Talk:Roman Shukhevych

message: This is not a neutral term and its accuracy can be argued either way.  As such, it probably doesn't belong in the lede and more neutral wording (such as ally) is more appropriate.  Collaborationism is defined as "Collaborationism is cooperation with the enemy against one's country in wartime."  While Shukhevych was technically a citizen of Poland, he spent his life opposing Polish rule and like many of his non-ethnic-Polish peers probably never recognized the legitimacy of it.  It can be legitimately argued that he seems to be have been driven to cooperate with the Nazis by his nationalism rather than by personal enrichment and did not do so against what he considered his own country (Ukraine); as such his cooperation and alliance is analogous to, say, the Polish patriots (and Russian citizens) who allied themselves with Napoleon.  Those aren't labelled as collaborators, either.  My purpose is not to endorse a particular POV here but pointing out that the label "collaborator" is not neutral or non-controversial.  On the contrary, the fact that he was an ally of Nazi Germany seems to be universally recognized.Faustian (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. Plenty of scientific books apply term collaborator to Shukhevych. Cathry (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But others do not.  Indeed, many of the sources you linked to explicitly dispute that he was a collaborator.  This one dismisses it as Communist propaganda: .  Him being a collaborator is not the consensus position - therefore it should be mentioned in the article body, not lede.Faustian (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the current wording is good enough ("a some-time ally of Nazi Germany") - the reader will be able to make his/her own conclusions after reading the whole article. Alæxis¿question? 08:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

text:  One dubious source can not сhange consensus. How can it be a propaganda, if he сommanded Nazi units? Cathry (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Collaborator?? How should we call Stalin after signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Chamberlain in relation with partition of Czechoslovakia or Mościcki in relation with annexations of Zaolzie? 
In his postwar memoirs, Winston Churchill compared Germany and Poland to vultures landing on the dying carcass of Czechoslovakia and lamented that "over a question so minor as Teschen, they [the Poles] sundered themselves from all those friends in France, Britain and the United States who had lifted them once again to a national, coherent life, and whom they were soon to need to sorely. ... It is a mystery and tragedy of European history that a people capable of every heroic virtue ... as individuals, should repeatedly show such inveterate faults in almost every aspect of their governmental life."
Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Nationalist collaborator Roman Shukhevych's men were part of a pogrom that killed over 6,000 Jews. Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't link disambiguations to manipulate. The UK coined the Munich Agreement, Poland didn't participate. Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaborator

message: I took a liberty to edit the lead that contains obvious errors. Whereas the lead is supposed to summarise the article, it says Shukhevich was an Ukrainian politician. Meanwhile, I found no description of his political activity. Indeed, during the pre-war period, he was engaged in terrorism, during the war he was a military leader, and after the war he had no opportunity to be engaged in any political activity either. Therefore, his characterisation as a "politician" in the lead looks somewhat odd. In contrast, the notion that he was a terrorist is missing. I fixed it. If you believe I made a mistake, please, revert me, but no earlier than a sufficient amount of text about his political activity will be added to the article.
Regarding Shukhevich as a "one-time ally of Nazi Germany". That sound a little but apologetic, because, if we use this approach, we can call Himmler a "one time Holocaust perpetrator" (he did that just one time, from ca 1938 till 1945, but that was really one time). Second, even using this approach, Shuchevich was not one-time ally. There were at least two different episodes: Nachtigall and Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201. These were two times. Third, he was not an ally. He was a volunteer at German service. The best word to characterise such type activity would be "Nazi collaborator", but, since some sources (mostly Ukrainian ones) disagree with that, let's be neutral and just name the positions he occupied in German army/police.
I fixed these factual errors and added  references. It seems I preserved a chronological order: a terrorist before the war, then a German army/police officer, then an UPA leader, and concurrently war criminal. Any objections? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...politician and one-time German ally. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: - was it wrong info? That does seem belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Volodymyr Viatrovych, I read from his article "was criticized for whitewashing crimes by Ukrainian nationalists". I think we should be extremely cautious about including a section produced with his work. Mhorg (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

