Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia/Archive 11

Requested move 24 August 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia → Murder of Poles and Jews in Volhynia and Galicia. Also discussed → Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Galicia. – Please read my detailed explanation from above. "Eastern Galicia" (as oppose to New Galicia) was an administrative unit of the Monarchy before World War One. – It is not a geographic region per se. The phrase "Volhynia and Galicia" as the epicentre of the massacres is supported by book authors Ivan Katchanovski et alii (above), Alexander Statiev, Stephen Rapawy, Timothy Snyder,, Ray Brandon & ‎Wendy Lower, Omer Bartov, and numerous other historians.  Poeticbent  talk 14:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Please note, the phrase used by Omer Bartov is "murder of the Jews and Poles of Galicia and Volhynia" (page 65). The phrase used by Alexander Statiev is "extermination of Poles in Volhynia and Galicia" (page 88). Actual descriptions vary.  Poeticbent  talk 14:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Murder of Jews was a related but not the same phenomenon (why not add murder of followers of Andriy Atanasovych Melnyk, UPA also did this) and this article is large enough as it is.  Moreover, "murder", in the English language, has a connotation of involving singular events (unless you want to use "mass murder" although even this would not accurately describe events as widespread as what occurred in Volynia and Eastern Galicia).  Killing an individual or a family is murder.  A single terrorist act or, at most, related terrorist acts in close proximity to each other, involving many deaths, could be described as mass murder. This event would not be correctly described using that word.  I don't have a problem with changing Eastern Galicia to Galicia.Faustian (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Why no add ..." because it's a separate but related topic, about which a separate article could probably be written.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment per, the article can also be moved to → Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Galicia with both of our support !votes.  Poeticbent  talk 05:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes.Faustian (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with Faustian. I would add that this was an operation directed specifically against Poles. Bartov doesn't state that UPA organized massacres/ethnic cleansing/genocide of Jews. He writes (note 70) that UPA recruited widely among former policemen and SS-men who participated in the Holocaust. During the massacres, Jews hiding among Poles were killed sometimes as Jews and sometimes as Poles (Snyder in Brandon&Lower, p. 101.).
 * I think "Eastern Galicia" is a more precise term. It denotes the territory inhabited by a Ukrainian majority, and roughly corresponds to the area of historic Halychyna (Principality of Halych/Galician Rus) and part of Habsburg Galicia that today belongs to Ukraine (to understand the extend of Austrian Galicia, one should look at this map). Some authors use the terms Eastern Galicia and Galicia interchangeably, for example Bartov and Snyder. Bartov uses "Eastern Galicia" throughout his book, in chapter title and when he talks about the region in the Second Polish Republic p. 18. Snyder in "Reconstruction of Nations": Part Two [The Embattled Ukrainian Borderland] focuses on eastern Galicia and Volhynia" (p. 6), A researcher who wished to learn the names of murdered Polish civilians in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia could begin with... (p. 325).  On the other hand, Motyka employs only the term "Galicja Wschodnia"  (Eastern Galicia) and it might be misleading to translate his words as "Galicia".Hedviberit (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bartov uses Snyder and Magocsi in his book and speaks overwhelmingly about "Galicia", and "Jewish Galicia" (page 17) not so much "Eastern Galicia", per link provided. Notably, he also acknowledges the fact that "Western Galicia" was a "province" of the Habsburg Empire from 1772 (page 3). It was not a "geographic region" in that sense. The region around Lublin is known as "Lesser Poland", like I already explained.  Poeticbent  talk 12:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support neutralizing per WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR. "Massacres" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, it's just emotive language not consistently used in the sources, and we've renamed many similar articles for the same reason. Even if the loaded term is kept in this case, support also the shortening, per WP:CONCISE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many historians/researchers who use the term "massacres/massacre" to describe the killings of Poles by the UPA. I would argue that this is the closest to WP:COMMONNAME (the most recognizable). Some examples: David Marples ("Volhynia massacres") p. 214, Uilleam Blacker et al. ed, Andriy Portnov, ("Volhynia massacres of Poles") pp. 8, 240, Daniel Bloxham ed. ("Volhynia, massacres of Poles") pp. 124-125, Lubomyr Hajda ("massacres of Poles in Volhynia") p. 59,  Paul R. Bartrop, Steven Leonard Jacobs ("Volhynian Poles, massacres") p. 2042, Alexander Mikaberidze, ("Volhynian Poles,  Massacres of 1943") p. 692,  Alexander Gogun, ("massacres that were carried out by the UPA in 1943-44") p. 171, Karel C. Berkhoff ("anti-Polish massacres") p. 297, Serhii Plokhy ("Volhynian massacres of 1943-44") p. 296, Guntram H. Herb, Dawid K. Kaplan  ("UPA initiated Polish ethnic cleansing (know as the Volhynian massacre)")  p. 722, George Sanford, ("Volhynian (West Ukraine) massacres") p. 101, Alexandra Wangler ("the massacres [of Poles] reached their peak...") pp. 162-163, Ewa Ochman, "massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia" p. 180, Per Anders Rudling ("OUN-UPA massacres of the Volhynian and Galician Poles", "the UPA massacres of Poles"), , Paweł Markiewicz ("the massacres of ethnic Poles in the Volhynia") p. 77, Keith Lowe, Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II, ("The massacre of Poles") , H. Zeynep Bulutgil, ("UPA's massacres against the Poles in Volhynia") p. 107, Andreas Kapler, ("massacres among the Polish population of Volhynia").'' p. 8, Franziska Bruder, ("The massacres in Volhynia...") p. 41. Hedviberit (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoa there! Not sure where you get that "massacres" is not the common name used in sources. Indeed, as Hedviberit above shows "massacres" is the most commonly used way to refer to this in the literature.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The murder of Poles is a distinct event from the Holocaust. Poles were primarily murdered by Ukrainian insurgents (UPA), while Jews were mostly killed by Ukrainian collaborators (Galician SS), two very different organizations with different motives. Also, this request is a very dangerous approach, in which Wikipedia editors try to re-brand history on their own… there is plenty of online articles and references that recognize the Volhynia Massacres as a distinct event. Using the same logic why not merge WWI and WWII articles under one article called World Wars.--E-960 (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: Jewish victims . Quote from  Poeticbent  talk  18:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your reference only confirms the fact that UPA primarily targeted Poles, while stating that Jews, along with Ukrainias who hid Poles were also murdered… again, the main goal of this ethnic cleansing campaign was to target Poles, who themselves were trying to hide. --E-960 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't mind the massacres in the title. I made the request also to find out exactly what others think about the variety of well-sourced alternatives available in books. However, that does not change the fact that the scope of it was broader. Here's another quote about the Jewish victims from  Poeticbent  talk  19:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, that may be true UPA also killed Jews (as well as Ukrainians who did not share their ideology), but these are two distinct issues (Ethnic cleansing of Poles by Ukrainian nationalists vs. Collaboration of Ukrainian nationalists with Nazis in the Holocaust). Mixing the two policies does none of the victim groups justice, and only causes more confusion. Your quote from above only confirms this "Some of these Jews" this implies that many more Jews were killed under different circumstances by UPA. --E-960 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the article content. Many historians confirm the same historical record. Jews were targeted at par with the Poles. The smaller number of casualties can only be attributed to the Holocaust and the wholesale annihilation of predominantly Polish Jews in the gas chambers of Operation Reinhard. But, the stats do not change the fact that that is what the WP:RS confirm, and you are just WP:CHERRYPICKING.  Poeticbent  talk  14:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Poeticbent, this article has been originally set up to address the subject matter associated with Polish Ukrainian relations. No need to add other issues to… it's like taking the Armenian Genocide article and insisting that it gets renamed to "Armenian and Kurdish Murders", just to fit some individual narrative/POV. So, in the mean time, please stop trying to insert items related to this POV into the article while the discussion is going on, there is nothing wrong with the article focusing on the Polish issue. Also, it might be a good idea just to create a separate article regarding UPA and Jews to cover that separate and complicated issue. --E-960 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article, section 'UPA and Jews' the first sentence reads: There is a lack of consensus among historians about the involvement of the UPA in the massacre of Western Ukraine's Jews. As I suggested earlier, having two separate articles might be the correct option in this case. --E-960 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the "murder" naming. "Massacres" is definitely the most commonly used term in English language sources. Also oppose the "Poles AND Jews" naming. Yes, UPA-B murdered/massacred both. But these were distinct phenomenon/actions. The murder of Jews took place mostly with future UPA-B members working as auxiliary police for the Germans (some were clandestinely in UPA-B already); that belongs in the article on Holocaust in Ukraine. The massacres which are the subject of this article took places as a result of specific "anti-Polish action" decided on by the UPA-B. Ambivalent on "Galicia" vs "Eastern Galisia". There were significant differences in how this played out around Lviv and Tarnopil vs Malopolska. But the two were closely connected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Estimates of casualties, Ukrainians killed by Poles

