Talk:Act of restoration of the Ukrainian state

Title
When I first read the title I thought it would be about the events of 1990-91. I think the title needs to be more precise. It could be Proclamation of Ukrainian Statehood or Act of Proclamation of Ukrainian Statehood according to the actual name of the act. It should not be confused with Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine and Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine. --Greggerr (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Better yet, use the version established in English, which according to the 1987 source cited in the article is "The Restoration of the Ukrainian State in World War II". --Riurik(discuss) 06:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Riurik on that. By saying World War II in the title a year isn't needed either. Narking (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The big English-language histories:
 * Subtelny 1988:463 "...to proclaim, on 30 June 1941, the establishment of a Ukrainian state..."
 * Magocsi 1996:626 "...proclaimed in L’viv the existence of a sovereign Ukrainian state. Stets’ko managed to obtain support for the ‘new state’ from a Council of Seniors..."; "The akt of 30 June 1941, as the proclamation of the Ukrainian state came to be known..."
 * Yekelchyk 2007:141 "...OUN-B activists in the city proclaimed the creation of an independent Ukrainian state. ... demanded that they withdraw the declaration of independence."

I think the title ought to include state or statehood rather than independence, reflecting "derzhava". "Restoration" is part of the title, which was a statement of the akt's intent, but it is not a historical description of the event. I think this Wikipedia article is about the event, not just the document.

I suggest Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood, 1941, to help identify it to all readers when the title appears out of context, e.g., in category pages, article listings, etc. —Michael Z. 2008-05-09 04:53 z 

RECENT EDITS
JO

You recently added At Saturday 29, 1941 night, in abandoned by Soviet troops city Lviv entered Nachtigall_Battalion. Wehrmacht troops entered into the city only at morning Monday June 30, 1941. with a reference.

I find it difficult t understand how Saturday night could be the 29th and Monday could be the 30th. Please check your edits or at least read through them before you post. Bandurist (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So please fix the date but not remove well refrenced info - it's clear vandalism - type blanking.Jo0doe (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the date wrong or the day of the week wrong? This info will be hidden until you clarify it.  Bandurist isn't responsible for fixing yuor carelessness.Faustian (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

While - as regards Armstrong - he does not list mentioned by you details - so please avoid extenciveusage of not RS - namely The Restoration of the Ukrainian State in World War II. Published by Ukrainian Central Information Service, London 1987. ISBN 0-902322-35-4. See when Stetsko was honorary arrested - see the date of newspaper issue a week after proclamation - without any sabctions from GermansJo0doe (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Several allegations I'd like to get answer to

 * Lviv 60 kilometres from the border
 * actually – a “little beet more” – you can visit 1940 map of USSR

Depends from where you are measuring. From Peremysl to Lviv its 60 kilometers. Peremysl was on the border.


 * This proclamation, despite reflecting the aspirations of the Ukrainian people, did not however reflect the views of the German regime and was quashed within a few days and the interim Ukrainian administration was arrested
 * which aspiration, which Ukrainian people, number of “few days” – as far as mentioned below Stetsko was finally arrested in September 1941 in Berlin.

After 10 days he was put under house arrest before being sent to Berlin and the formally sent to Sachesenhausen. 10 days is "a few" days.


 * So, unanswered - which aspiration, which Ukrainian people? House arrest – interesting measures for SD and SIPO – DYK the reason of such provision – per SD and SIPO report it happened because OUN(B) and OUN(M) became an exterminate each other – because OUN(B) required a dictatorship of Bandera – while OUN(M) retaliate them. However both of them were a Reich property – so the damaging of such is a crime.   Which page of Armstrong?Jo0doe (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * John Alexander Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, Columbia University Press, 1963
 * a pages numbers please for every time when it was added.


 * new order in Europe
 * why removed Wiki-link?


 * A German SS Einsatzgruppe arrived in Lviv three days after the act of proclamation
 * a source please


 * 1) There are a number of versions of the Proclamation, published at the same time, each with textual differences.
 * Interesting but published at the same (in 1941) does not have any textual differences – all of them identical while post war – yes – as it appeared in the article.

