator could be seen as antagonizing, which is not at all civil. Please don't jump to conclusions. No one is obligated to answer you (as written in WP:BLUDGEON). - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(c/t) 03:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney - As far as I'm concerned, everything is clear thanks to your replies. You don't have to explain anything anymore. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Elmidae. Thriley (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's a controversy in Canada about memorials to collaborators with Nazi Germany during WWII, as reflected by reliable sources; the article meets WP:LISTN. I don't see how the page is a WP:CONTENTFORK; rather it's a reverse "fork" as it brings related content together in a coherent fashion. The issues with naming could be dealt with via WP:RM. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NLIST requires that the topic of a list be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", which this one has been, as demonstrated above. I don't see how the concerns about SYNTH, NPOV, or CONTENTFORK apply here, and any concerns about "Russian propaganda" are completely irrelevant and should be disregarded. Hatman31 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. The Ukrainian collaborationist monuments are clearly notable as a group, but I am concerned with the addition of the French and Serbian stuff. The currently title is unacceptably ambiguous and misleading (since no members of the Nazi Party are anywhere to be found in the article). Since "Nazi collaborator" is not well defined, the page should be renamed and refocused specifically on the Ukrainian monuments that have generated controversy. This also justifies the use of news sources, which, frankly, are not acceptable in general for defining defining a monument as Nazi or to a Nazi collaborator. Srnec (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- None of the content actually refers to Nazis, rather to those who for their own national reasons chose to ally themselves with the Germans in WWII:
General Petain no doubt sought to protect France from the worst of German occupation.
A Serb general chose to fight for one view of what Yugoslavia should be, something other than that of the ultimately victorious communists.
Various Ukrainians, whose objective was presumably a country independent of the Soviet Union.
This is a controversial topic, as can be seen from how Russian propaganda is portraying the present democratically-elected Ukrainian government. It is difficult at this distance in time to discern the motives of those who collaborated with the Germans in WWII. How about List of monuments in Canada to those allied to Germany in World War II. German allies are likely to have been nationalists, rather than those adopting full Nazi ideology. I dislike having to defend even allies of those guilty of genocide, but we should be wary of guilt merely by association. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN. Would not object to renaming. Not everybody who collaborated with Germany was a Nazi, but many of them did participate in genocide. Hawkeye7(discuss) 18:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the scope and title may need refining (I don't think this needs to be a list). Many sources covering this. There are even academic sources talking about Ukrainian nationalist/Nazi collaborationist memorials in Canada:
Rudling, Per A. (2011). "Multiculturalism, memory, and ritualization: Ukrainian nationalist monuments in Edmonton, Alberta". Nationalities Papers. 39 (5). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 733–768. doi:10.1080/00905992.2011.599375. ISSN0090-5992.
Rudling, Per A. (2020). "Long-Distance Nationalism: Ukrainian Monuments and Historical Memory in Multicultural Canada". Public Memory in the Context of Transnational Migration and Displacement. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-41329-3_4. ISBN978-3-030-41328-6. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning towards Delete This really is a poorly written article, should be deleted and put as a disambiguation for each one of the memorials. Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being "poorly written" is not a legitimate policy-based reason for deletion. See WP:ATD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 100%, Rename 100% rewrite still required, and for the users above, please consider... You join an organisation that aligns with your long-term deisres FREEDOM, subsequent to this you find out information that goes against your values, leave get caught and shot, subsequeet rulings call the whole organisation Nazi's, should the original Ukrainians all be categorised as Nazi collaberators?? I would say this blanket approach only meets the need of the current Russain Federation and not the truth or balanced or fair.2404:4408:638C:5E00:BCFF:F9AF:F090:C065 (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 30/500[reply]
::It does not negate my point totally on topic, and FYI I have made 1,000's of edits on both a disused account and on auto assigned IP's which automatically change on every start-up down here in NZ 2404:4408:638C:5E00:9180:E43:9970:A5D4 (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. GizzyCatBella🍁 12:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifications of the nominator have been clarified; as there have been multiple opinions expressed, it no longer meets the criteria for a procedural or speedy close. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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.