 * What about Ukrainians killed by Ukrainians? Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The only estimate I've seen was a brief comment by Snyder in one of his books. This area doesn't seem to have been really researched thoroughly.Faustian (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sluzhba Bezpeky describes several cases of murdering Ukrainians. Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there aren't many estimates of total numbers killed, other than Snyder's brief comment which seems to have been unique and rather questionable (he never repeated it anywhere else, and there is no corroboration from any other sources).Faustian (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

BBC News article / Notable examples of bad reporting
Adam Easton (a guy who hates Poland because he had hoped to become a correspondent in Honolulu instead of Warsaw) wrote in 2013 this manipulative article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23267472 It states that UPA killed 40 000 Poles and then the Poles "(...) retaliated and the conflict killed up to 100,000 people in total." It reads as if Ukrainians were the main victims in Volyn massacre. The reason I mention this is that maybe the wikiarticle should include a paragraph on notable examples of bad reporting on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.29.230.57 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an anonymous blurb with no source of information, no agency, and no author. Adam Easton is mentioned in it; he is not the author of the blurb. In Wikipedia, we do not acknowledge such crap. Scores of Holocaust deniers operate in the English speaking world spreading lies of no significance whatsoever. If you wish, you can contact BBC News and report factual error with their own online story at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/. Thanks,  Poeticbent  talk 19:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Background section
Background section starts with sentence that Galicia and Volhynia were formed as disputed territories... This is based on whose definition?? And how exactly territories are formed in order to exist as "disputed territories"? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Casimir the Great was the first King of Poland who become the Ruthenian Lord and the Galicia with Volhynia did not become Galicia and Volhynia, but rather Ruthenian Voivodeship meaning voivodeship of Rus (undisputedly). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. 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/20160401045104/http://www.volhyniamassacre.eu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/5199/The-July-1943-genocidal-operations-of-the-OUN-UPA-in-Volhynia.pdf to http://www.volhyniamassacre.eu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/5199/The-July-1943-genocidal-operations-of-the-OUN-UPA-in-Volhynia.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812013953/http://www.volhyniamassacre.eu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/5198/Combat-involvement-of-Polands-27th-Infantry-Division-of-the-Volhynia-Home-Army-against-the-UPA-in-the-light-of-the-27ths-entire-combat-trail.pdf to http://www.volhyniamassacre.eu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/5198/Combat-involvement-of-Polands-27th-Infantry-Division-of-the-Volhynia-Home-Army-against-the-UPA-in-the-light-of-the-27ths-entire-combat-trail.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815051659/http://archiwumcaw.wp.mil.pl/biuletyn/b28/b28_6.pdf to http://archiwumcaw.wp.mil.pl/biuletyn/b28/b28_6.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.wolyn.ovh.org/opisy/janowa_dolina-03.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161019222540/http://poland.pl/tourism/history-poland/it-miracle-i-am-alive/ to http://poland.pl/tourism/history-poland/it-miracle-i-am-alive/
 * Added tag to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/16.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130321064413/http://lib.oun-upa.org.ua/gogun/dis_r02.html to http://lib.oun-upa.org.ua/gogun/dis_r02.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812015408/http://www.volhyniamassacre.eu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/5204/Volhynian_Massacres-Basic_Information.pdf to http://www.volhyniamassacre.eu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/5204/Volhynian_Massacres-Basic_Information.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=25096
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090811132525/http://stowarzyszenieuozun.wroclaw.pl/wystawa_spis.htm to http://stowarzyszenieuozun.wroclaw.pl/wystawa_spis.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mw.ua/1000/1030/37668/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wolgal.pl/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-kresy.pl/wolyn/english.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. 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 tag to http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/dodatki/plus_minus_010714/plus_minus_a_7.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170810092013/http://www.archives.gov.ua/Archives/Dzerelna_baza.php to https://www.archives.gov.ua/Archives/Dzerelna_baza.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong citation
In the beginning of the article, the phrase "the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, whose goal as specified at the Second Conference of the OUN-B on 17–23 February 1943 (or March 1943 according to other sources) was to purge all non-Ukrainians from the future Ukrainian state.[10]" refers to the book by Henryk Komański and Szczepan Siekierka, Ludobójstwo dokonane przez nacjonalistów ukraińskich na Polakach w województwie tarnopolskim w latach 1939–1946 (2006), at pg. 203.