No. The publication in Stanislavaiv published 10 days kater is different from the Lviv publication.
 * So – source for such comment


 * Section 3 of the Stanislaviv version is often omitted in Ukrainian Diaspora publications dealing with this subject.
 * As also a Lemberg, Tarnopol, Lutz and rest “versions” as all of them was the same.
 * So RS what Ukrainian Diaspora omit the Stanislaviv version.

The differences were pointed out in Kost Pankivsky's book "Vid derzhavy do komitetu" published in Munich. It is a highly critical work regarding the Proclamation, however I do not have a copy here in Canada with me. It will take me some tie to find it in a library here (If it hasn't been removed by someone.) 213.159.245.108 (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A source please. Interesting – but I can’t trace any difference in Lemberg and Statyslaviv version – could you provide a RS source which. – “Kost Pankivsky's book "Vid derzhavy do komitetu" published in Munich” hardly can be treated as such – critics cost nothing.Jo0doe (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the Ukrainian version of this article it quotes the different texts and their sources. Bandurist (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * UKR:WP as RS - funny and sad.
 * Any arguments on blanking?Jo0doe (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe spelling and grammar

 * The information you have has many mistakes - such as the dates, and times. It also has numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes. When you revert, you take no account of the typo corrections and spelling and grammatical corrections of other. For a more correct source from a Russian perspective I would suggest using S. Chuyev's book Ukrainskiy legion (Moscow, 2006). I also suggest you google Кость Панківський which no doubt you will enjoy. Bandurist (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mine - not. So - please limit your edits on spelling rather on censoring. I saw - you are not familiar with April OUN (B) meeting and General Instruction were appeared this text - so visit library and ask for Ukraine in WWII in documents Vol 1 and 2 also Splitting OUN (1939-40) (Rozkol OUN) and please assume WP:Truth in your comment. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean your ?


 * Why should he fix your spelling? If you're going to revert him, you should at least keep the spelling fixes that were made.Faustian (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * His own spelling - see diff. It can be done without blanking - as far as I can remember - it's your tactic of disruptive edits Jo0doe (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for admitting that you refer to fixing grammar and spelling mistakes as "tactic of disruptive edits."Faustian (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admiting that you engage in sneaky vandalism at edited by me article - it's clear personal attack and discruptive editsJo0doe (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Empty claims by a disruptive editor. Nothing new.Faustian (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be easier for you to put it upo in Russian on the Russian Wiki. At least I could understand you. Currently you de-encylopediaise all the articles you edit with your numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes and Russian Propaganda POV's Bandurist (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean provide full info and try to reach WP:NPOV instead of

discourse on the war and the Soviet past among the some of the children of the members of the post war Galician Ukrainian emigration; or directly participated in the destruction of the Jews during German occupation. Through a victimized national narrative as well as presentation of the Great Famine of 1932/1933, they have tried to compete in order to obscure the “dark sides” of the Ukraine’s national history and to counter accusations that their fathers collaborated with Germans.?

WP: it’s not right please for doing so – see WP:ISNOT. Would be glad if you note examples of Russian Propaganda. Everyone made a silly mistakes  - but it’s clear bad faith to remove under this mark well referenced but “undesired” by some info. Jo0doe (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A great quote but it is POV rather than fact. The ultimate goal of the Galician nationalist movement was the struggle for Ukrainian self determination and the formation of a Ukrainian National State. That is why they were called nationalists. Their mandate was not the destruction of Jews, or to destroy Poland or Russia or any other country or culture. Having said that, some people were indeed involve in various atrocities during the, but name me a culture that was not.

