Talk:Polish–Ukrainian War

message: Zbrucz is a Polish name. 
Many Ukrainian POWs died in Polish camps. There exists their monument in Kraków-Rakowiec, I believe. 
Xx236 14:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be very interesting to have more information on the fate of Ukrainian POWs and Polish camps. --Lysy (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus a photo of the monument. And more references. And more information... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zbrucz, Ukrainian POWs 

message: It became Polish after victory over Western Ukraine. Therefore, it should either state Eastern Galicia and nothing else or Eastern Galicia, Western Ukrainian Republic/Poland. Thank you.
You mean regained by Poland? As this area existed in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth prior to the partitions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.139.166 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 	Eastern Galicia, Poland 

message: "In contrast to the brutality typical of the struggles occurring in former parts of the Russian empire, the Polish-Ukrainian war was conducted by disciplined and professional forces on both sides, resulting in relatively minimal civilian deaths and destruction..." Except for the occasional pogrom, etc... Unreferenced claims of "relatively minimal civilian deaths and destruction" (what's that implied civilian death minimum that is presumably OK? relative to what?) would be best replaced by actual figures of civilian deaths, levels of destruction, etc. Doprendek (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A nice, professional war?

message: "During this time, according to Italian and Polish reports, Ukrainian forces enjoyed high morale (an Italian observor behind Galician lines stated that the Ukrainians were fighting with the "courage of the doomed") while many of the Polish soldiers, particularly from what had been Congress Poland, wanted to return home because they saw no reason to fight against Ruthenians over Ruthenian lands." East Galicia was a historical Polish land. Asc.grean (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the complete reference. East Galicia was populated by 60% Ukrainians, 25% Poles and Poles from Congress Poland (not Poles from East Galicia), according to the report, saw themselves as fighting Ruthenians (Ukrainians) for Ruthenian land and wanted to go home. You can verify what I added through googlebooks here, it's on page 51, bottom of the first paragraph. as for history, it depends on POV - it was historically Polish, Austrian, Hungarian, Lithuanain, and Ruthenian. Remember the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia?  Faustian (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

text: East Galicia was old conquered land, but not really Polish.  --Юе Артеміс (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense by Faustian 

message: In background section a claim is laid that the Austrian monarchy was extremely sympathetic towards Ruthenians who for purpose of an evil conspiracy started to be called Ukrainians. It seems that whoever was creating the section mixed both Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria along with the West Ukrainian People's Republic as well as brought the 1848 revolution to the basket. I only wonder why not to start from the succession of the Galician crown in the 13th century when the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland invaded the Ruthenian Kingdom. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habsburg monarchy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Polish–Ukrainian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150814012731/http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CU%5CN%5CUnionfortheLiberationofUkraineSVU.htm to http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150814012731/http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CU%5CN%5CUnionfortheLiberationofUkraineSVU.htm to http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:Faustian, I think it is fair to use Lwów if the city had a majority Polish population, and was held by Polish forces (it was a Polish city). This is nothing more then persistent anti-Polish bias where you deny the fact that the city was overwhelmingly Polish during this time. Similar in regards to Russian speaking areas in Ukraine today, just complete denial of facts.  --E-960 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *In Lviv, the population in 1910 was approximately 60% Polish and 17% Ukrainian. --E-960 (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You also used Polish names for Ukrainian-controlled cities such as Drohobych. It is a wikipedia article and we use modern English-language words for cities (for example, the article about History of Bratislava does not use "Pressburg", article about History of Vilnius does not use Wilno even though there were fewer Lithuanians in Vilnius than there were Ukrainians in Lviv).  Your accusations of "anti-Polish bias" are personal attacks and inappropriate.Faustian (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *I think that these borders and names were fluid. Names changed.  So did populations.  My maternal grandfather, who self identified as Ukrainian, was a corporal in the Astro-Hungarian Empire's army.  You folks need to stand down and use both languages for their names.  Just a suggestion to avert a war.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We should treat this like we treat Vilnius (which was onced much less Lithuanian than Lviv was Ukrainian).  Mention the old name but use the modern one.Faustian (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  We can all get along.  E-960?  7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I write all of this from a neutral point of view.  My parents married in 1948.  He was Polish descent (his mother's parents came over in the 1870s, my paternal grandfather came over in 1912).  She was of Ukrainian descent.  Each of the families used a variant of 'he's Polish, but he's good' and vice versa. 
 Faustian, ok pls be the first one to change the statement Lwów pogrom in this article to Lviv pogrom, somehow this is the only place you think it should have the polish name? Blatant anti-polish bigotry.E-960 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been kindly asked not to engage in personal attacks and have now done so. I don't care what "Lwow pogrom" is called.  If the specific event is commonly referred to as such, it probably ought to be the name for it (for similar reasons, things like treaties retain their original names).  I don't have to research that, but if you find that "Lwow pogrom" is not a common name for what happened in 1918, go ahead and change it.Faustian (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Faustian, let us mark this day—consensus on something… hehe. --E-960 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish city names if there were controlled by the Poles 