Page 203 of Ref. [10] says nothing about the Second Conference of the OUN-B. This should be corrected or removed, if correction is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.82.134 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

more recent estimates of the number of Poles killed
"The Institute of National Remembrance estimates that between 74,000 and 104,000 Poles were killed" this number is long obsolete. Most likely, 100,000 Poles were killed in Volhynia, Eastern Galicia, Polesie, and the Lublin region. This number is supported by Grzegorz Motyka and IPN. http://volhyniamassacre.eu/zw2/history/179,The-Effects-of-the-Volhynian-Massacres.html

"Some extreme assessments of the number of Polish people as high as 300,000" This number is exaggerated. This number is based on an old source from 1990. In my opinion, this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mat0018 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ukrainians murdered by Ukrainians
Some Ukrainians were murdered by Ukrainian nationalist because they helped Poles or refused to kill their Polish family memebers. Sluzhba Bezpeky is sometimes accused. Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC) According to he book Genocide and Rescue in Wołyń: Recollections of the Ukrainian Nationalist Ethnic Cleansing Campaign Against the Poles During World War II there exists a list of 9,018 of names.Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Reconciliation

 * 2003 Kewaśniewski
 * black hole
 * 2018 Duda

Andrzej Duda refused?

 * Unsourced
 * It was Poroshenko, who didn't participate in the anniversary but went to Poland.Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

significant number of the Ukrainian Orthodox clergy
What did the Uniate clergy do?Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Slavs can't write English! The article is weird!
"In April they moved to the area of Krzemieniec, Rivne, Dubno and Lutsk.[73] Between late March and early April 1943, killing approximately 7,000 unarmed men, women, and children in its first days.[74]"

I not understand!--Adûnâi (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

To all Polish from Ukrainian
History is History and cannot be changed. No matter how much you would want to

For years russian accounts were operating online to demonize both Ukraine and Poland. Articles were severely edited against Ukraine.

It's however important to keep in mind - Polish-Ukraine peace pact - Treaty of Warsaw (1920) when two brother countries stood together

After that, Russia got involved - invaded Ukraine and Belarus. And Poland broke the agreement (Treaty of Warsaw) by signing Peace of Riga.

So Poland disregarded a 1920 ToW act and occupied Ukrainan territory despite promise not to, in favor of Russia. Poland didnt keep promise

What had been Poles doing in occupied part of Ukraine? Sure - you may not like to hear that as it will not be different from Volhynia case.

We both made mistakes. We must make sure not to make them again. As the only beneficiary of our bad relationships is now Russia.

Poland and Ukraine must stand together. 178.92.184.117 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM. Instead of posting one thoughts, please consider improving various related articles, such as about the 1920 peace treaty. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Genocide?
Re:. I agree this may be a controversial label, but I don't think should remove mentions that some scholars call it such from the article entirely. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly fine with attributed use of the term. The bottom paragraph of the lede uses this attributed (to IPN + Polish Parliament) + we have a whole Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia section discussing this. However, as the label is contested (genocide actually being a distinct minority in my reading) - it can not be stated in our voice. The lede is probably unbalanced in that the last paragraph does not state that most scholars do not see this as genocide. Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Translation: "the lede does not reflect my extremist POV so I'm gonna claim it's "unbalanced" and make WP:TENDENTIOUS edits". Sources please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article already discusses this issue and has sources. If at all, WP:ONUS is on you to show we should be using this in our voice. However -
 * Katchanovski, Ivan. "Terrorists or national heroes? Politics and perceptions of the OUN and the UPA in Ukraine." Communist and Post-Communist Studies 48.2-3 (2015): 217-228.
 * Rudling, Per Anders. "Historical representation of the wartime accounts of the activities of the OUN–UPA (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists—Ukrainian Insurgent Army)." East European Jewish Affairs 36.2 (2006): 163-189.
 * McBride, Jared. "Peasants into Perpetrators: The OUN-UPA and the Ethnic Cleansing of Volhynia, 1943–1944." Slavic Review 75.3 (2016): 630-654.
 * All discuss genocide vs. ethnic cleansing in this context and do not support genocide. Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Article shows only Polish side of the story with HUGE exageration.
Actions taken in Polish-occupied parts of Ukraine Most sources used in this article are not reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.86.34 (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The massacre actually did happened in IIWW. Then, German-occupied parts of Poland (Wołyń). Facts first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.246.67.159 (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Response from Ukraine
Ping User:Faustian, could you review this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Volhynian Jews
Which article describes the murder of Volhynian Jews mentioned but not hyperlinked from this article? - - GI
 * Good point. This needs more coverage. Ping User:Buidhe on the off chance they would like to stub something or maybe there is a link we can add already? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

News articles...
If it is inadmissible to use non-peer reviewed sources to cover contemporary memory of the events, then you will have to axe most of the info about the Polish government's commemoration as well, since that is cited to news articles. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Portnov source
The article states: "In other words, the “anti-Polish operation” of the UPA was based on the nationalist logic to claim rights to land on the basis of ethnic purity and additionally inspired by the anti-Polish sentiments and experience of discriminatory politics of the interwar Polish state where people of Ukrainian origin had reasons to feel themselves “second-class citizens”.[4]"

The note states: "[4] Inter-war Poland failed to fulfill its international promise to open the Ukrainian University in L`viv, tended to cut down Ukrainian language schools, in late 1930s even destroyed more than one hundred Orthodox churches. See more in Ryszard Torzecki, Kwestia ukraińska w Polsce w latach 1923–1929 (Kraków, 1989); Jerzy Tomaszewski, Ojczyzna nie tylko Polaków: Mniejszości narodowe w Polsce w latach 1918–1939 (Warszawa, 1985); Mirosława Papierzyńska-Turek, Sprawa ukraińska w Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej, 1922–1926 (Kraków, 1979)."