The Famine is an interesting case. It did not affect Western Ukraine. The Famine stopped at the border of Polish-Soviet border. Western Ukrainians have little direct personal knowledge of those times. It is the Eastern Ukrainians who had lived under the Soviet regime (in the Diaspora they may make up 10-20%) who have continued to remind people of this atrocity. My grandfather was an agronomist working outside of Lubny in Eastern Ukraine. He was in the Soviet Army when he was captured near Kyiv. He is not Galician, nor did he serve in the German Army, yet he remembered the 1930's and not just the Famine, but the terror that continued in that whole decade. Collaboration with the Germans - What would you call the Molotov-Ribentrop pact - the secret document that allowed Germany to invade Poland and in fact put an official start to WWII if not collaboration with the Germans? That one heinous document allowed so much bloodshed and horror, but then you are viewing history from your side of the fence I guess. Bandurist (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Any arguments on blanking?Jo0doe (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Jo0doe (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand what blanking means? Do you know the difference between blanking and reverting? Do you know the difference between rev erting and removing material? Bandurist (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Types of vandalism Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), using two or more different accounts and/or IP addresses at a time to vandalize, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states "rv vandalism" in the edit summary in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted. Jo0doe (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Blanking
 * Sneaky vandalism


 * Sounds like your personal confession, Jo0doe.Faustian (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

List of OR

 * On Monday 4.30 a.m. June 30, 1941 German troops of the Brandenburg-800 led by the Nachtigall Battalion entered Lviv, 60 kilometres from the former border.
 * This proclamation, despite reflecting the aspirations of the Ukrainian people, did not however reflect the views of the German regime and was quashed within a few days and the interim Ukrainian administration was arrested
 * Version of the “Act of Proclamation of Ukrainian State” published in Stanislaviv (now Ivano-Frankivsk) 10 days after its proclamation.
 * A German SS Einsatzgruppe arrived in Lviv three days after the act of proclamation but waited until July 9 before they put Yaroslav Stetsko and his deputy Lev Rebet initially under honorary arrest. On July 12 they were formally arrested. At the same time Stepan Bandera with several other Ukrainian nationalists were arrested in the General Government. They were assembled in Berlin where the Germans unsuccessfully tried to convince them to withdraw the Act of Proclamation. On September 15 they were dispatched to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. The Gestapo arrested hundreds of other Ukrainian nationalists who had participated in the process of "restoration" of the Ukrainian state
 * There are a number of versions of the Proclamation, published simultaneously, each with slight textual differences.
 * Or hided trough WP:bad faith tactic applied for a long time and in many accuracies by user:Faustian in article UPA – by adding ref to not RS or not WP:V or book which does not exist or which never was at editor possession
 * As a matter of fact – none of text appeared under John Alexander Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, Columbia University Press, 1963. actually does not exist in mentioned book – that in a reason why editor swiftly “forgot” to provide a page numbers  Jo0doe (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The above information is taken from a Russian source rather than a Ukrainian source - Chuyev's book on the Ukrainian Legion. It is not OR. Bandurist (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 8 DOes Chuyev's book on the Ukrainian Legion - is RS - does it published by Academic press?

Editors who are very weak in English
Question: Is there a Wikipedia policy regarding literacy levels of English. It is extremely difficult to collaborate with editors who do not have a good grasp of English. This leads to misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and methodology. This is very disruptive and impacts the development of articles.

If there is no guidance on this subject - maybe a new policy is required in this area.

Bobanni (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

???
So you suppose to translate 3. The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf HITLER which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite occupation.

The Ukrainian National Revolutionary Army which has been formed on the Ukrainian lands, will continue to fight with the ALLIED GERMAN ARMY against Moscovite occupation for a sovereign and united State and a new order in the whole world.
 * as

. The Ukrainian National Revolutionary Army which is being created on the Ukrainian soil, will continue to fight against Moscovite occupation for the sovereign and united State and a new, just order in the whole world. Long live the Ukrainian Sovereign United Ukraine! Long live the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists!

May be you choose a wrong version of WPJo0doe (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please use English words - ??? - can't read symbolic languages. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you move your info that doesn't belong in this article to the article on Ukrainian-German collaboration?Faustian (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean whole article-?Which one Ukrainian-German collaboration??? May be better spell Ukrainian Nationalists- German collaboration - per IMT data?Jo0doe (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article includes the Soviet POWs who worked as camp guards etc.Faustian (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So which one info that doesn't belong in this article? Jo0doe (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

John Alexander Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, Columbia University Press, 1963
Dear editors - you quite confidenent in cheating other with refs - could you please posess a book which you are use for this propose fst. Thank yourJo0doe (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article on Soviet-Fascist co-operation here title Bandurist (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Any success with a page(s) number?Jo0doe (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes repeatedly inserted in the article by cooperative of editors

