Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Bandera was absolutely not a fascist or affiliated with nazi ideas or anything to do with that crap. "Far-right" and "nazi" are phrases that set off alarms in people's heads, and are so often knowingly used by russian sympathizers to continue this bull sh t propaganda that has been formulated and used for decades to devalue Bandera's resistance through his torture by russians, and despite all the horrors, his impact to protect and empower Ukraine. STOP this misinformation against the people that endured russian hatred and lies. Please protect Ukraine and help resist colonization. 2607:FEA8:11A0:9B70:686A:D56F:7258:AC82 (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Really? The mainstream historians seem to think differently. Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You can have whatever opinions you like, while also being real about who Bandera was - and condemning him. For the record, I share your views concerning the Russo-Ukraine war, but I think that we shouldn't compromise on our objectivity. --Svennik (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I share the opinion that we should not idealize historical figures, as we were not at that time in that place. Historians have their own opinion on Bandera's ideology and actions, but I suggest you take away from the brief description that he was a terrorist. The fact that Bandera wanted Ukrainians to be a separate nation and defended this nation and helped spread Ukrainian culture cannot be explained by the fact that he was a terrorist. For the Polish, the Army Krajowa is a symbol of the resistance movement against the occupation, so why when Bandera shared such an opinion, for Ukrainians, they say that he is a terrorist??? Every nation has a painful history, but why is it recognized as terrorism when Ukrainians defended their FREEDOM at any cost? Taleyko Tetiana (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Bandera received a death penalty from a Polish court for terrorism. I do not see how one can argue he was not a terrorist. One should discuss whether this information is suitable for the lede or not. Ymblanter (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

For sure, Bandera was a controversial person. For Poland, he is a terrorist and for Ukraine he is a hero so who he is for the World? Since English is World wide language it might be a bit misleading and build incorrect perspectives about independence movements in Ukraine, especially in current times when Russia uses all sources to provoke it. Tulyator (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

who he is for the World? For the rest of the world Bandera is what WP:RS say he was. GizzyCatBella🍁 07:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd support another description as long as it's well sourced (like the kinds of sources described in WP:HISTRS), and follows WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. Just not sure what that description would be. Tristario (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There was no terrorist wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists named OUN-B. The source says there was a militant wing. Could you please change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulyator (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The sourse of Article [1]https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/122778 - does not provide any proof that there was a terrorist brunch of the OUN organization. Considering it might be just a reflection of thoughts of the author based on historical events which makes it not reliable to call it a terroristic organization. Tulyator (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is correct, it should be "militant wing" in the first paragraph. Ymblanter (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Look at the source, its says “terrorist” - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"As an uncompromising leader of the militant, terrorist branch of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN)" GizzyCatBella🍁 21:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no commonly accepted definition for the term "terrorist", but usually it is assumed that terrorists are the people who are too weak to take power, and they resort to terror to cause some political changes in the direction that is seen by them as desirable.

In that sense, during WWII UPA was not a terrorist group, because they believed they were in a position to take power in Ukraine and make it an independent fascist state (Ustashe Croatia was a role model). However, during pre-war and post war period their tactics was more terrorist.

Therefore, a correct question should be not if UPA were terrorists, but when (during which periods of their history) should they be considered as terrorists. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert Yes, but the question is about Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists not UPA. Tulyator (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added more sources into the article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella the article does not provide any sources to confirm it and I do not recall any action done by OUN to call it as terrorist. How do we separate organizations who fought for its freedom during ww2 as terrorists and not terrorists. There were no such defection commonly used back there and we can not rely on one source without any solid proof. The statement is too strong nowadays and the source is too weak. Tulyator (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tulyator there are currently 3 sources in the article describing Bandera or his OUN as terrorist. Note to all - This never ends, so once again - please do not remove source quotations. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The words a bit extracted and in the books have different meanining then what we try to do here.

7 - Borderland: A Journey Through the History of Ukraine - less happily, the city now also had a statue of Stepan Bandera, leader of the Nazi-sponsored terrorist group OUN. - its a discription of a statue and does not refer to the organization as a whole. We cannot extract words out of the context just to clarify something.

8 - The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland Under the General Government - description of Bandera not OUN as an organization. Moreover the author mentions time. its very imporatant as, I assume, OUN might even exist today. - Does it make them terrorists today?

In my opinion text should be more justified and reasonable which clearly not the case; Tulyator (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What’s different meaning in the books? Stepan Bandera, who had led a gang carrying out terrorist attacks in Polish-ruled western Ukraine in the 1930s.[2] GizzyCatBella🍁 10:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella does it confirm OUN as terrorist organisation? Tulyator (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean confirm? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's true he led a gang carrying out terrorist activities in the 1930s. But that gang was not OUN-B, which didn't yet exist. It was a gang loosely within the OUN. In other words, this source does not establish what the text currently says. (Also, the book is not about this period and the author is not an academic historian[3]. When we have a wealth of sources specifically on this topic, it seems odd to use a source like this.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't currently have a view on whether the OUN-B should be described that way, however I will note that scholars across a range of views have characterized bandera or the OUN as terrorist or engaging in terrorism eg. David Marples [4] or Alexander J. Motyl [5]. So it's not an unreasonable description at least. Is it the best? I'm not sure, that would take some research and thinking Tristario (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Marples: "A Second Extraordinary Congress of the OUN in April 1941 formally elected Bandera the leader of this more militant wing. As the head of terrorist activities in the recent past, he was considered the natural choice." OUN-B is therefore rightly characterised as "the militant wing", but the terrorist activities relate to Bandera and his gang in the 1930s, who were not the same group. We need to separate out these phases. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

My view is that OUN-B was a terrorist organization pre-WW2 - it used violence against the public as a means for a political end. This seems rather straightforward to me. However, there is one point I would like to make just to open the discussion a bit. Irgun, was a comparable organization, operating in the same period, fighting, not for a nationalist idea, but a religious one, Zionism. For some strange reason, although there are much better sources describing it as a terrorist organization, the lede reads: "The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts". Very ambigous. So the same could be said to be appropriate here - as in, the argument could be made that since Irgun gets away with weasel wording, why not OUN-B?. In my view, Irgun was very obviously a terrorist organisation, and so was OUN-B pre-WW2. --Jabbi (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, OUN(B) was formed in 1940, so it seems incorrect to speak about pre-WW2 OUN(b).

@Tulyator: Yes, I meant OUN(b). Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, yes indeed. I am aware that OUN-B wasn't a thing until 1940 and so I incorrectly worded it. That doesn't change my reasoning which is that pre-WW2 OUN activitives, that Bandera participated in, especially the Assassination of Bronisław Pieracki was terrorism - that seems very plain. To describe actions taken in wartime as terrorism seems problematic to me. Attacks on civilians during war time are war crimes, not terrorism. Assuming post-WW2 activities of OUN were to fight Soviet forces, I would associate that more with resistance fighters (UPA is listed in Resistance during World War II). --Jabbi (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

As I already said, it would be incorrect to describe OUN(b) activity during WWII as terrorism. They considered themselves more powerful than just a terrorist group, and their tactics and strategy were by no means terrorists: they really planned to take power in Ukraine (terrorists to not plan to take power, their goal is just to cause some societal transformations).

WRT "resistance fighters"... Hmmm, "resistance" to whom? They were resisting to Soviet partisans, to AK, and to the Red Army. If you want call that "resistance", then Wehrmacht probably falls in that category too. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"As I already said, it would be incorrect to describe OUN(b) activity during WWII as terrorism." We're in clear agreement then. "terrorists to not plan to take power" What about IRA or Irgun then? But we're not in disagreement, OUN-B can not be considered a terrorist organisation during WW2. ""resistance" to whom?" To Soviet occupation in Ukraine of course. --Jabbi (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

IRA or Irgun never planned to take power, they planned to provoke some social changes that will allow other political forces to take power. That is not my invention, I read that in some source that discussed a definition of terrorism.

"To Soviet occupation in Ukraine of course" What? Ukraine was not occupied by Soviets: among "the Soviets" there were up to 30% Ukrainians or Ukrainian born Jews. We do not speak about "German occupation of Bavaria", "British occupation of Scotland", etc. OUN was a political movement that was not known in Central and Eastern parts of Ukraine, and was not supported by majority of population.