Seems to me that this sentence doesn't make sense unless he meant to write "anti-Ukrainian sentiments". It's also doubtful that there was much anti-Polish prejudice in interwar Poland, a country run by Poles on rather ethnocentric lines.

This is the only source cited so far to support anti-Polish prejudice as a cause of this event. As opposed to various peer-reviewed articles per above which don't mention it at all. At minimum, this is awfully shaky ground to pin the #1 cause according to Wikipedia. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You’re engaging in original research. Here, use parentheses to separate clauses of the sentence: “inspired by (anti-Polish sentiment) and (experience of discriminatory policies)”
 * Rather than claiming that the source “made an error”, why not just take it at face value. The “anti-Polish (I mean it says it right there - VM) operation” was inspired/caused by:
 * 1. Claims to land based on nationalist notions of ethnic purity
 * 2. Anti-Polish sentiments
 * 3. Experience of discriminatory politics of interwar Poland.
 * This is what the source says. Twisting it to mean something else is OR.  Volunteer Marek   19:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Responding to "It's also doubtful that there was much anti-Polish prejudice in interwar Poland". Since Polish government treated most if not all ethnic minorities poorly (like most other countries of that time...), it is reasonable to assume those minorities would harbor anti-Polish sentiments. Just like Poles during the partition period had plenty of anti-partitioner sentiment. In your very quote, there is information about religious persecution - you don't think the Ukrainian minority, having seen their churches burned/closed, wouldn't harbor some anti-Polish sentiments? Ps. Of course the source is correct, the author meant anti-Polish not anti-Ukrainian, it is logical - and it is seriously a breach of WP:V/OR to take a source, conclude there is an error, and cite it for opposite what is says 'because we, the editors, think he author made a mistake'. C'mon. PPS. Nobody is denying, btw, that there were anti-Ukrainian sentiments in interwar Poland (and later) too - but this is not what this particular quote is about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , if you have doubts, reach out to Andrii Portnov for clarification. Otherwise, the source is what it is. El_C 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently ethnic cleansing of Poles had nothing to do with ethnicity
User:Buidhe keeps trying to remove/shame tag the statement that these killings were motivated by anti Polish ethnic prejudice

First, they ask for a source in info box, even though the claim is already sourced in the text

Then, they claim that a source that they themselves added is not sufficient. This is at best moving goal posts.

Then they claim that the source, which, again, they themselves added, “made an error”. Apparently only in this part of the article because they’re happy to use other parts of the article. . They then make a strange claim about “Snyder”. I presume this means the historian Timothy Snyder. Timothy Snyder is not mentioned on this page anywhere. I have no idea what specific article or work by Snyder Buidhe is referring to. You can’t revert and make edits on the basis of sources you haven’t bothered to provide.

From the context it seems like Buidhe has in mind some source - which they haven’t provided - which doesn’t mention anti Polish prejudice explicitly and instead goes into detail on other aspects of the killing. Ok. But “source doesn’t mention X” is not the same as “source says it’s not X”. I can’t comment further on this since Buidhe hasn’t even bothered to provide the source in question.  Volunteer Marek  19:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Snyder source is cited in the lead of this article, and is the same one that we were discussing in Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment. Yes, I believe that a stronger source is needed to justify the prominent placement of this cause before all others, when the sources that I have read mostly disagree with that interpretation. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You added a source, and now you’re objecting to it because it turns out it says something you don’t agree with.
 * You haven’t provided any sources which “disagree with that interpretation”
 * We weren’t really discussing Snyder on anti-Polish sentiment. There is an old discussion on the talk there between me and... indef banned user Icewhiz.
 *  Volunteer Marek  20:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To dispel all doubt, I am referring to this article by Snyder. The article cites various causes, but never mentions ethnic, racial, or religious hatred. The current infobox placement implies that the #1 cause is anti-Polish sentiment (As opposed to Ukrainian nationalism, Ukrainian irredentism, etc., which sources say is more significant). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article repeatedly refers to Ukrainian “integral nationalism”. What do you think was “integral” to that nationalism? And the purpose of that article is not to explain the causes of the massacres, it’s to explain why there was no possibility of Polish-Ukrainian cooperation during the occupation. An entirely different question.  Volunteer Marek   05:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI this is a strawman argument, I never said that this event "had nothing to do with ethnicity" but that according to sources, anti-Polish sentiment was not the main cause. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * oh ok. Quote: “if you look at actual research into the causes of genocide and mass atrocities, ethnic hatred is just one cause, and not usually the primary one.” <— Buidhe. And that’s incorrect.
 * You also have not presented a single source which says that “anti Polish sentiment was not the main cause”. Snyder most certainly does not say that.  Volunteer Marek   21:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Snyder the primary cause "was the basic disagreement between Ukrainians and Poles over the legitimate control of particular territories, sharpened by the Poles’ uncompromising belief in their continuing right to lands populated by Ukrainians and their fear of making concessions in time of war." Therefore, according to him, the primary cause isn't anti-Polish sentiment. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Snyder does not say that this was a “primary cause”. You added that part yourself. That’s why it’s not included in your quotation. Stop trying to misrepresent sources and misreporting what’s in them.  Volunteer Marek   01:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh Wow, it gets even worse. That paragraph you quoted, ISN’T EVEN about reasons for the massacre! It’s about something entirely else. But you’re here pretending that the source is talking about reasons for the massacres in that paragraph. This is a straight up attempt to misrepresent a source.  Volunteer Marek   01:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly clear, the paragraph quoted above is Snyder’s explanation for why Polish and Ukrainian undergrounds could not have cooperated against potential common enemies, Nazis and Soviets. It is NOT an explanation for why the massacres happened as Buidhe claims.  Volunteer Marek   17:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