 * On Monday 4.30 a.m. June 30, 1941 German troops of the Brandenburg-800 led by the Nachtigall Battalion entered Lviv
 * official data differ


 * members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists proclaimed Ukrainian independence.
 * independence and formation of pro-Nazi Ukraine it’s not the same as alike OUN and OUN-B


 * This proclamation did not reflect the views of the German regime and was quashed within a few days and the interim Ukrainian administration was arrested and dissolved – cited through - John Alexander Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, Columbia University Press, 1963.
 * no such wording in this book, no actually such facts are reliable at the mentioned term - “few days”


 * There are a number of versions of the Proclamation, published simultaneously, each with slight textual differences.
 * OR – all known published at the time in newspapers version are similar – while post-war – not


 * Section 3 of the Stanislaviv version is often omitted in Ukrainian Diaspora publications dealing with this subject.
 * see above – so claim about specifically Stanislaviv version it’s or


 * A blanking of half of article data directly related to the events-
 * clear attempts to use WP as a Nazi collaborators propaganda. Attempts to pose Nazi temporary project as exceptional event and collaborators as a victims.

''We greet the victorious German Army as deliver from enemy. We render our obedient homage to the government which has been erected. We recognize Mr.Yaroslav Stetsko as Head of State Administration of the Ukraine.'' Jo0doe (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not OUN-B data
Та ж сьогодні всьому хрещеному мирові відомо, що ніхто інший тільки якраз "бандерівці" мали домовлення з частиною німецького генерального штабу, що підпирали їх деякі німецькі військові кола, нікому іншому з-поміж українців тільки якраз Організації Степана Бандери дозволили творити два військові відділи з напів-українською командою і навіть робили їм деякі політичні надії. Пишуть про те самі теперішні і колишні "бандерівці"3 і нема в тому ані нічого тайного, ані нема чого відпекуватися того чи соромитися.

Вистане тут покликатися на брошуру п. н. "Дружини Українських Націоналістів у 1941-1942 роках", "Наша Книгозбірня", ч. 13, Мюнхен 1983. Крім того, в десятиріччя вибуху німецько-большевицької війни надруковано в "Українському Самостійнику" кільканадцять різних статтей і спогадів з того часу. Там скрізь знайдемо докази домовлення бандерівців з німцями, чого вони в тому часі вже не відпекувалися. Для прикладу беремо першу-ліпшу з тих статтей, от напр., Євгена Стахова "Місія ОУН у Варшаві" в одному з чисел "Українського Самостійника" за місяць серпень 1958.

'The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Its Attitude toward Germans and Jews: Iaroslav Stets’ko’s 1941 Zhyttiepys' in: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 23 (1999), nr. 3/4, pp. 149-184.
 * and Berkhoff, K.C. and M. Carynnyk

--Jo0doe (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:QS vs WP:RS
and the Holocaust Gabriel N. Finder; Alexander V. Prusin East European Jewish Affairs 2004 etc
 * The Restoration of the Ukrainian State in World War II. Published by Ukrainian Central Information Service, London 1987. ISBN 0-902322-35-4. vs 'The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Its Attitude toward Germans and Jews: Iaroslav Stets’ko’s 1941 Zhyttiepys' in: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 23 (1999), nr. 3/4, Collaboration in Eastern Galicia: The Ukrainian police

Claim about
 * a “restoration” but not “creation”
 * represent “post war version” of declaration – mean no National-Socialist Greater Germany nor Hitler etc
 * interim Ukrainian administration was arrested and dissolved – but in WP:RS – “

On 18 July 1941, Council of Seniors (Rada sen’ioriv), which had been established in Lwow on 6 July to advise the Stets’ko administration, met in Lwow to debate the shape of Ukrainian policy under German occupation. Some participants in this discussion were associated with OUN-B, while the others were Ukrainian political activists. This same council would petition German officials on 14 August, after the incorporation of eastern Galicia into the GG, to consider it the ‘political representativeof the Ukrainian people in Galicia’ and would pledge its loyal cooperation to Germany.
 * Minister of Information Oleksandr Hai-Holovko (no political affiliation) –

Oleksa Hai-Holovko [OUN-B, head of propaganda in Stets’ko’s administration]: Jews are very insolent … They have to be treated harshly … We must finish them off … In [eastern] Ukraine, marriages with Jewish women occur mainly in cities. Jewish women married Ukrainians in order to have a comfortable life. When the Ukrainians went bankrupt, they would divorce them.