Comment - You know what folks? I just noticed is that the nominator (who is indefinitely blocked now by the way) wasn't extended confirmed. (see Arbitration Committee notice below) Non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. The monuments to members of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) and Roman Shukhevych are related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45). (🤷♀️) Please speed close this nomination and someone who !voted "Delete" please renominate if want. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Good active discussion that owes nothing to the antecedents of the nominator. Nothing is served by process-wankery in this case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae Do you mind asking ArbCom for clarification? I'm confident about what this -->Non-extended-confirmed editorsmay not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions means - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I mean by process-wankery. I'm sure everyone who took time to contribute to this discussion will be thrilled to have their efforts annulled because the nominator should have been someone with slightly more edits. Our purpose is not the warm glow of following guidelines to the letter, but to figure out how to create the best encyclopedic representation of a contentious topic. Please give it a rest. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae Oh, I see. So now we should ignore ArbCom's ruling too. Interesting 🙂 (PS - it's unfortunate that we all wasted time on a discussion that shouldn't even occur due to the standing of the nominator) - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae - I wonder if you consigning this nomination would solve the issue. (IDK ask someone if you want), but as of now this AfD is invalid - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So now we should ignore ArbCom's ruling too - yes we should. This is a prime instance of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules because nothing at all is served by huffing and puffing after perfect compliance at this point. There is no damage to undo and only useful discussion to curtail/lose. Seriously, you don't need to worry about this, and we don't need a co-signer. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and I'm worried about it. All ArbCom rulings need to be followed with no exceptions. Unless they (ArbCom) clarify that it's okay to continue here, as far as I'm concerned, this AfD is invalid. GizzyCatBella🍁 12:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is valid because other editos have !voted to delete. End of. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(c/t) 16:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an involved participant in this discussion, who are you to strike the nominator's comments? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(c/t) 16:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In case this helps reach consensus: I started this article and have argued to keep. But I don't think we should close it because the nominator is banned. In a pragmatic sense, someone will just renominate it and we'll get fewer people inputting. It's best we resolve this through discussion, not try to end the process on this technicality. I also acknowledge that I might be accused of double standards, I did ask for it to be ended on a technically early on, but the difference now is that many people have shared bona fide comments, even if the nominator's credibility has since been reduced. CT55555(talk) 17:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that article is going to be kept (note - that’s what I wanted) but I strongly believe we should respect and follow ArbCom rulings. Those folks are there for a reason and work hard. Someone, please close it now or renominate it if we are to continue. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, shouldn't the AfD be labelled in some way? If I'm not wanted, I will stay away, but I feel rather unhappy with the fact that this list is under a hidden sanction... NeverRainsButPours (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverRainsButPours (good idea) - that was never done anywhere else before, as far as I know. And yes, you are right, you can’t yet comment here until you reach extended confirmed status. Since your above comment isn’t about keeping or deleting, then it can stay I guess (?) but the other one has to go, unfortunately. Sorry about that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ArbCom decisions should be followed in all instances, but I see this situation as analogous to the WP:G5 speedy deletion criteria, "Creations by banned or blocked users", which says: "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. " (emphasis added) Here we have an AfD that was created by an editor who did not qualify to do so, and if that had been caught at the beginning, then it could rightly have been deleted - but since that wasn't determined right off, the subsequent comments and discussion of a large number of qualified editors has changed the circumstances. It's useful to think of all the editors who !voted "delete" as being the de facto co-nominators, and leave it at that. (BTW, I !voted to keep.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if that’s what you guys want. 🤷♀️ Two questions:
1- Should we let ArbCom know about this occurrence? (I think we should)
2 - Should this case be a model to follow in future similar circumstances? (again, I think that's up to them, ArbCom, to decide) GizzyCatBella🍁 22:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped an email to ArbCom to bring it to their attention. (Just a link to this section.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. @Beyond My Ken: I saw your note to arbcom-en, but I'll respond here publicly. Writing individually and not on behalf of the Committee, I don't see an issue with keeping this AfD open with the nominator's comments stricken. WP:SK4 governs this scenario: the nominator was essentially banned from nominating this AfD, but did it anyway. The rule is: if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's blocked or banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed[2] (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). The note "[2]" says: Unless all such comments support keeping the article, in which case the discussion may be closed as a speedy keep. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 22:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@L235 Thank you for this Kevin. Greatly appreciated.- GizzyCatBella🍁 23:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more comfortable if someone uninvolved struck the comments, rather than GizzyCatBella, who is clearly involved and, in my opinion WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion by (among what I've already pointed out here) repeatedly calling for a speedy close despite the presence of good-faith delete !votes. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(c/t) 23:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney What you are comfortable with is nonessential. You falsely accused me of responding to every [8]delete comment. You hatted this section twice, edits warring about it. You continue here accusing me of WP:BLUDGEONING. Full stop now, please - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment (September 2021)
Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:
Extended confirmed the restriction
7) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.
For technical reasons concerning the log page, the section breaks in this AfD have been demoted to level 4, one level below the AfD header. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:43, 28 November 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.
Delete or prune and rename. The current title should be read as "list of monuments which someone including us associates with Nazis", which is an invalid way to name articles. An example is Petain Mountain, named for Phillipe Petain when he was a WWI hero. Later Petain blackened his own name by collaborating with the Nazis during WWII, but that doesn't turn the mountain into a "Nazi monument". It remained a mountain named for a WWI hero, even though the later indirect link to Nazis was a good reason to rename it. Zerotalk 02:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article passes GNG and others. It is sourced article and should be kept on wikipedia.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.