By saying that the reason was "anti Polish ethnic prejudice", we implicitly assume some nations are good (devoid of ethnic prejudices), and some nations are bad. That is not what we are allowed to do here. Obviously, "anti Polish ethnic prejudice" could not be an ultimate reason (if VM doesn't want to say Ukrainians are bad guys), it by itself was a consequence of past historical events. Without diving too deeply into XVI-XVIII centuries history, a more immediate reason is obvious: the ultranationalistic policy of the Second Polish republic, which suppressed all ethnic groups except ethnic Poles was quite sufficient to provoke strong anti-Polish prejudice in non-Poles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We assume no such thing either implicitly nor explicitly and I have no idea why you think so. Clearly there is such a thing as ethnic prejudice. Clearly that prejudice sometimes finds expression in deadly outcomes. How you get from that to “some nations are good, some are bad”, I have no idea. Anyway that’s all original research.  Volunteer Marek   01:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And if there was something which “provoked” “anti Polish prejudice” (there very well may have) then that means that... “anti Polish prejudice” was a major factor, no?  Volunteer Marek   01:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Polish authorities destroyed Ukrainian churches, punitively punished the Ukrainian populace, and colonized Volhynia with ethnic Polish military settlers who took land from Ukrainians by force.--Alpha Pasha (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) (blocked sockpuppet)
 * Riiiggghhhhjttt. Account with very few edits pushing over the top POV in violation of ArbCom restriction. Not surprised you’re here.  Volunteer Marek   05:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The Polish government ethnically cleansed surviving Ukrainians after the war also.--Alpha Pasha (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC) (blocked sockpuppet)
 * Hey there buddy.  Volunteer Marek   05:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

With that distraction out of the way and with that particular sock back in the drawer (for now), let me say this: I take a dim view of the edit warring and the communicating via edit summaries, and. VM, for you, especially, this is not a good look so soon after the Committee has rescinded your ban. I realize that you are not a strong believer in WP:ONUS and the general supremacy of longstanding text in the course of content disputes (no idea which of you it favours here, btw), but there's not really a way around it. I could always just Consensus required the shit out of these pages, so you all may as well go with the flow. El_C 07:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am a strong believer in having verifiable sources that explicitly support any content in the article, regardless of how obvious it may seem to some editors. I thought that this was basic Wikipedia policy. A peer-reviewed or other strong source should be required per the Poland article restrictions. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if in the course of seeking Arbitration enforcement, you are able to clearly and convincingly explain to prospective admin/s specific failures in living up to the sourcing requirements, swift action (or at the very least, an admonishment) may follow. But my sense is that getting there is likely to be a not insignificant challenge more often than not. El_C 16:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:El C, The “long standing version” would be this one (September 20, 2020), before major changes made by Buidhe without consensus. In this particular case I am not the one who’s challenging a long standing version. If WP:ONUS applies then that is the version which should be restored (although I’m ok with SOME of their edits)
 * I also don’t understand how Buidhe can I unironically state, quote
 * ”A peer-reviewed or other strong source should be required per the Poland article restrictions.”
 * when they are the ones who added the non peer reviewed source themselves here, here and here (at least). Not only that but they then edit warred (not with me) to keep that source in the article here, with the edit summary that EXPLICITLY claimed that it was ok to use this non peer reviewed source!
 * So... it’s not that Buidhe wants to use only peer reviewed source. They’re perfectly happy to use non peer reviewed source themselves. But when it turns out that the same exact source actually says something they disagree with, then all of sudden it becomes “we should only use peer reviewed sources” and “the source made an error” (but of course still wants to keep it for their edits)
 * Either we can use the source or we can’t. You can’t say “I get to use non peer reviewed sources, but everyone else cannot use the same sources”.
 * That, and Buidhe making major changes to the article, is the issue here. Note that this problem is not specific to this article. Buidhe has started a dozen disputes in the past month+, with a diverse number of editors and each case involves them making major changes to longstanding text, then edit warring, then digging in on the talk page and refusing to discuss constructively or work towards compromise. See for example their edit warring at Ethnic cleansing and the comments made there by Debresser . Note in particular that second edit summary which concisely describes the problem with Buidhe’s approach to editing.
 * Youre right, I’m not a defender of “long standing version”. But here the roles are kind of reversed. And my objection is based on quality of edits, not text-tenure.
 * (There’s also the issue of an attempt to misrepresent a source above, with the quote by Timothy Snyder, but that’s just icing on the cake)
 *  Volunteer Marek  17:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My position, as stated above, is that it's impossible to write an article comprehensive on modern day responses (such as the Polish parliament resolution on genocide label) without using somewhat less reliable sources. However, for historical events, the article sourcing standards should be strictly adhered to. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But who can tell "quality of edits"? The point is that "text tenure" is often all an outsider has at their disposal to make an initial determination geared toward curtailing edit warring. And often even this initial determination itself may not be immediately forthcoming in the course of disputes. That is, in part, the point I've attempted to get across directly above. Because anyone can say (and they almost always do) that it is their source and/or source interpretation which represents the prevailing historiography and so on. I mean, try to view it from my perspective: I didn't even know that this article existed until yesterday (and even now, I have only read the opening paragraph). Possibly, I learned about the massacres somewhere at some point, but if I did, I have no firm recollection of it. And I doubt you'd be able to find (m)any admins who do. So, it is a bit redundant for either one of you to make this or that claim about this or that source while expecting anyone from the outside looking in to make sense of it. Who can really tell? I certainly cannot. I think much of this problematic stems from an overall overestimation of available volunteer resources (be it from an enforcement perspective or otherwise). I any case, any requests for enforcement that fail to be impeccably documented and succinctly summarized are unlikely to gain any traction, one way or another. And, of course, this also pertains to the forum in which the complaint is submitted. That matters a lot, too. Making a complaint in some article talk page is unlikely to yield much of anything. That is what AE, AN and ARCA are for El_C 18:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if we go with “text tenure” and WP:ONUS then the version from September 20 should be restored until Buidhe can get consensus for their “bold” edits. And in fact I think for SOME of these, that shouldn’t be hard. My main concern here is that
 * 1) you can’t insist on a particular source in one of your edits, then turn around and claim that the source isn’t sufficiently reliable when someone else uses it and
 * 2) misrepresenting a source as with Snyder above, by quoting a portion that is about something else as if it was about the causes of the massacres. I think these two are fairly basic, minimal, standards.  Volunteer Marek   18:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Many sources are reliable for some claims but not others. Per Arbcom decision, the article sourcing requirements apply strictly to all events in the designated time frame. (E.g. XX people died in this massacre in 1943) But for postwar events, it's not so clear (the Polish parliament voted, in 2016, to label YY event of 1943 a genocide). I would count that as a 2016 event rather than a 1943 one. I stated this position clearly long before the current dispute.
 * 2) As for Snyder's POV, I presented additional sources below. He stated that one has to look at "political history rather than ancient hatreds" for the causes of this event. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You’re trying to cherry pick when a particular source can be used and when it cannot. Unsurprisingly your conclusion is that it is okay to use a source when you’re the one using, but it’s not okay to use it when someone else wants to use the same source.
 * Regardless, per previous decisions at AE, magazine/newspaper articles written by professional historians DO in fact satisfy the sourcing requirements. So, IMO, we can use this source. But we can use it regardless of whether the editor using the source is called “Buidhe” or “Volunteer Marek”. You can’t try to have your cake and eat it too.
 * As for Snyder, I don’t know how the fact that you “presented additional sources below” changes the fact that you tried to misrepresent him with a quotation by pretending it was about the massacres whereas in fact it was about something else.  Volunteer Marek   18:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As for Snyder, I don’t know how the fact that you “presented additional sources below” changes the fact that you tried to misrepresent him with a quotation by pretending it was about the massacres whereas in fact it was about something else.  Volunteer Marek   18:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * On closer look, I'm not even sure the sourcing requirements actually apply to this subject. In WP:APL, the Committee seems to define this topic area (when they finally do, eventually) as encompassing the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. But the subject only seems to mention Jews in passing — there isn't even a section devoted to them in the article. El_C 15:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian nationalism as the main cause
A big problem with the theory that anti-Polish sentiment specifically is the main cause of the events, other minority groups such as Jews and Volhynian Czechs were also killed by OUN. (McBride does not refer to "anti-Polish sentiment" or any variation in his paper). He also states, " Compelled by the fascist movements of central Europe, these leaders envisioned not a democratic Ukraine that would include longstanding Jewish, Polish, and German historical minorities, but an ethnically homogenous Ukraine instead. OUN theoreticians like Mykola Stsibors΄kyi prophesized in 1939 that “foreign parasitic growth” in the Ukrainian nation such as the “large part of the Russian, Polish, and other immigrants” were to be killed early in the forthcoming national revolution... Although the OUN-B had envisioned the removal of Poles from western Ukraine as necessary for creating a Ukrainian state for over a decade, it was the following circumstances in Volhynia in 1943 that enabled it to come to fruition. [mentions three events, none of which have anything to do with anti-Polish sentiment]."