 * Again OUN – but not OUN under Bandera in fact. Look like The Restoration of the Ukrainian State in World War II is another paper mimicry of the OUN-B“democracy”. Indeed we got a plenty of more reliable sourced on topicJo0doe (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting source
and especially that page – indeed backed by other non-doctored sources – excluding some facts anyway. So no 1987 version at all – no immediate arrests nor “freedom victims” Bandera and Stetsko etc. Again September 15 1941. Jo0doe (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Post war version of Act section
Is that  that can be seen after "STEPAN BANDERA" meant to be another reference to source number two ("The Restoration of the Ukrainian State in World War II ...")? If so, I can correct the markup for it, so long as someone confirms that that is what it is meant to be. It Is Me Here  t / c 14:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost correct - may be some minor deviation from "Armstrong text"Jo0doe (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, markup fixed - feel free to tweak as appropriate. It Is Me Here  t / c 21:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Friends!
Hi Friends, my name is Amit, a.k.a. I came here upon seeing the request filed for mediation by User:Jo0doe. Can someone please describe for me what the contentious sections are, so that we can get right down to solving the problem and then go our own merry editing ways :) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Title
Hello,

I would like to address the issue of the title of this article, apparently once again.

I suggest that this article be renamed "Declaration of Ukrainian Independence, 1941", for the following reasons:

a) The language is bold and declarative, using phrases such as "...the will of the Ukrainian people..." and "...all Ukrainian lands are united to form a Sovereign Ukrainian Government"; b) It clearly states that the purpose is the creation of an independent Ukraine (article 1); c) It clearly calls for a "sovereign Ukrainian government" - self determination, independence (article 1); d) It clearly establishes protocols for self-preservation (article 3.1) e) It repeatedly uses the phrase "sovereign Ukraine"; f) A governing body was announced, as described in this article.

This government was supported not only by Ukrainian military forces, but also by one of the most powerful regimes of the time. The fact that the relationship with Germany did not last more than a few weeks does not diminish the strength and boldness of this declaration, but actually strengthens it as the idea of independent Ukraine was more important to the signatories than a very useful military alliance.

I think that "proclamation" and "statehood" do not fit here: Proclamation is usually not used in the context of independence (or, for that matter, statehood), and statehood implies not being a territory nor state, rather than any idea of nation.

Because of aparent underlying idea of nationhood and nationalism in the text of the statement, I think the article should be titled "Declaration of Ukrainian Independence, 1941".

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the original. Your comments make sense.

Bandurist (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. If there are no arguments against, I will move the article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to add the new title: "Declaration of Ukrainian Independence, 1941". Hope that makes it clear. Horlo (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Post-war version of the act"
Hello,

In reading over the text provided in the "Postwar version of the act" there seem to be some serious language mistakes. I do not have access to the text to correct it. Could somebody who has access to this please make sure the grammar is correct?

The ref is John Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, 2nd edition: New York: Columbia University Press, 1963) pp.79-80. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've corrected the text according to the book, also English spellings like Stephen etc. Anyway now it's exactly like in Armstrong's book. Närking (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The text can also be found in the booklet "The restoration of the Ukrainian state in World War II" from 1987, but with some minor differences like Evhen, Kyiv, Lviv etc. Närking (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But here is a thought on the same thread - is it possible that this one publication does not represent "the postwar emigration"? Would not devoting an entire section to it give this one text undue weight? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in fact I really don't see a point in having the act repeated twice. There isn't that big difference from the original one except for the part about Hitler. I would say it's enough to mention the differences. Närking (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. However, I think that because this is one version of the act published - by all accounts due to the efforts of one individual - I think that this may be included in the section "Reactions to the Declararion". I will try to expand that section, please help. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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) 11:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Stecko.jpg