message: I can't find data on oil reserves, but Mitchell's European Historical Statistics, 1750-1970, pp. 373-374 gives data on oil extraction. For 1913, he gives the following estimates:
:Austria (including Eastern Galicia): 1,115,000 metric tons.
:Romania (including the Ploesti fields): 1,848,000 metric tons.
:Russian Empire (including Baku, outside Europe, and other fields in Europe): 10,281,000 metric tons.
While Eastern Galicia was an important oil-extracting region, it wasn't the most important in Europe at the time. 173.66.5.216 (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil - Dubious 

message: Please correct.
Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please correect. Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two cite errors 

message: Conditions in Polish POW camps were bad, similar to the conditions in camps for Poles in Western Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  POW camps 

message: Please explain.Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young defenders of the Łyczakowski Cemetery, who lost their lives defending the city 

message: *"After the war, in 1920-1921, Polish concentration camps held over one hundred thousand people. In many cases prisoners were denied food and medical attention. Some starved; others died of disease or committed suicide. Among the interned were Jews and others of other nationalities who were sympathetic to Ukrainian independence, and Jews figured among the witnesses who described the murder and abuse." Source: Myroslav Shkandrij. (2015) Ukrainian Nationalism: Politics, Ideology, and Literature, 1929-1956. New Haven: Yale University Press pg. 19  This is the source used in this article
 
* "A much greater number of Ukrainians, 70,000–100,000, were interned in Polish concentration camps at Strzałków, Brest, Wadowice, and Dąbie in 1919–20 after the occupation of Galicia. They included former soldiers of the Ukrainian Galician Army and thousands of civilians accused or suspected of disloyalty. Unsanitary conditions in the camps, poor nourishment, and diseases such as typhus and dysentery caused the death of a large number of internees." source: Encyclopedia of Ukraine .  Published by University of Toronto Press.
*In August the Ministry of war ordered the separation of all Jewish volunteers and front soldiers, especially intellectuals, form Polish troops.  They were interred in concentration camps" .  Source: Jewish People, Yiddish Nation: Noah Prylucki and the Folkists in Poland. Kalman Weiser University of Toronto Press, 2011.
Probably an entire article can be made dedicated to Polish concentration camps from before World War II.
It's not a rarely used term and, importantly, is the specific term used in the article being referenced.Faustian (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like your third source is not talking about the Polish-Ukrainian War but rather the Polish-Bolshevik War. There's some pages that are omitted on google books but it does say "until Soviet troops had been repulsed". Likewise, August 1920 would be Polish-Bolshevik war not this one (which ended in July 1919). If you're going to complain that E-960 is including sources which reference the internment of "other" Ukrainian troops, then please don't try to pull similar things yourself. At least with E-960's sources it's the same war even if (possibly) different armies. Volunteer Marek  16:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

text: And the Jablonna camp, which is what you searched for for some reason is referred to as "internment camp" (other sources call it "detention camp"). Surely you must have seen that source when you did your search for "jablonna poland camp". It's the very first hit. But regardless. Wrong war. Volunteer Marek  16:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

text: And hold up. Your second source lists camps at Strzałków, Brest, Wadowice, and Dąbie. These were ALL camps for UNR soldiers. They were the same camps that E-960's sources talk about (and call them "internment camps"). They MAY have included UGA, but they were specifically established to deal with Petliura soldiers. You can't complain about E-960 listing sources for UNR camps and then do same yourself. Volunteer Marek  16:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I quoted second source it clearly states UGA soldiers and does not mention UNR soldiers. The internment camps for friendly UNR soldiers were different: and have a different entry. Articles provide different locations for both types of camps. So according to Encyclopedia of Ukraine, UGA soldiers and their civilian sympathizers were held in concentration camps while UNR soldiers were in internment camps. The latter had better conditions. Your claim is incorrect. I’ll assume good faith and honest mistake.Faustian (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true but there's a plethora of other sources (in fact, most of them) which specifically refer to these particular camps as camps for UNR . In fact some of them were explicitly started for that purpose. There may have been some UGA soldiers which wound up in those camps (particularly since the situation was fluid and many individual soldiers went back and forth between various factions) but the fact (not a mistake) is that these were UNR camps. UNR camps are covered much more extensively in the literature than whatever camps for UGA were set up, because of the deal between Poland and Petliura. I think the source is either wrong or inaccurate. Maybe because UNR is much less popular in Ukraine than UGA, but that's just speculation. Volunteer Marek  18:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source you linked to listed various camps as UNR camps. The Encyclopedia of Ukraine also names those specific camps but separates them - concentration camps  were for Galicians (Brest, Wadowice), internment camps for UNR (Kalisz) - rather than lumping them together as the linked source does.Faustian (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "concentration camp"