If you want to speak about "Soviet occupation of Ukraine", please, specify what do you mean under "Soviet". Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Irgun is a good comparison. Check how our Menachem Begin article uses the word "terrorist" - in body but not in lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert I believe OUN-M was known centralny. in general OUN was fighting for Ukrainian independency because of that they fiught Polish regime in the begining then German Nazi and they Soviets. if we consider how USSR was formed we would noticed that before 1922 there were war on the territory of Ukraine. What they were fighting for? after 1945 wester Ukraine and eastern Poland were given/taken by Soviet force. many people in Ukraine consider USSR time as occupation same as Baltic's states do.

is it terrorism to fight for its independency? depends on which side you are. but the point is this word commonly used now and hardly relates to what was going on in Europe during ww2 times. Tulyator (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The Civil war at the territory of present-days Ukraine was long and convoluted, and it was probably even more convoluted that the war at the territory of present-days Russia. Numerous political movements and military and paramilitary groups (including domestic and foreign ones) were fighting with each other, and they were pursuing different goals. Only a modern nationalistic Ukrainian narrative presents it as the fight of some single Ukrainian patriotic movement for independence from Poles and Russians.

WRT "is it terrorism to fight for its independency?", that is an old question ("one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter"). There is no universally accepted definition of the term "terrorist"/"terrorism". However, there is a loose consensus that terrorists are those who use terror as their primary tool: normally, a political movement of a paramilitary group that is powerful enough to take power (or to make such an attempt) may use terror, but only as an auxiliary tool. In that sense, during some periods of WWII, OUN was powerful enough to establish control over some territory where they played a role of de facto local administration. In that situation, it is senseless to speak about terrorism. However, after Germany was expelled from the territory of Ukraine and OUN was defeated, they had to resort to a terrorist tactics. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition, if we assume OUN(b)'s primary activity was resistance to Soviet troops, then what is a difference between them and Wehrmacht or Romanian army? They also were resisting to the Soviets. Should we put them into the "Resistance during WWII" category too? Along with Italian partisans and Free French... Paul Siebert (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Siebert. We should be careful how we use the term 'resistance' when talking about certain military organisations. Mhorg (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, but ditto terrorist. See MOS:TERRORIST. These are contentious labels. We should give the details in the body, but not use these labels in our words in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It's true that per WP:CONTENTIOUS we shouldn't be using "terrorist" in wikivoice Tristario (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I too agree with this, and also partly with the IP who started this thread. There is a big differences between saying that "someone was accused" [by some or a few authors] of something, and saying that "he was/is" something as a matter of fact. We do not have the latter. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes are you saying that Bandera wasn’t a terrorist but was only accused of terrorism by a few authors or that Bandera wasn’t (quote IP) a fascist or affiliated with nazi ideas or anything to do with that crap ? GizzyCatBella🍁 18:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes and your edit summary here even his alleged collaboration with Nazi is a controversial question (!?) alleged? What on earth are you talking about My very best wishes? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m getting sick and tired of this.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Then let me explain this differently. He is already placed to Category:Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi Germany. This entire category of "collaborators" is currently assigned to Category:Ukrainian fascists (I am not sure it should, but it is). Therefore, placing him also to Category:Ukrainian fascists is classic Wikipedia:Overcategorization. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

He wanted to cooperate with Nazi Germany, proclaiming an independent Ukraine, but was rebuffed. Was involved in the formation of Nachtigall Battalion. He was a fascist, an anti-semite and an ultra-nationalist. He did not condemn the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia in 1943, and never renounced his beliefs. But what can be attributed to him? What did he order? What does he bear direct responsibility for? Jabbi (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

We should be careful not to stray into WP:NOTFORUM territory (or WP:OR territory) here, does this relate to improving the article in some specific way? I know what you mean though, there seems to be a lack of information about concrete and consequential things Bandera personally said or did. That may relate to the underground nature of what he did, or it may relate to his lack of importance, or a lack of information in this article Tristario (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think he meant that the article lacks context. What this article is criminally missing is Banderas's biggest crimes. And why OP seems to find it hard to find the motives of Bandera in the article because it lacks that info of just how rotten Bandera is. Bandera advocated to establish an ethnically pure Ukrainian nation state purged of Jews, Poles, Russians and other minorities and create an ethno state just for Ukranians. That information is completely missing in the entire article and should be added in.49.179.3.205 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That info was there. Is it gone now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It is there:

The vast majority of young OUN members joined Bandera's faction, which was devoted to the independence of Ukraine, a single-party fascist totalitarian state free of national minorities and was later responsible for the ethnic cleansing, pogroms, implicated in collaboration with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. GizzyCatBella🍁 23:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Marples' 2006 article "Stepan Bandera: The Resurrection of a Ukrainian National Hero" has an interesting paragraph early (p. 556) on that discusses exactly this:

Where does one begin to separate the myths from the accurate accounts? The simplest way to provide an evaluation of Bandera would be to recount the details solely of his personal life. It would, however, hardly convey the import of the man. Like many twentieth century political figures, the impact of Bandera lies less in his own political life and beliefs than in the events enacted in his name, or the conflicts that arose between his supporters and their enemies. Bandera was not a political thinker per se, but a man of action who nonetheless was most frequently detached and distant from the conflicts in wartime and post-war Ukraine. While there seems no doubt that he could induce great loyalty among his followers, he was nonetheless not messianic leader. He was neither an orator nor a theoretician, and he spent much of his life incarcerated or in hiding until he became the victim of a Soviet agent in 1959. According to one former UPA soldier, 'rank and file fighters never saw Bandera or Melnyk. They were symbols, like Petlyura.

-- Jabbi (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition to that, Bandera was described rather differently by different historians, which needs to be reflected on the page and in the lead. I think this page failed in that regard. For example, the article by Marple (a strong scholarly source) says about only one of many aspects of his political biography:

The formation of UPA under the leadership of the OUN-B represents the most controversial issue in Bandera's life and one that has bitterly divided historians both within and outside Ukraine. Though UPA was a large and well organised military and later guerrilla army under Roman Shukhevych, the Soviet authorities never desisted from using the appellation ‘Banderites’ or ‘Banderivtsi’, with various descriptions of members of this army as ‘Ukrainian – German nationalists’, agents of ‘Anglo-American imperialists’, ‘bandits’, and ‘traitors to the Motherland’ (Cherednychenko 1970). By and large, the Soviet version of events, which focused on the alleged collaboration between OUN – UPA and the German occupation forces, has been rejected by contemporary Ukrainian historians. It is virtually absent from contemporary textbooks in Ukraine, most of which offer sympathetic views of the nationalists. One source notes, for example, that ‘in his writings Bandera supported Christian liberal-revolutionary nationalism, [that would bring about] the independence of Ukraine’ (Temka & Tupchienka 2002). On the other hand, the link between OUN – UPA and the occupants has been stressed persistently by some Western scholars (see, for example Sabrin Citation1991). New studies of the wartime period have also emphasised the massacre of the Polish population of Volyn by the OUN-B, in what has been described as one of the earliest twentieth century examples of ‘ethnic cleansing’ (Berkhoff 2004).

This is NOT how this matter is presented on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

We follow RS present in the article. If you want to dispute them you need a much better source than what you brought on the table. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a scholarly review article, i.e. it passes even per WP:MEDRS rules. This is better than some other sources currently used on the page. But whatever. That was just a suggestion by another contributor I agreed with. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/01/12/stepan-bandera-the-ukrainian-anti-hero-glorified-following-the-russian-invasion_6011401_4.html

I can't access it though, it's paywalled. -- Jabbi (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I find that establishing culpability is difficult, not only for us humble Wikipedians, but also for academics and historians.