Snyder's paper "The Causes of Ukrainian-Polish Ethnic Cleansing 1943", states: "The OUN-B, true as ever to its radicalism, interpreted the party programme in a more decisive fashion than the OUN-M, and followed a more ruthless strategy. It meant to pre-empt the  return of Polish statehood by expelling the Poles from west  Ukraine before the war was over. A guideline for OUN-B task  forces composed just before the German invasion of the Soviet  Union, in May 1941, indicates the desirability of the removal of  'Poles in the western Ukrainian regions, who have not aban-  doned their dreams of rebuilding a Greater Poland at the  expense of Ukrainian lands'.44 By 1941, having experienced  Soviet occupation, the OUN-B no longer saw Poles as the main  enemy: but they were still to be removed, as potential allies of  Soviet power. The OUN-B was also more willing than the  OUN-M to kill Ukrainians in pursuit of its goals, and by this  means and others it had monopolized political life in Volhynia  by 1943...  If we ask why ethnic cleansing took place in western Ukraine  rather than in western Belarus, the answer must be pre-war  nationalism. Ukrainian nationalists believed that Poles, as a national group, were a hindrance to the project of building a Ukrainian state. The Poles were defined not as a racial but as a political collectivity, expected to behave according to a predictably anti-Ukrainian political logic, therefore to be removed to achieve the political end of Ukrainian statehood."

During a presentation on the ethnic cleansing in Volhynia, "Snyder ended by saying that “ethnic cleansing” is a matter of political history rather than ancient hatreds, and that all factors must be addressed when examining how it occurs."

John-Paul Himka states, "The radical nationalism of the OUN during wartime led its members to participation in the Holocaust and to ethnic cleansing of the Polish population."

I've cited sources that cite Ukrainian nationalism, especially the desire to incorporate disputed territories into a future, homogenous Ukrainian state, as the main cause of ethnic cleansing. It's up to you to provide equally authoritative sources that say something else is the main cause. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * To claim that ethnic cleansing is not motivated against prejudice against ethnic group being cleansed is frankly speaking completely absurd. None of the sources or quotes above claim such thing in the first place anyway.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources, not original research, is what's needed here to claim an alternate cause besides that explained in several RS. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to be that because UPA killed not only Poles but also Jews then the murder of Poles... could not have been motivated by anti-Polish prejudice??? How does that work?
 * You do understand that it’s perfectly possible for UPA to be BOTH anti-Polish AND anti-Semitic, right? They were far right fascist nationalists for God’s sake!
 * Anyway, this is original research on your part.  Volunteer Marek   17:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What's original research? Quoting what sources say about the causes of this event?
 * I never said that it "could not have been motivated by anti-Polish prejudice???" but that peer-reviewed, reliable sources say it was caused by other factors (and omit any mention of anti-Polish prejudice). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Quote: “A big problem with the theory that anti-Polish sentiment specifically is the main cause of the events, other minority groups such as Jews and Volhynian Czechs were also killed by OUN” <— Buidhe.
 * Original research is claiming that because OUN/UPA also killed non-Poles, then their killing of Poles could not have been motivated by anti-Polish prejudice. You have not quoted any source which makes that (strange) claim.  Volunteer Marek   18:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Original research is claiming that because OUN/UPA also killed non-Poles, then their killing of Poles could not have been motivated by anti-Polish prejudice." Actually, I never made that claim. I said that reliable sources, cited and quoted above, don't mention anti-Polish prejudice and instead highlight other causes. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a quotation of you right above.  Volunteer Marek   18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a quotation of you right above.  Volunteer Marek   18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, it may be helpful to check now other articles about mass killing describe motives? Actually, "motive" and "cause" are different terms, the former more related the perpetrator's perception, whereas the latter describes the actual driving force. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Paul, I think that’s a good distinction. I think it’s actually silly to argue that “ethnic cleansing” wasn’t motivated by “ethnic prejudice”. The word “ethnic” is there for a reason. But yes, there are usually other “causes” - the opportunity to carry out the killings created by war, chaos and state collapse, the desire to seize land or other resources etc. Those tend to explain why the killings occurred when and where they did rather than later or earlier or somewhere else. But that doesn’t change the fact that ethnic prejudice is a major factor in ethnic cleansing.  Volunteer Marek   19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If it were up to me, I would eliminate the infobox. All significant information should be in the intro of the article already. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That I actually agree with. I hate infoboxes for these kinds of complex subjects.  Volunteer Marek   19:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Buidhe, just because I personally don’t like infoboxes, doesn’t mean that the infobox should be eliminated. There are infoboxes in all articles of similar subject and removing these would require a Wiki wide consensus (or at least consensus within particular projects). Please undo your removal.  Volunteer Marek   22:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no general requirement for any article or type of article to have or not have an infobox. It is usually decided on each talk page by local consensus. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats not exactly true, but ok, let’s get consensus here locally on the infobox before removing it.  Volunteer Marek   00:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, look. You commented above ---> quote: "There's no general requirement for any article or type of article to have or not have an infobox. It is usually decided on each talk page by local consensus." Then you go into the article and remove info-box without reaching the consensus. Why? Why you did that despite recognizing yourself that "It is usually decided on each talk page by local consensus"?? I'm not getting that... - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , First of all, the actions happened in the opposite order than you imply, and second, two editors in agreement, with no one in disagreement, can be a consensus. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is the second person in agreement to remove the infobox? And also, how come you write there is "no one in disagreement" ? Am I reading you correctly? There is " no one in disagreement " ?? What about this person? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Obviously, I meant, no one in disagreement when I made the change. But I still don't see anyone who has stated that the infobox is an improvement. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay Buidhe, I see no consensus so far to remove the info-box so let’s move to another thing.... in the same diff in which you removed that box at the very bottom, you added ---> quote "wider conflict between Polish and Ukrainian forces in the German-occupied territories, with the Polish Home Army in Volhynia, as well as Poles in German units and Soviet partisans, responding to the Ukrainian attacks." You provided these two references to back up the text you inserted claiming that there were "Poles in German units" fighting the Ukrainians.... > this one and this one  I carefully checked these two references. There is nothing about "Poles in German units" fighting the Ukrainians that I can see. Could you explain that? Where "Poles in German units" came from?? Thank you. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Poles in German units" as a cause of the Volhynian massacres...? Seriously...? Yeah I'd very much like to see a source for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Check the source. Snyder says that many Poles joined German police units, which Ukrainians had recently left, after the first wave of massacres:
 * "Matters were much worse than this. The Germans recruited about 1,200 fresh Polish policemen in April 1943 to replace the Ukrainian deserters. Polish motives were local and personal: to defend themselves or take revenge.85 Once they joined, Poles could not easily change their mind: sixty who tried to resign on 10 April 1943 were summarily shot. Yet regardless of individual motivations, this response to UPA attacks accelerated a fateful escalation. Poles now aided German policemen as they pacified Ukrainian villages. (p.233)"