message: After the war, in 1920-1921, Polish camps (often characterized as intermittent or sometimes concentration camps) held over one hundred thousand people. In many cases prisoners were denied food and medical attention. Some starved; others died of disease or committed suicide"Slatersteven (talk) 
17:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds good! I would change intermittent to internment. Thank you for your input.Faustian (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that (and yes it's internment). Volunteer Marek  18:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I would like to point to one other thing, in this same section, right above the reference to the Polish sites, is this passage: "Both sides conducted mass arrests of civilians. By July 1919, as many as 25,000 Poles ended up in Ukrainian concentration camps, in Zhovkva, Zolochiv, Mykulyntsi, Strusiv, Yazlovets, Kolomyya and Kosiv." Thus, to keep the text neutral, and consistent (and avoid future debates), I would recommend utilizing this reference source: Lemberg, Lwow, and Lviv 1914-1947: Violence and Ethnicity in a Contested City, and just say how this source puts it... prisoners at the "Polish camps", and "Ukrainian Camps". --E-960 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As we have three sources for Polish camps I would suggest we need three sources saying "Ukrainian concentration camps" (note a source that says that, not implies it).Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say that this looks rather bias, based per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight and "Sources may still have systemic bias problems."  English speaking academia ignores the subject of those Poles. So, in a Wikipedia article, facilities which held Ukrainian civilians are Polish "concentration camps", but facilities which held Polish civilians are Ukrainian "camps". I found this news article  which states: The people interred there [Poles] died in the Ukrainian internment camp in Kosachiv during the Polish-Ukrainian war of 1918-1919. So, it makes sense to call both internment camps, because it's blatant bias to call one "camps" and the other "concentration camps".--E-960 (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is bias, bias in the RS. If they do not call them concentration camps neither can we (read wp:or).Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Slatersteven, we can call them both "internment camps" or "camps" to ensure neutrality. We have sources for that. Also, user Volunteer Marek raised a good point "It also seems that even the Ukrainian primary documents referred to this as an internment camp although the author here changes it to "concentration" and doesn't follow his own primary sources" and user Piotrus stated "we have to consider WP:REDFLAG, such as the use of the term Polish concentration camps, which is certainly not an accepted term of reference to this among most historians. This term, if used (which I advise against), should be clearly attributed to Myroslav Shkandrij." As I mentioned before the use of this term is not historically accurate and is used to sensationalize a topic. --E-960 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And our reader will want to know what kind of camp, A Holiday Camp, and army camp? Camp is too vague, and trying to argue that because X is not called 1 we cannot call Y 1 is false NPOV. There may well be reasons why one type of camp is called a concentration camp and another is not, and we are not party to such deliberations.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: (comment to E-960):Second-guessing how a RS uses primary sources is itself original research. Article is based on what reliable secondary sources conclude.Faustian (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

text: We also have RS for concentration camp, NPOV does not mean we pretend one side did not say something in the name of false balance.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. We have reliable sources that refer to the Polish camps only as concentration camps and others that refer to them only as internment camps. So the compromise proposed above would accurately capture and report what RS say. So far no source refers to the Ukrainian camps as concentration camps.Faustian (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's called Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Perhaps, we can get more input form users Piotrus and Volunteer Marek on this. But, for the moment I have my doubts about the inclusion of this term. Also, perhaps they can find more sources to present in this discussion. --E-960 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is an essay, it is not a policy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Also (and I hope VM does not mind) he has agreed to my suggestion [].Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Slatersteven, it's bias, are you just going to call Ukrainian sites "camps"? Just above you said: "And our reader will want to know what kind of camp, A Holiday Camp, and army camp? Camp is too vague." I'd like to get more input form users Piotrus and MV. --E-960 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We call them what RS call them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I posted this elsewhere but the Encyclopedia of Ukraine has separate articles with Galician camps and with UNR camps and names the camps; they are not the same camps. According to Encyclopedia of Ukraine the Galician camps were terrible but the UNR camps did not have terrible conditions(which one would expect given that UNR was allied with Poland).Faustian (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Text

message: I think this main article has to be the most profound bit of hopelessly biased Polish propaganda on Wikipedia. The Poles were absolutely hated in Galicia by the Ruthenian population and the diplomatic archives and western newspaper reports for the 1919-1939 period suggest a guerilla war was carried on against the Polish occupying authorities throughout this time. So this ridiculous bit of propaganda has no merit whatsoever and is another example of how Wikipedia has allowed fanatical Polish nationalists to corrupt pages on it. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:C111:764F:2948:51EC (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: its only biased probably for you and if such a newspaper exists then i request sending it. Olek Novy (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Total bias