In my view the section Legacy is lacking a synopsis that explains this ambiguity properly, instead, the introduction of that Legacy section get bogged down in minute details of where a statue has been erected, a street renamed or a birthday commemorated. The sub-section Commemoration is in turn full of similar detail, and could have it's own page: Commemoration of Stepan Bandera, like Commemoration of Tadeusz Kościuszko. This would enable a Legacy section with less noise. -- Jabbi (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this article is at the point where it's getting too long, so I'm not seeing a significant need for that. There already is Monuments to Stepan Bandera as well as Stepan Bandera monument in Lviv. Maybe some of the content about steets etc. could be moved into Monuments to Stepan Bandera? But that doesn't seem to take up that much space in this article Tristario (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Possibly Monuments to Stepan Bandera could be renamed to "Commemoration of Stepan Bandera" Tristario (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I've suggested that Jabbi (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I suppose you are correct that the article isn't getting too long. However, it bothers me how little discussion there is of the source of controversy about him. I think that is what should be covered in much more detail than is currently done in the Legacy section. In my opinion, the current legacy section is too reactive, focusing on poll results and post-Russian invasion context. I'll try and edit that in the coming days. --Jabbi (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is sensible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Similarly to existing articles Memorials in Canada to Nazis and Nazi collaborators and Monuments in the United States to Nazi collaborators, we need Monuments in Ukraine to Nazi collaborators, then some material can be shifted there. But this is an article which would be extremely difficult to write.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see why there's a compelling need for such an article, that would more likely lead to duplication rather than a useful organization of content. We can just move things to Monuments to Stepan Bandera if need be Tristario (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Ymblanter, I think an article called 'Monuments in Ukraine to Nazi collaborators' is appropriate. Mhorg (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There are also monuments to other Nazi collaborators, not just Bandera. But I will not be doing it myself, too far from my current interest, and I am not sure I have enough competence. Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The US and Canadian articles seem very weird to me. I’d be opposed to creating a similar one for Ukraine. We could equally create articles on Monuments in Ukraine to anti-fascists, Monuments in Ukraine to Resistance fighters, Monuments in Ukraine to Holocaust victims or Monuments in Ukraine to Communists - it’s basically endless. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The posthumous award of a medal gets a whole paragraph in the lead at the moment, while his actual life is summarised with extreme brevity. I presume nobody objects if I trim the former, making sure the facts and sources are in the body (although the new commemoration article might be the place for the detail)? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that should be trimmed in the lede. I thought the new commemoration article might be more for basic things like monuments, street signs, memorials etc. But I wouldn't necessarily object if people saw fit to include other kinds of content in it Tristario (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've done it now. Hope it's OK. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an improvement, we were giving that too much space earlier. We probably need some more detail on Bandera's life in the lede (like you mentioned in one of your edit summaries) Tristario (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"Many Ukrainians hail him as a role model hero or as a martyred liberation fighter, while other Ukrainians, particularly in the south and east, condemn him as a fascist Nazi collaborator who was, together with his followers, responsible for massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians during the Second World War" According to this text, it is not the majority of historians who believe that he is a collaborationist, (politically) responsible for the massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians, but that it is the opinion of 'other Ukrainians' in the east of the country. Those shown in the text are the local points of view between the two parts of the country. What is important, however, is the point of view of historiography, that must be in the lede. Mhorg (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's likely the lede could do with some improvement, but the point of that paragraph is to explain the differing views of him within Ukraine, which is something that is important. It isn't making a statement that not every historian thinks he collaborated with the nazis, and I don't think people would interpret that sentence as saying that. Tristario (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation that the paragraph indicates anything at all about what historians think of Bandera. The paragraph seems clearly to refer to popular opinion in Ukraine.

I agree however that it is important to clearly indicate what academic consensus there is on Bandera. Actually, the lede only states that he pledged to work with Nazi Germany. It can be improved. --Jabbi (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter

You reverted my removal of the following content:

, and 33% of Lviv's residents consider themselves to be followers of Bandera,^[1]

In my edit message I said "remove unreliable source, the source for this statement is in a suspect Russian article https://www.stoletie.ru/slavyanskoe_pole/chto_skryvajet_vojna_za_pamatniki_2010-09-07.htm"

I did not suggest that Paul A. Goble is unreliable like you ask in your revert message. Note that the only reason Goble's article is referenced is to support the statement about a third of Lviv residents supporting Bandera.

Goble's September 2010 article in Eurasia Review makes the following statement:

(Many ethnic Ukrainians in Lviv continue to identify with [the anti-Soviet Banderite underground]. According to a recent poll conducted by the Ukrainian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (UVTsIOM), “every third Lviv resident considers himself a Banderite” even 65 years after World War II.)

Goble in turn refers, as a source, to an article published five days before Goble's article, in the Russian internet publication Столетие (Century).

Google translate delivers the following sentence from that article:

"In early August, the Ukrainian Public Opinion Research Center (UCIOM) also found out that every third Lviv resident considers himself a Banderist."

By now I see several problems with the original statement in this article about Stepan Bandera:

• I can not find any information about the Ukrainian Public Opinion Research Center (UCIOM), there exists a Russia Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM)
• The Russian publication Century is published in Moscow and seemingly toes the Kremlin line. The article was published at a time when decommunization in Ukraine is a sensitive topic. There is rhetoric in the article similar to various propaganda currently put forward by Russia. (example: "The situation in the country has reached such tension that even the European Parliament, which in general indulges the “quiet” revival of Nazism in Europe, especially in the former Soviet republics, was forced to adopt a special resolution on Ukraine in February.")
• the context that Goble discusses the meaning of being a Banderite is as anti-Soviet resistance movement, a context which is lost in the statement "...consider themselves to be followers of Bandera", it is doubtful to me that UCIOM, or whoever, asked the question "Are you a follower of Bandera?"
• lastly the statement in this article was not qualified with a date, "in 2010"
• in any case the value of the statement is negligible, we have more current data on nationwide and broken down opinions on Bandera himself

I think we should remove it.

-- Jabbi (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Formally speaking, you have removed a reference to a reliable source, moreover written by an expert who has his own article on Wikipedia. I do not think we should go into his head and try to figure out why he said this. We can attribute the statement if you want. Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a passing remark which was put in brackets in the article in question (see WP:RSCONTEXT). In that light I think looking at the underlying source for the claim is more reasonable. I think for now it should be attributed, and Jabbi or someone else could replace it with a better source when found which conveys similar information Tristario (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe WP:RSCONTEXT applies here, the use of this source, although written by an expert in the field like you rightly point out, is only for a factual statement which is put in brackets by that expert and upon inspection seems not to be reliable. There are other more recent and relevant polls that can be used: see [6] and [7]. Would you object to me removing the source if its replaced with more reliable content on the public opinion of Bandera? I do believe it should be removed because the right thing to do otherwise would be to accredit the Russian source, Century, which frankly doesn't seem the right thing to do. --Jabbi (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be replaced with a source for polling before the invasion to avoid WP:RECENTISM (we already include some information on a poll following the invasion), and preferably use a secondary source reporting the polling, rather than directly using the polling organizations (because it's hard to assess the reliability of a particular poll) Tristario (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Jabbi (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There is barely any information of his post-war exile activities, except for his assadination. Please correct this! 2A02:3030:80B:99C2:1:0:7DE1:47AB (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I know, we do have quite a bit of information missing there. This article, like other articles in this area of history, is in need of work Tristario (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Stepan Bandera has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The texts in English and in Greek are different in their description of Bandera. DKAgripas (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The "Views" section of Bandera's article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia (machine-translated link to the section) distorts Bandera's actual positions. It posits that Bandera considered it necessary to ensure for national minorities full and comprehensive equality in all civil rights and full freedom of national development, in accordance with international principles regarding national minorities, contrary to his well-documented prejudices against Jews, Poles, Russians, Romanians, and others. It also asserts that Bandera consistently opposed totalitarianism, imperialism, [and] racism, when Bandera adopted the explicitly totalitarian and racist fascist ideology. I don't speak Ukrainian, so I am not able to fix these distortions at present. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a separate project, and we can not do anything. My experience tells me that if any user would edit the article as you propose, the edits will be reverted as vandalism, and restoring the edit would lead to a block as vandalism-only account. Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is a separate project and here it seems not to be correct to talk about it. If other users want to open the discussion on how the Ukrainian project could have problems, I had tried here[8] years ago, but did not get many answers. Look here also.[9] Mhorg (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The Ukrainian wikipedia also describes bandera engaging in terrorism, supporting authoritarian and violent politics, and being described as a fascist. And some people have complained about what CJ-Moki points out on the talk page there. Perhaps they'll change it in the future. It's a separate project though. Tristario (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This. 2A02:3030:81D:2B37:1:0:C4FF:E684 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The article stares that “On 22 January 2010, the president of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, awarded Bandera the posthumous title of Hero of Ukraine, which was widely condemned, leading to the annulment of the award.” stating directly that the international condemnation of this award led to its annulment. However, in reality, the annulment was achieved by the next president Viktor Yanukovych, a native of the Donetsk region that represented the “Party of Regions” which was an organisation that sought to strengthen ties with Russia. Considering his background and beliefs, it was unlikely that the only reason this title was removed exclusively because of international condemnation but because he personally among many from his region disagreed with a nazi-collaborator receiving the “Hero of Ukraine” title. Therefore I think it should be rephrased not to suggest international condemnation led to this. 223.252.62.38 (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I changed the wording. The lede summarizes the body and the body doesn't specifically say the condemnation led to the annulment Tristario (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence includes "Ukrainian far-right leader of the radical, militant wing..." We have RSs for that but (a) it is a lot of value-laden adjectives in the first sentence, and (b) are we certain that the preponderance of RSs use these terms as the main way he is described? I'd advocated a cleaner simpler first sentence - "Ukrainian nationalist leader of the radical wing of the OUN" - and then maybe unpack the other terms a little later in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For comparison, Britannica lists him as "Stepan Bandera (Ukrainian political leader)"; Ukraine's internet encyclopedia says "Revolutionary, politician, and ideologue of the Ukrainian nationalist movement"; Wikidata has "Ukrainian nationalist leader"; wikipedia.fr has "leader politique ukrainien" (Ukrainian political leader); .de has "nationalistischer ukrainischer Politiker und Partisanenführer” (Ukrainian nationalist politician and partisan-leader); .es has “líder nacionalista ucraniano” (Ukrainian nationalist leader) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion we can leave the lede as it is. Sources often speak of him in these terms and his political faith is not in doubt, there is no point in going around it for WP:SPADE. Mhorg (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, I read on de wikipedia: "Stepan Andrijovytsch Bandera ( Ukrainian Степан Андрійович Бандера , scientific transliteration Stepan Andrijovyč Bandera ; born January 1, 1909 in Staryj Uhryniw , Galicia , Austria-Hungary ; † October 15, 1959 in Munich ) was a Ukrainian nationalist politician and leader of the far-right , terrorist wing of the OUN , the OUN-B." [10] JimRenge (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