It's splitting hairs. Is any nationalism really that easy to separate from ethnocentric views about being superior than one's neigbhours (i.e. anti-neighbour views)? The only question is to what degree a given country's nationalism focuses on antagonism towards particular neighbours, which is related to how bad their history was (often related to how much one had to struggle against invasions and like). Polish nationalism, for example, seems much more anti-German and anti-Russian than anti-Czech, anti-Baltic or anti-Scandinavian (with anti-Ukranian attitude being somewhere in the middle, mostly stoked as a response to anti-Polish sentiments in Ukraine). Ukrainian nationalism is very clearly heavily anti-Polish (and I'd think anti-Russian) since Ukrainian struggle for independence was primarily against those two neighbours (colonial masters...). So trying to separate Ukrainian nationalism from anti-Polish sentiment is mostly futile, it's the chicken and an egg problem. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get too much into the content weeds of this, for several reasons, not least of which is how little I know about the subject (as mentioned, whose existence I only learned about very recently). But I'm not sure where you're going with this philosophizing over ethnic tension and antagonism, . It just isn't coming together for me as a response to 's point about there being 1,200 Polish fighters fighting alongside the Germans in the Ukraine. I suspect "pacification," in general, ultimately meant death (whenever possible), which is to say preferring murder to forced eviction (to wherever) — reasonable assumption? In any case, in the context of this subject, a brigade-sized force hardly seems insignificant. Maybe qualify relative scales, but otherwise, what is the issue with mentioning that? As for the infobox, what a non-issue. It was boldly removed (after VM expressed some mild sentiments in favour of such a removal for these type of articles, in general). Maybe it was on point, maybe it wasn't. There's no Consensus required restriction applied to this article (yet), so there is no need to secure consensus in advance. If there's a problem with removing the infobox it can just as easily be restored (due to... reasons). And,, holly-sensory-overload — that is a lot of yellow highlighting. I mean, the TextDiff is a nice touch, but otherwise, please have mercy on our eyes. El_C 18:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @ El_C ---> Noted Face-smile.svg no more "yellow" lol. Regarding those "1,200 Polish fighters fighting alongside the Germans," those were Polish Blue Police units. Not Poles in German Units as Buidhe poorly worded that. The article also does not mention Blue Police, so if this ( Poles in German Units ) is written in the lead --> it sounds like Poles in Wehrmacht or SS or Gestapo. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , that sounds like OR, since I don't think Snyder ever states that it was Blue Police, and repeatedly refers to this organization as the "German police". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, "[Polish self-defense] units ventured outside the towns, and took revenge on Ukrainian nationalists and Ukrainian villages. On occasion Polish self-defence units co-operated with the German police or Soviet partisans in attacks on Ukrainian villages." Also, "Ukrainians in the German police pacified Polish villages; Poles in the German police pacified Ukrainian villages. All served the German policies of maintaining local order and resisting Soviet incursions..." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) Buidhe, the original source you used did not say anything about Poles in "German units" afaict. The new source does say something about it. But then please make sure you use the right source for the appropriate info - otherwise it's understandable that other editors question your edits if they can't find the info you're claiming exists in the source you gave.
 * As for the issue at hand, I don't think it was the Blue Police (Blue Police didn't really operate in this geographic area iirc). It was auxiliary German police most likely. However, I think it's important to note here that the Poles joined these police units AFTER the massacres started and they did so in order to protect themselves and fight back against OUN/UPA (on a general note, I'd recommend referring specifically to OUN/UPA rather "Ukrainians", since OUN/UPA represented the extreme fringe of Ukrainian nationalism, and although it did have a significant amount of popular support, that support was not universal).  Volunteer Marek 
 * These quotes are literally on the same page as the original one. Anyway, any police unit operating under German command can be fairly described as a "german unit" imo. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they're not. They're not even in the same source. You originally added the text "as well as Poles in German units and Soviet partisans" in this edit. The two sources there are The Reconstruction of Nations pg 175 by Snyder and review of that book by Burds. Neither mentions that info. LATER, after this was pointed out on talk page you quoted a DIFFERENT source, The Causes of Ukrainian-Polish Ethnic Cleansing 1943, Past and Present 2003 (note:removed link per request). Please be careful with how you use sources - you can't expect other editors to guess at what sources you have in mind if you provide different ones.  Volunteer Marek   22:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , No, this is false. The additions were all explicitly cited to Snyder's 2003 paper using the form "2003a" to distinguish them from the book with the same author and date. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please remove this link. It violates WP:COPYLINK. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeez, what a rabbit hole. Anyone else aside from VM and Buidhe able to tell what is happening directly above? Well, at least the both of them seem to understand what the other is saying (I think), so there's that... Also: COPYLINK-what? "Please remove this link." What is this "this" of which you speak? Again, are we expected to guess? El_C 23:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean the one hosting the full copy of a published paper at "legal-tools.org". Looks like a pirate site. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How is that a piracy site? It clearly says in its TOS: "The International Criminal Court administers this Site." El_C 23:38, 24 Decemb:er 2020 (UTC)
 * How does it have permission to post Snyder's paper? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Who knows? That is a question best directed to the ICC. El_C 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure how meaningful it is to call it German command (vis-à-vis German unit) in this context when we have "Ukrainians in the German police pac[ify] Polish villages[, while] Poles in the German police pac[ify] Ukrainian villages." Unless, of course, it was German command who were directing all of that. Regardless though, is right about referencing standards falling short on your part, . Please do not quote without making sure that, at the very least, there is an author's name and a page number attached in parenthesis to the quote. That is the minimum that is expected of you whenever you introduce a quotation. Every time and without exception. This thread is already difficult enough to follow without referencing guesswork also being introduced into the mix. El_C 23:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This supposed "requirement" cannot be found anywhere in the talk page guidelines. I am always careful when citing in mainspace, (which VM is referring to) but see no need to be so specific on a talk page. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You think me needing to guess the source and page number in your quotation here (which I still don't know what it is, even as I am writing this), somehow makes sense because it isn't spelled out in the talk page guidelines? That is... novel, I suppose. It's also totally wrongheaded. In any case, from now on you should view it as no longer a supposed requirement, but a requirement requirement. El_C 23:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A minor clarification: my 'philosophizing' post above (which I intended as an attempt to defuse thing and find middle ground) was posted before Buidhe replied (in between my two posts, but correctly per talk page guidelines) with his (reasonable) answer and sources. I think the only issue that the (better) source clarifying the Polish participation was not added until that point. Now that we have reliable sources, I hope we can move forward. I second your call for people to provide sources earlier rather than later, and I'll add that it is a good practice to provide quotations (one to few sentences) for plausibly controversial claims (in addition to a page number or range). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, now we can try to work out how to salvage this sentence "The massacres led to a wider conflict between Polish and Ukrainian forces in the German-occupied territories, with the Polish Home Army in Volhynia, as well as Poles in German units and Soviet partisans, responding to the Ukrainian attacks" (I hope the yellow highlighting is ok here?). I see several problems with the disputed part (highlighted). Setting aside whether it is a correct summary of the source (I need to reread it carefully, and I am a bit busy right now), few comments come to mind. First, the agency should not be equivalent for Polish Home Army and Poles in German units. Home Army was its own master, more or less, whereas I assume Poles in German units went where the Germans told them too. Also, did Soviet partisans really "respond" to Ukrainian attacks? It might be better not to discuss the collaboratoring auxiliaries and the Soviets in the lead, or at least not in this sentence, as I think it muddles the waters more than it helps. Lastly - a question for User:Buidhe. You mentioned and quoted Ukrainian participation in the German forces here, but in the article, you only add (to the lead) information about Polish participation in the German forces. Considering the context (massacres of Poles), isn't Ukrainian collaboration a more relevant issue to discuss in the lead than Polish? As far as I know, Polish collaboration with the Nazis was much less of a relevant factor in this conflict than Ukrainian (and both were relatively minor compared to the fact that both sides were effectively set up one another by the Germans, per divide and conquer logic - and I'd expect the Soviets to do the same, rather than to side with Poles, as the problematic sentence implied). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Seriously, let's not make the yellow highlighting a thing. I don't want to micromanage here, but any emphasis beyond bold (which even it, itself, ought to be used sparingly) just come across as impolite. There's making an emphasis and then there's the effective aggrandizement of one's own writings through visual aids. Anyway, I've affected that change above accordingly (yellow highlight switched to boldface). Please take note, everyone. El_C 15:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Slow down
Buidhe, slow down.