text: This above mentioned "glosing over" and the feeling I have that other academics are pushing for a "war criminal status" of Shukhevych without presenting what I would call credible evidence for it makes me very unsure of what text to believe about him. I think that with all of Shukhevych's activities being clandestine it is obviously not well documented what he actually did an was responsible for, clandestine organisations do not tend to do that naturally. I can not shake the feeling that we will never be sure what Roman Shukhevych actually did during World War II.  — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure as well. I think the person who included that material should appear on this talk page and justify the inclusion. Unless they do it, I would consider this a justified removal. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ↑—I agree with My very best wishes. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @My very best wishes @Yulia Romero There is no doubt of the criminal history of Shukhevych during the war, his wartime biography also is rather well established. Marcelus (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, did this particular episode (i.e. "Rescue of Irene Reichenberg") really took place? My very best wishes (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncertain, but highly doubtful. So far she is described only by unreliable Ukrainian sources, e.g. Viatrovych who is know for forging fake facts and documents. It's probably story similiar to Stella Krenzbach or Leiba Dobrovskii. Post-UPA propagandists were doing a lot to get rid off the stain of antisemitism from the organisation. Marcelus (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , is the BBC an unreliable source? -Futurama cyclop (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, an article that tries to prove the thesis that the OUN-UPA and Shukhevych personally had nothing to do with anti-Semitism, or that they did not participate in pogroms, is not reliable. Marcelus (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a POV, and Original research. Futurama8 (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We need better sources than journalism for something like this Tristario (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks for those edits clarifying Shukhevych's involvement in the massacres Marcelus Tristario (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Actually the Leiba Dobrovskii is a very NPOV Wikipedia article. The Stella Krenzbach is bit too long I think and stuff should be made footnotes in my opinion.  — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not daying that the articles are bad written, but these people were used by pro-UPA propaganda Marcelus (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is kind of a "saving Jews" story. I noticed same thing on other pages with regard to Polish people saving Jews during Holocaust. No doubts, some of them indeed heroically saved Jews from Nazi, but some of such claims were poorly sourced. This is something similar about a Ukrainian historical figure. Quickly looking, I simply did not find strong RS to support the story. I may change opinion if someone provides such sources.My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

text: The lede should be expanded to give an overview of the rest of the body of the article too, and if that were done that would make this article more consistent with how those of other historical figures are written. If anyone wants to do that that would be good --Tristario (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: This source and quote has been removed: "I would like to bring to your attention an announced Canada-wide lecture tour by Ruslan Zabily, former director of the OUN(b) facade organization The Center for the Study of the Liberation Movement and currently the director of the National Memorial “Lonsky Street Prison” Museum in Lviv. Zabilyi holds a Masters degree and has, to my knowledge no publications in peer reviewed journals. He has been central to the promotion and glorification of the OUN, the UPA, Stepan Bandera, and Roman Shukhevych."
I think it is instead useful to keep it in the article, as it describes precisely this academic's complaint. I would be for restoring it. Mhorg (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly oppose. The subject of this article is only mentioned in passing. The letter is an attack on a lecture tour by Ruslan Zabily, who is not mentioned in our article. It is a letter circulated by email about a 2012 speaking tour: an ephemeral primary text, sourced from a blog. I see absolutely no reason why it's due here. If the beed betweeen Rudling and Zabily is noteworthy, it could be included in one of their articles, but it has zero bearing on this article. There are currently 10 footnotes citing Rudling, so it's not like we're excluding his perspective from the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I understand why you may want to keep it in the article, but as a source it's not very good, and I don't think it would pass the guidelines in WP:RS - it's not a secondary source, since it's just a copy of an email on a blog, and it's not an acceptable self published source either, since Rudling didn't publish it. Tristario (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Strongly oppose, it's just not up to snuff. As @Bobfrombrockley said, it's an ephemeral primary text that is very poorly sourced. Additionally, I am not sure that it has anything to do with the actual subject of this article.  Carlp941 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The letter of Per Anders Rudlings 

message: * What I think should be changed (format using ):
I'd like to revert the page to an uncontested version. 
* Why it should be changed:
An admin locked the page after a different user engaged in an edit war with me. Instead of engaging with me in the talk page, this user deleted my talk page contribution, and an IP user made the same changes they were attempting to make. I do not believe these changes were made in good faith, they add promotional language, and contain false information. The padlock was unfortunately added after these edits. I talked with the admin, but as the changes do not meet the definition of vandalism, I was directed to make an edit request. Happy to do so! I'd like the edit protected page to reflect the previous consensus, not one side of a dispute.
* References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
None needed, in my opinion.
Carlp941 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unfamiliar with the requirements for references for edit requests, but you can see in User talk:Kraplyna that I am not the only one who believes the current version's changes violate Wikipedia:NPOV and that my talk section was removed.  Carlp941 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the stable version is better and reverted the changes. Cheers! Alaexis¿question? 10:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: the stable version was more accurate. Mhorg (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Already done Seems to have already been completed. Please ping me if I'm missing something ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  19:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended Protected Edit Request