German version is wrong because entire OUN was a terrorist organisation, not just OUN-B Marcelus (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

For me, this points to the unhelpfulness of using lots of contentious adjectives in the first sentence, and benefit of switching to a neat, neutral opening that can be unfolded properly in following sentences. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think lack of adjectives makes it more neutral? Marcelus (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not about adjectives in general; it's about contentious adjectives, and loading lots of them into a first sentence which would read better if it was simple, encylopedic and informative instead of a cumbersome polemic. We have the rest of the lead to be more precise in unpacking his role. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the lead does not elaborate on ideology. How would you propose mentioning this later in the lead? Mellk (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I would (a) simplify the first sentence to something like "was a Ukrainian nationalist politician involved in the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists", (b) expand para 2 to mention he joined OUB in 1929 and briefly characterise it (e.g. "Involved in nationalist organizations from a young age, he joined the right-wing nationalist OUN in 1929"), (c) introduce OUN-B in para 3, (e.g. "Bandera was freed from prison in 1939 following the invasion of Poland, and moved to Kraków. In February 1940, the OUN split and he became the figurehead for its radical, militant wing, known as the OUN-B." Para 4 already includes the fact his legacy is contested with some seeing him as a fascist. This would be much more informative, and have a clear, readable, NPOV opening sentence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the Britannica version is succinct and accurate enough. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the right way to introduce this article is, but I think you're right, we should be trying to introduce this article in a manner that is more encyclopedic. See the kind of advice given in WP:WTW or WP:IMPARTIAL for instance Tristario (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

My proposal: was a Ukrainian far-right leader of the OUN-B, radical, wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists Marcelus (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

He was a member of Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, in Munich. 62.169.197.95 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Mhorg (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Here https://www.radiosvoboda.org/amp/30053945.html 62.169.197.95 (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you put here the parts of the text supported by the source that you would like to add? Mhorg (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"Судячи з документів, які я бачив, перше, що слід виокремити, це особисті амбіції. Тому що той же розкол, який відбувся в ОУН на мельниківців і бандерівців – це переважно було зумовлено особистими амбіціями і тим, що люди різного віку перебували в одних лавах. Мельниківці були переважно старшого віку, а бандерівці – молодші, прихильники радикальної боротьби." 2A02:8108:1640:5282:45:66D2:6897:2EDF (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The current image of Bandera used in the infobox is so intensely retouched that I do not think it ought to be used, it doesn't even look much like Bandera, at best one could call it an "idealized portrait". I would suggest this image would be more appropriate for use. I know the resolution is not spectacular, but at least it isn't so creepily airbrushed. There are some better images of Bandera online, but I am not sure whether they would meet the criteria for "fair use"[11][12]. Llados (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should put a realistic photo. In my opinion this one is fine.[13] Mhorg (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that one would be my preference as well :) Llados (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The photo seems to be in the public domain; like the current picture, it was almost certainly taken on the territory of the Second Polish Republic, so I have uploaded it. [14] Llados (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

We currently mix two text structures. The Views subheading is in the middle of the timeline. How do people feel about moving after Death so the chronological text structure isn't broken up with research into Stepan Bandera's views?

What do you think Marcelus,Tristario,Mhorg, and Manyareaexpert. Given contentious article i thought it best to reach consensus first. Jgmac1106 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this. I think the previous order is better, "Views" is about the views he held during his life, so the more correct chronological order is prior to "Legacy", and possibly prior to "Death" Tristario (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought it belonged outside of chronology given that the text structure of the section details how three people define his views through their historiographical analysis written long after Bandera was assassinated in 1959

We can move it back if other editors agree. Jgmac1106 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepan_Bandera&oldid=prev&diff=1173646701

The comment was m,ade that not every sentence needs a qualifier. I think when using one poll nine years old as a way to make a claim about present views a qualifiewr is not only necessary but warranted.

Please discuss the change here before reverting the edit. 2015 is neither now, nor can one make a claim using secondary sources citing data that old. Jgmac1106 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss the edit instead before introducing it to an article on a contentious topic. A lot of material in this or other articles are based on the sources nine years old or older, adding qualificators to all of them is a significant disruption which would swiftly lead to editing restrictions. Please bring sources instead showing that this is not the case anymore. Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

How is nine years old present tense? It is just syntactically wrong. Why is this data even in the lede with citations if is is a subsection below?

The rule with secondary sources is to, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source"

How can a survey from nine years ago express opinions today? It feels like WP:SYNTHNOT issue to me to support the claim with nine year old data Jgmac1106 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you are the only one who has issues with this sentence. Please get consensus first for the changes you want to make. I, for one, do not see any urgent need in these changes. Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It it is a misuse of statistical data almost a decade old in violation of WP:SYNTHNOT to draw a conclusion about historical figures with ten year old survey data.

This is a biography and MOS:PRESENTstates "Generally, use past tense only for past events, and for subjects that are dead"

Yes, it is a Pet peev of me as a psychometrician. Will day a bit of bias against math mistakes is showing. Jgmac1106 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Ymblanter check out https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/desyatyy_obschenacionalnyy_opros_ideologicheskie_markery_voyny_27_aprelya_2022.html

Look to the results of the 10th annual survey:

The support for the recognition of the OUN-UPA as the participants of the struggle for the national independence of Ukraine has significantly increased: 81% support it, and only 10% are against. This support has increased 4 times since 2010, and doubled since 2015.

It is almost like nine years of war impacts opinions of figures of nationalism, but I think Sociological Group “Rating” (Rating Group) would count as a primary source.

Let me see if it is cited anywhere else. Jgmac1106 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey Ymblanter Multiples secondary sources cite the annual SGR data.

How about this (with caveat I don't think paragraph belongs)

"Public opinions on Stepan Bandera have evolved over time.^[1] In 2015 Survey data showed Bandera to be a controversial figure in Ukraine. In 2012 just 22% of had a favorable opinion ands in 274% in 2022 with the largest growth in the south-eastern regions of Ukraine.^[2] Jgmac1106 (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

We still have recent sources saying that Bandera is controversial in Ukraine [15], and there are others too. And neither of the sources you just cited seem to mention Bandera Tristario (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Results of the study cited in the seccondary source you shared but from articles that may not be as biased ."Bandera Cult" is a signal of lacking credibility IMO. There is no cult. That is preposterous at face value

Better sources of the survey IMO:

https://dif.org.ua/en/article/a-telling-sign-how-ukrainians-are-treating-stepan-bandera from a less bias source

https://dif.org.ua/en/article/victory-day-and-its-role-in-the-historical-memory-of-ukrainians-what-meaning-do-citizens-attach-to-this-date

(data is included in the Shevtsoca article I already cited)

Secondary sources support idea that opinions of Stepan Bandera are 50/50 in the South in East but if the data is in the definition we should include the trend lines. Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not edit this article because the talk page is usually a cesspool, but I feel I have to comment on this. First of all, newer surveys show a change in attitudes toward Bandera, which to an extent is understandable, but there's also the fact that newer polls a) don't have access to the population in Crimea, the so-called DNR/LNR, or the chunks the other two oblasts annexed by Russia, where one can expect a much higher proportion of anti-Bandera views, and b) probably do not include Ukrainians who, since the start of the war, fled to Russia and, to a lesser extent, Belarus (the UN has almost 3m Ukrainians as having crossed to Russia since February 24, and a breakdown of this number is nigh impossible, and the overwhelming majority are probably not registered as refugees in Russia - some probably moved on, others might have taken Russian citizenship, others are probably lodging with friends/relatives, and yet others might just be "living their lives"). Unless we decide to just exclude several million people from the Ukrainian body politic, we should be very careful with these sources.

But there's a deeper issue at hand here. Less than a week ago you were here saying that the work on Bandera by the FUB's Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe is pretty much considered a hit piece (?!?) and that Lund University professor Per Anders Rudling's work has been rejected and his integrity called into question, both of which are not only patently false statements (both are very much considered serious scholars in academia), but also violations of BLP, particularly since no source is provided for those statements. The fact that you also appear to suggest a link between their work and Soviet/Russian disinformation is the cherry on the cake. But you do not stop there: now you call the DW article Tristario linked you a bias [sic] source. At this point it's worth asking if every source that does not agree with you is, in your opinion, biased. You seem to have some very strong opinions (which sometimes seem to emerge in the form of snide remarks to your fellow editors), and you give strong WP:RGW vibes (even if, perhaps ironically, you're trying to "right" the view of a war criminal), but I do not think you have the knowledge to back your position. I'll give you two examples below, if you'll forgive the extended criticism:

1) A few days ago you claimed the pogrom known as Petliura days was a reaction to the assassination of Symon Petliura, when it happened 15 years after the fact - I assume you read and misunderstood "our" own Wiki article, which states that "[a] second pogrom took place in the last days of July 1941 and was called "Petliura Days" (Aktion Petliura) after the assassinated Ukrainian leader Symon Petliura". This means that the pogrom was named after Petliura, not that it happened as a response to his killing. [Additional comment: Marcelus mentioned July 30 as the start date of the Lwów/Lvov/Lviv pogrom. This, I assume, was a typo: it actually started on June 30, that is, before either Stetsko or Bandera were arrested]

2) Similarly, you stated the following: Why do people need to know PA Rudling is a Swedish American? Wouldn't a more relevant detail be that is speaking tour in Canada was canceled because his scholarship was called into question? and then Defending History wrote their defense of Rudling?. This is at best (i.e. assuming good faith) a gross misunderstanding of the Wikipedia article on Rudling, and of the entire episode: there was, to my knowledge, no tour of Canada by Rudling, nor was his scholarship called into question - Rudling criticised a tour of Canada by one Ruslan Zabily (a non-professional historian linked to far-right nationalist movements in Ukraine) that was sponsored by a number of Ukrainian-Canadian organisations of a nationalist bent, including far-right groups such as an organisation of veterans of the UPA (NB: Rudling's PhD is from the University of Alberta, home of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, so he can be considered to be knowledgeable about the position of these Ukrainian-Canadian organisations). In response to Rudling's criticism, these Ukrainian-Canadian organisations sent a letter to Rudling's employer in Sweden, Lund University, complaining about their employee's criticism of Zabily. After this became public, a number of academics signed a statement in support of Rudling.

Now, you're free to edit as you please provided you do not break the rules, but as it stands I think you're making a mess of things, and would recommend you step back, read up a bit more on these topics, and not rush to editing. Fundamentally, however, I think you are committed to a particular point of view (to an extent this is understandable due to the war), while you need to be more accepting of opposing positions, rather than assuming that every source that disagrees with you is bias[sic], a hit piece, [Russian] disinformation, or anything along those lines, as it has clearly led to some pretty nasty misunderstandings. Ostalgia (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I did get my history wrong on Petliura Days. My apologies, but that is why I ask here first before editing so I can rely on your expertise. I was trying to establish a timeline in the discussion of removing one word. "Together"

Because it wasn't true.

I am still okay with Russian disinformation being cited in thedfn but I never pushed for it given other editors did not agree.

Putin September 5th:

Zelenskyy: "It is disgusting that an ethnic Jew is covering up the glorification of Nazism"

Also KIIS surveys collected in 2015 would suffer from the same validity problems you cite in 2023 (why I said best ediotrial move is to strike paragraph from lead)

Putin September 5th:

The whole world knows that it was Bandera who were engaged in the implementation of the monstrous plan of the Nazis. It is necessary to show convincingly, vividly, so that nothing like this happens again in the future. To show whom the current government of Ukraine has erected on the podium and whom they glorify.

But sure, Russian disinformation has played zero roll in defining Stepan Bandera.

I apologized for calling Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe a hit piece, and said it was based more on the fact scholars such as Snyder, Kiebuzinski, and Motyl state that he overemphasized violence in the West while not acknowledging any role of violence in the East.

Can we review what edits I have asked to make:

- Remove the word "together" from the lead since Bandera was arrested July 5th 1941 and wasn't there?

- Change remains present tense into past tense to align with Wikipedia style guides on biographies

- Not use nine year old survey data to define someone who died in 1959.

I don't think those are controversial asks. There is a difference between lazy consensus and enforcing stagnation

I did not say delete

-Himka

-Rudling

-Rossolinski-Liebe

I said relying solely on those sources can lead to WP:UNDUE and editors should do our best to represent a more diverse viewpoint

I also provided Tristario two alternative sources using the same survey data. They are better secondary sources IMO. I did not read the DW article closely because when I see a heading of "Bandera Cult" that to me is a good marker of low credibility. There is no cult

I am fully aware of "Defending History" defending Rudling's scholarship. Many of the editors of this page edit the articles of the signatories and the author pages of Hinka, Rudling, and Rossolinski-Liebe.

Again all I am trying to do is update 9 year old survey data and use past tense per style guide Jgmac1106 (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Your reply quite literally proves my point. What exactly does Putin have to do with any of the authors cited? The suggestion that top Western academics are somehow deriving their studies from Putin's views (!) is shocking and comes close to being in itself a new BLPVIO. Your dismissive statement that I am fully aware of "Defending History" defending Rudling's scholarship. Many of the editors of this page edit the articles of the signatories and the author pages of Hinka, Rudling, and Rossolinski-Liebe, with no acknowledgement of the fact that you completely misunderstood and mischaracterised his scholarship and its reception, just proves that you didn't even read what I wrote. I'm beginning to believe that, if you continue down this road, the break you need to take may not be a voluntary one. Ostalgia (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Ostalgia. My reference to Putin's current lies about Bandera was to illustrate to Bobfrombrockley that my secondary sources about Russian active measures trying to shape the controversy of Bandera as legitimate.

This again is why I suggest to other editors that the best editorial move is to strike the controversy paragraph from the lead. It doesn't belong in a biography dfn regardless of subject.

Again I never said delete, PA Rudling, Himka, nor Rossolinski-Liebe. I said we as editors should be careful to avoid WP:UNDUE and balance out the article overall with more recent scholarship.

I am also trying to be respectful of editors and the Talk page and waiting 10-12 hours to see if we reach consensus before making an edit. Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the article is balanced, the sources we have are reliable and occupy the right space. I also think this whole diatribe about what Putin said is taken out of context. What does it have to do with these academics? Mhorg (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not think Katchanovski's work on Ukrainian nationalist organisations has ever been questioned. I think we should restore it, it does not support anything controversial.[16] Mhorg (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly but he's a controversial author and we have good sources in the same place so don't need the additional citation. Katchanovski is a political scientist not a historian and the article is about present-day attitudes to Bandera, not about what happened in the war. It is, however, a peer-reviewed journal article so if most editors disagree I don't object to re-including it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

He prepared the 1941 proclamation of the Ukrainian state, pledging to work with Nazi Germany after Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. sentence from the lead. While true, I suggest only important enough facts are to be represented in article lead.

For example, Encyclopedia of History of Ukraine http://resource.history.org.ua/cgi-bin/eiu/history.exe?&I21DBN=ELIB&P21DBN=ELIB&S21STN=1&S21REF=10&S21FMT=elib_all&C21COM=S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S21P03=ID=&S21COLORTERMS=0&S21STR=0001124 gives the following short description:
BANDERA Stepan Andriyovych (pseudonyms: Stary, Baba, Biylikho; December 1, 1909 - October 15, 1959) was a theorist and prominent figure in the Ukrainian national liberation movement of the 1930s to the 1950s. He was the son of A. Bandera, born in the village of Staryi Ugriniv (now in the Kalush district of Ivano-Frankivsk region). He was a member of the Ukrainian Military Organization (1928), the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (since 1929), the regional executive of the OUN in western Ukrainian lands (from 1931), and the deputy regional leader of the OUN (from June 1932). From 1933, he served as the regional leader of the OUN in western Ukrainian lands. He was sentenced to death at the OUN Warsaw Trial in 1935-1936 and the OUN Lviv Trial in 1936, but the punishment was later commuted to life imprisonment. He was held in the "Saint Cross" prison in Warsaw (1933-1939). After his release, following the collapse of the Polish state at the beginning of World War II, he led an opposition faction within the Ukrainian nationalists, whose supporters advocated for radicalization of the forms and methods of struggle. At the II Great Assembly of the OUN in April 1941, he was elected head of the revolutionary leadership, which prepared the "mobile groups" of the OUN and initiated the proclamation of the restoration of Ukrainian statehood on June 30, 1941. He was arrested by the Nazis and imprisoned in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp on July 6, 1941. He was released in September 1944 and resumed his duties as the head of the OUN. Due to disagreements with the leadership of the regional leadership of the OUN in August 1952, he stepped down as the head of the OUN. From 1946 to 1953 and 1956 to 1959, he served as the head of the leadership of the OUN abroad. He lived in cities such as Innsbruck (Austria), Zeefeld, Munich. He was assassinated by KGB agent B. Stashynsky in Munich. The surname Bandera is a symbol of the Ukrainian national liberation movement of the 1930s to the 1950s.

Without going into the details on pledges contained in the Proclamation. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is it not important? Mellk (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A fact may be important, or it may be not. A source given here has not found that fact to be important enough to include it into its summary. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we wouldn't include this detail in the lede, it's covered in the body, and this detail has been well covered by other sources Tristario (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's important enough for the lead. I'm not 100% sure of the wording. We currently have two sources in the lead:

• Tadeusz Piotrowski's Poland's Holocaust, which is a controversial source, which on p.211 (not p.221 as the footnote now says) mentions a letter from Bandera himself but says nothing about pledging support for Hitler ("...argued the case for an independent Ukrainian state but said nothing about the OUN-B's intended course of action...")
• Sol Littman's Pure Soldiers Or Sinister Legion, a sensationalist journalistic work not a scholarly work, which mentions the pledge but doesn't attribute it to Bandera ("...issued by Stetsko on behalf of the Bandera faction of the OUN promised...").

The second of these only is cited in the body.

So we don't have a source saying Bandera pledged support. Tristario say it's "well covered by other sources" so maybe we could insert the sources which do say this.

Remember, this page is under "reliable-source consensus required" rules, so if Littman and/or Piotrowski are challenged we need to reach consensus before restoring. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You may be right, actually. You're welcome to adjust the wording/sourcing. David Marples says something similar to what's in the lede, except he says it was Stetsko doing it on Bandera's behalf. [17] (p. 560-561) Tristario (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I added new source Motyka (2006). In the act of the restoration of the independence OUN pledged "close cooperation with the National Socialst Great Germany, which under the direction of Adolf Hitler are building the new European order". This part was removed from the official OUN documents. Marcelus (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Among other, the lead is unclear as of now because it suggests Bandera "pledged to work with Nazi Germany". What do the sources say? Was it Bandera? Was it OUN who pledged? A declaration? A declared Ukrainian state? Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So if we are not clear on this, why the lead should say this?

I checked Liebe's Life of Bandera, who has been criticized for being too critical regarding Bandera, and the only thing regarding the "cooperation" he says in the conclusion is
In the proclamation, Stets’ko stressed that the OUN-B wanted to closely cooperate with the “National Socialist Great Germany, which, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, is creating a new order in Europe and the world.”
So it was Stets’ko, actually. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Is Encyclopedia of Ukraine considered a reliable secondary source by editors of this article? Jgmac1106 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source. Articles on the OUN-UPA are written in a very one-sided manner, whitewashing the organisation, and tend to be quite old and out of date with modern knowledge. Marcelus (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ve now amended the text in lead and body to correspond to sources as per this discussion. One issue remains: we cite Littman saying the proclamation concludes with Glory to Hitler, which contradicts the proclamation’s article which has Glory to Ukraine. As noted, Littman is a bad source. Can we check this? BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley mention of Hitler and in generally subservience to Germany was removed from postwar editions of OUN documents, so that's why. Marcelus (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The image we have is dated 1941 and the materials in the proclamation article ditto. The line about pledging to work with Germany and Hitler’s new order, removed post-war, is present there. But none of them include a line with “Glory to Hitler” as we had Littman saying. Littman is a sensationalist non-academic source so I’ve removed that bit and question whether we need to check anything else we cite Littman for. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not actually for basing our edits on primary sources, but it seems that you are correct, so I rescind my previous opposition, and agree with your edit. Marcelus (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Marcelus. You're right about the OR issue, but my edit was based on the fact our sole secondary source was week (I don't think we should use Littman, certainly without attribution), on the primary sources in this article and the declaration article, on the text in the declaration article, but also on Motyka, the secondary source we use here for the pledge but who doesn't mention the "glory" bit. Would you mind undoing your last edit, so we avoid the appearance of an edit war if I revert it? We should, however, strengthen our secondary sourcing for the declaration in both this article and the other one. Motyka would presumably be the best starting point.

Can I also remind editors of the reliable source sanctions at the top of this page - if I'm wrong about Littman can we discuss and reach a consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

As Marcelus has not responded, I take the liberty of editing as it seems we have consensus. I hope it is clear that this is not edit warring. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Re this edit: there was a source for this in a previous version, but I think it was removed as footnotes were converted to sfn format. According to Richard Breitman and Norman Goda in Hitler's Shadow, Bandera and Stetsko refused to do this, and in December 1944 they fled Berlin, heading south. Breintman and J.W. Goda. Hitler's Shadow, p.76. National Archives. Quote: Berlin hoped to form a Ukrainian National Committee with both OUN factions and other Ukrainian leaders. The Committee was formed in November, but Bandera and Stetsko refused to cooperate. They escaped from Berlin in December and fled south, emerging after the war in Munich. They cite US military primary sources here: SR/W2 to SR/WC, SR/DC, EE/SSS, January 13, 1952, NARA, RG 263, E ZZ-19, B 10, Aerodynamic: Operations, v. 10, f. 1. Also see Stetsko’s accounts in NARA, RG 263, E ZZ-18, B 126, Name File Yaroslav Stetsko, v. 1, 2. Do we have sources contradicting this? If not, I see no reason to exclude. Could attribute (as we did before) if preferred. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I see we have a different account by Rossoliński-Liebe, so I withdraw that. However, if we have two sets of scholars making factually incompatible claims based on primary sources, do we need to note this? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The version that Bandera was "in hiding" for the entire period from September 1944 to the end of the war comes from him and from the testimony he gave to the Americans, then, of course, it was duplicated, because the information that he had re-collaborated with the Germans was inconvenient for him and his supporters. His participation in the work of the UNK is confirmed by the accounts of participants, both Ukrainian (Shandruk, for example) and German. In addition, he was still in Krakow and interacted with the UPA in Ukraine. Motyka, for example, also writes about this. Marcelus (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Marcelus. Am convinced, and happy to support the current version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

These two NfP articles; https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/01/02/poland-condemns-ukraines-commemoration-of-wartime-nationalist-leader-bandera/ and https://notesfrompoland.com/2022/07/01/poland-intervenes-after-ukrainian-ambassador-denies-wartime-massacre-of-poles-and-jews/ ; paint a fairly broad view of the Polish government's reaction to the commemoration of Bandera following the Russian Invasion, are they sufficient to include? Orchastrattor (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Depends on what you want to include. You should keep WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM in mind. There may be other sources that provide a broader overview of attitudes in Poland rather than focusing on specific incidents Tristario (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I changed the controversy sentence to:

Bandera remains a highly controversial figure in Ukraine. Many Ukrainians hail him as a role model hero or as a martyred liberation fighter, while other Ukrainians, particularly in the south and east, condemn him as a fascist Nazi collaborator and reflect Soviet Narratives of utilizing a false narrative of denazification of enemies in the Republics of the Soviet Union. Critics claim OUN-B, and thus Bandera, hold responsible for massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians during World War II.. The narrative of denazification was used by Vladimir Putin to justify Russia's War in Ukraine.

I did not call it disinformation and it is a historical fact that Russia has spent decades and millions of dollars trying to define Stepan Bandera as a Nazi responsible for Lviv Massacre (while he was in a concentration camp) Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

reflect Soviet Narratives of utilizing a false narrative of denazification of enemies in the Republics of the Soviet Union; this a nonsensical sentence, you cannot say arbitrary that it is a "false narrative". It's hard to say what this sentence even means.

The narrative of denazification was used by Vladimir Putin to justify Russia's War in Ukraine; how is that relevant to the Bandera's biography? Why you put that in the lede?

{tq|Stepan Bandera as a Nazi responsible for Lviv Massacre (while he was in a concentration camp)}}; Bandera wasn't even arrested when the pogrom started (June 30). OUN militia took active part in the pogrom. Also OUN committed a lot more crimes against Jewish people both before and after Bandera's arrestation.

Your personal view seems to be based on false premises, I don't think you know enough about this matters to be able to edit this article. Marcelus (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

how is that relevant to the Bandera's biography?
"Nazi banderites" is how Russia justifies its invasion. See discussion Talk:Stepan Bandera#Pledging to work with Nazi Germany , why is "pledging to work with Nazi Germany" is still in the lead? Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't say anything about "Nazi banderites". If we want to include that in the lede we should make at least somehow linked to the Bandera's biography. For example: The cult of Bandera and the OUN-UPA in contemporary Ukraine was given by Russian propaganda as a pretext for the 'denazification of Ukraine' and invasion in 2022. Marcelus (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The cult of Bandera and the OUN-UPA in contemporary Ukraine
I thought we are about to maintain some level in our discussion. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Marcelus (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with removing the controversy section from the lede then. But if we are going to say Bandera is a controversial figure we need to acknowledge 80 years of active measures to make him a controversial figure.

If you think Stepan Bandera is defined by the controversy then both sides need better representation in citations.

Further stop putting "together" back. Bandera was in Sachsenhausen concentration camp at the time of the Lviv Massacre "together" is just not true Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Bandera wasn't in Sachsenhausen before winter 1942, possibly later. Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

So the articles cited about Ukrainians in the South and East explicitly state that Bandera was at and directed his followers during the Lviv Massacre?

I have never seen that so please share. I would hate to be wrong

Also I read both those sources where are the statistics about "some Ukrainians" in the East and the South? I do not find those claims in the sources cited. Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This article itself (though citation needed) said Bandera was not there.

The word "together" does not belong unless you can prove it with multiple secondary sources

I do not need to prove Bandera wasn't involved. Editors who want to make the claim need to prove he was. Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand that Lviv pogroms wasn't the only OUN crimes against Jewish people? Marcelus (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is not lede, assuming it has to be written somewhere. Mhorg (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Mhorg the article contradicts the lede.

In late 1942, when Bandera was in a German concentration camp, his organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, was involved in a massacre of Poles in Volhynia and, in early 1944,

However, Portnov notes that "Bandera did not participate personally in the underground war conducted by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which included the organized ethnic cleansing of the Polish population of Volhynia in north-western Ukraine and killings of the Jews, but he also never condemned them."

That was my original issue. Why is controversy mentioned in the lede if there is no contrvoersy section below

It is almost like people want to force Bandera's involvement into the definition and they are not editing with good intent.

I am trying to remove the word "together."

(Though I think the entire paragraph needs to be a section of the article rather than in the lede orphaned from any evidence) Jgmac1106 (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

And Marceuls Bandera was arrested in Krakow on July 5, 1941 Stetsko in Lviv on July 12.

Petliura Days was not until the end of July and was a reaction to Petliura assassination. Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Petlura was killed in 1926, first pogrom in Lviv was on July 30, 1941 Marcelus (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It might be better to just say "whose followers were responsible for massacres". That's more clear. Tristario (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, "whose followers" avoids ambiguity. Jabbi (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you know enough about this matters to be able to edit this article.

I apologize for calling Rossolinski-Liebe biography a basic hit piece. I just think relying on these three authors can lead to WP:UNDUE influence and stated this conclusion too emphatically

The majority of claims up to WWII period are based on

Rossolinski-Liebe

Rudling

Himka

This can lead to a bias point of view and violate neutrality policies.

Kiebuzinski, Motyl, and Snyder have all criticized Himka's scholarship (see Lviv_pogroms_(1941)). Rudling's work was rejected on a speaking tour in Canada, and he was defended by many people cited on this page. As others noted many have called parts of Rossolinski-Liebe scholarship questionable.

I am not suggesting they be deleted but I think we have to watch for WP:UNDUE.

It can be small things. Why the Plast Uniform? Is that to show Bandera as a child or is that because Plast is Rudling's basic theory to prove a Bandera Cult existed in Canada amongst the Diaspora community?

For example I deleted the claim using Himka saying the Concentration Camp was "comfortable." While Himka does write that there was nothing comfortable for political dissidents at Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Is that to show Bandera as a child or is that because Plast is Rudling's basic theory to prove a Bandera Cult existed in Canada amongst the Diaspora community?, you need to explain more clearly your line of thinking. What's the connection between Plast in Poland, in 1920s and Canada? Marcelus (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus, when you make edits, it would be helpful if you describe what you're doing in the edit summaries, or possibly on the talk page. It can be difficult to keep track of your edits. Tristario (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

For instance, this edit is confusing, since you don't have a description, and you're mostly adjusting citations, but you also make a number of changes to the article too. It would be easy for someone to miss the changes you made to the article besides the citations. Tristario (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to make more extensive descriptions of my edits. None of them was imo controversial so far, but I see your point. Marcelus (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying the edit has to be made. I am saying we consider all the historical edits on this page with WP:UNDUE in mind. Using the Boy Scouts to as proof of a Banderite Cult does not make sense.

This is a central thesis in both Rossolinski-Liebe and Rudling's work. Proof of Ukrainian Disaspora keeping the Bandera Cult alive is Plast. This idea, Boys Scouts cause Banderite Cult, then filters down through deprecated sources like Gray zone, then online trolls.

This article needs to be strictly about Stepan Bandera. Yes, he was a Plast Scout, but was that picture chosen because of WP:UNDUE and thus trying to make an inference about the Ukrainian Diaspora?

Just suggesting we balance out articles with source that are not also derived from the work

Rossolinski-Liebe

Rudling

Himka

You have to look at your secondary sources and make sure they aren't just part of the RSS mills built to repeat:

Rossolinski-Liebe

Rudling

Himka Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I read with astonishment these assertions that Bandera was not responsible for the massacres of Jews because he was "not there", i.e., not physically present at the killings, but rather in custody. Do not people hold Hitler responsible for the murder of Jews, although Hitler did not personally kill any Jews? Not only that, Hitler did not even participate in the Wannsee Conference that formulated the so-called "final solution". Orders to kill all Jews came not from Hitler, but from Rheinhardt Heydrich (July 2, 1941), by which time massacres were already occurring in occupied Poland, and thousands had been killed. It was impossible for Bandera's deputies not to have been aware of all this (let alone Bandera, who was allowed to read newspapers while in captivity). On July 8, Heydrich announced that all Jews were to be considered ipso facto Partisans, whom it was permissible to shoot on sight, along with anyone, including whole villages, suspected of helping or supporting them. Mballen (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to add a topic sentence to the view section. Look aty the three scholars cites

The section begins with Rossolinski-Liebe, H whose biography is pretty much considered a hit piece, Himka, PA Rudling, whose work has been rejected and his academic integrity called into question.

I want a framing sentence on views that explore the scholarship on "views" from a less bias standpoint.

Further my link to Russian Disinformation page. The efforts of Russia to utilize the Bandera Narrative since 1944 are more than well documented. Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Rossoliński-Liebe, Himka and Rudling are widely considered to be reliable. The accusations against Bandera are not the result of Russian disinformation, but of his actions as an active fascist activist and Nazi collaborator whose organisation committed crimes on a massive scale. Marcelus (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Rossoliński-Liebe
There is notable academic critique of Liebe's book. See for example Talk:Slava Ukraini#Rossolinski-Liebe, Stepan Bandera. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The critic is about putting to much emphasis on negative aspects of Bandera and OUN's activities, nobody claimed that Rossoliński's book is unreliable or spreading false version of history. Marcelus (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No but the critique and other views are worth to be included. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking with user who claimes that Rossoliński is a author of "hit piece" and that Himka and Rudling "has been rejected", it doesn't leave much room fo nuance. Marcelus (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am saying I see a pattern that violates WP:IMPARTIAL

If Bandera's views are defined by Rossoliński, Rudling,and Marples that is not impartial.

I could even find better Snyder quotes so it does not look like he is saying Bandera was a fascist and that't the only goal. Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The View section isn't about hsi views. It is about scholars. Why do people need to know PA Rudling is a Swedish American?

Wouldn't a more relevant detail be that is speaking tour in Canada was canceled because his scholarship was called into question? and then Defending History wrote their defense of Rudling?

It is hard to say WP:IMPARTIAL when the "views" section follows Rossolinski, Rudling, and Marples (who of the three presents a more balanced approach.

I think it is best to not highlight the authors in text and let secondary sources and quotes back up claims. Take personality out of it. Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I would take

According to Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe "Bandera's worldview was shaped by numerous far-right values and concepts including ultranationalism, fascism, racism, and antisemitism; by fascination with violence; by the belief that only war could establish a Ukrainian state; and by hostility to democracy, communism, and socialism. Like other young Ukrainian nationalists, he combined extremism with religion and used religion to sacralize politics and violence."

and make it

According to some scholars Stepan Banderas views on Ukrainian Nationalism were driven by numerous far-right values and concepts including fascism, racism, and antisemitism reflected in a fascination with violence.155 These historians argue Bandera felt b only war could establish a Ukrainian state through hostility to democracy, communism, and socialism. Like other young Ukrainian nationalists, he combined extremism with religion."

do that so none of the paragraphs start with an author Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you think Manyareasexpert? How about you marcelus? I see you edit Ivan Katchanovski page so you must be familiar with these scholars.

I will wait for other editors as well, before making change. But I want to focus on Bandera's views as established in secondary sources. Not provide mini-bios of scholars Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

We should keep "According to Rossoliński-Liebe" if it's him saying that, other than that, it's been taken from "Conclusion" section of his book so it's pretty valuable. If other researches have commented on Liebe's conclusions, we should mention those as well. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that Jgmac1106's latest modifications have made the article worse. I tried to fix them but some parts don't look right to me. For example, this is the "Views" section. As far as I know and read, Rossoliński-Liebe, and Rudling are the Western academics who have dealt most with Bandera. Mhorg (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't thoroughly gone through all of the recent edits, but care should be taken to avoid original research, and that the content is actually supported by the sources cited. Some of the recent edits also aren't very well written in terms of the clarity and the english Tristario (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I notice there have been quite a few reverts, I hope everyone is complying with WP:3RR or any other restrictions Tristario (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

General comment: any controversial interpretations should be attributed to the respective historian. Attributions need not include ethnicity/nationality (e.g. "Swedish-American") unless there is clear relevance.

Specific comment: Jgmac1106, you say that Per Anders Rudling's speaking tour in Canada was canceled because his scholarship was called into question. I believe that is incorrect. My understanding is that Rudling, having signed (with many other scholars) a letter in support of Ruslan Zabily, a far more junior historian who had been harassed by the Ukrainian state, then criticised a Canadian speaking tour by Zabily, for which he in turn was criticised by nationalist diaspora organisations in Canada (who did not call his scholarship into question), after which several very reputable scholars supported Rudling. You may want to consult WP:BLPTALK and consider striking out your comment.

Of course, Rudling has a particular perspective and so it is good to attribute his views to him and balance them with other views, but up until now there has been strong consensus that he is an excellent source, as are Marples, Rossoliński-Liebe and Himka. This page is under sanctions related to antisemitism in Poland that require a high standard reliable source consensus, but the rule does not apply to "an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution", so I see no reason to remove anything citing them. Of course, other editors can add additional balancing material from other reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

thanks @Bobfrombrockley I am aware of active Sanctions and why I am asking for consensus first.

I do not think it should be controversial to suggest articles relying on Rossoliński-Liebe, Himka, and Rudling need balance to avoid WP:undue.

Examine the way /Lviv_pogroms_(1941 handled Himka, citing:

"https://assets.ctfassets.net/4wrp2um278k7/49qXJfjUqkGkaYAwmcKqCo/893093588735e3c4cd3a08568e57df39/9789048526826_ToC___Intro.pdf"

So my requests have been:

-Remove the word "together"

-Not use nine year old survey data

-use past tense

-balance Hinka, Rudling, and Rossoliński-Liebe with more recent work form Kiebuzinski,Motyl, Snyder.

That should not be controversial Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the use of "together" you opposed is gone. (I agree with you on that.)
• I don't think we need to remove the 2013 survey, although it takes up a lot of room.
• I don't think there is any present text description of a past survey in the article any more.
• Please do feel free to include more Kiebuzinski, Motyl and Snyder. I would support that.

However, you need to address the issue of your allegation against Rudling. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jgmac1106 For the sources supporting the sentence "Stepan Bandera was first and foremost a Nationalist who supported efforts for an Independent Ukraine", what are the page numbers and quotes in those sources supporting that statement? Tristario (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

And this is why the articles notes sections are longer than the entire article. I will look it up the exact page numbers and put a quote in the citation in the morning. Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I just want to be sure the sources support what exactly is written. Someone added a "Page Needed" tag, that's good Tristario (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That someone was actually me Tristario (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed this sentence as I checked the sources supporting it and they didn't appear to support the sentence. If I'm mistaken page numbers and supporting quotes could be provided. Otherwise, please be careful to make sure the sources cited actually support what is written. Tristario (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to jump to conclusions but nothing on this TP or in my interactions with the editor leads me to think this was anything other than an attempt at whitewashing. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey bobfrombrockley and Tristario I started a new topic on View section and forgot about this one.

mhord felt views is only for views on fascism. If you you have an opinion please comment in the new topic. I will hold off on revising views, but it needs a topic sentence. Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepan_Bandera&diff=next&oldid=1174778122

Personally, I don't think Stephen Dorril is a good source to use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Dorril doesn't appear to be a very good source. I think we probably should remove him. And how the information we're attributing to him fits in with the other content we have on the page isn't that clear Tristario (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

In absence of any arguments to the contrary, I'll act on this. (Note, this article is covered by the sanctions relating to sourcing for articles on the Holocaust in Poland, so removed material needs to be brought back here before reinstating.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps something can be written about it. Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Stephen Marmura: "MI6 worked closely with Bandera and the postwar OUN to play their part in the subversion of Soviet rule"[18] Mhorg (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That chapter was written by Gerald Sussman, and that part seems to be some historical background to the main focus of the chapter, which relates to "Russiagate". It doesn't seem like Sussman has expertise on this area of history. Does more mainstream scholarship of Bandera mention this? Tristario (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

There is discussion of MI6 in Rossolinski-Liebe's book, so this can be included, although I'd prefer a better source than that Russiagate book. The article does already mention cooperation with British intelligence Tristario (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a book edited by and contributed to a bunch of conspiracy theorists with no expertise on Ukrainian/Polish history or any other relevant topic. The particular chapter is by a specialist in SE Asian urban studies. Hard no. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey mhorg You removed my sentence framing the views section since I said Bandera's primary view was towards Ukrainian statehood.

In your reversion note you said the view subsection if just for views on fascism.

If that is true why not rename the section or add a topic sentence rather than a summary from a historian?

What is wrong with including views towards Ukrainian independence in the Views section? Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If you look closely, I did not remove it, I just moved it to the bottom of the section, as most academics focus on its affiliation with fascism. Mhorg (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me obvious that his most central views should come first in the section not last. Jgmac’s text could be phrased a little more clearly and concisely but does belong at the top of the section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)