First thing’s first. What is “Snyder 2003a”. Can you please at least provide a proper title and journal source?  Volunteer Marek  04:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Second, can you please stop making dramatic and obviously controversial changes to the article without first bringing it up on the talk page? Several editors have expressed concerns with both the content of your edits and how you source them, not to mention the unilateral way in which you make them.  Volunteer Marek  04:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

If “Snyder 2003a” is suppose to refer to the article in Past and Present then

1) you need to provide that information rather than have other editors guessing

2) more importantly your text is not at all what the source says! Snyder DOES NOT say the “massacres resulted from escalating tensions between Polish and Ukrainian forces over the course of 1943.” That would in fact be absurd since the massacres started in February of 1943! In fact the whole point of Snyder’s article is that the Polish reprisals were a RESPONSE to the massacres, not their cause, although OUN’s propaganda tried to turn that around. Your edit effectively repeats OUN propaganda even though The Who,e point of the article is that it was false.

I’m sorry but I’m reverting this as it, again, grossly misrepresents the source.  Volunteer Marek  04:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The source links correctly if you mouse over it. This is standard practice in using short footnotes when a source is referred to multiple times. If I cited the entire article, someone would be accusing me of not providing a page number.
 * In fact, Snyder states that it happened in sequence: Ukrainians attacked Poles (early 1943), then Poles attacked Ukrainians, but the largest-scale attacks of summer 1943 occurred after the Polish attacks on Ukrainians. Therefore, it is accurate to describe this as escalating cycle of violence.
 * No one had previously objected to mention of Ukrainian casualties which are an important aspect of this interethnic violence. So I don't see how this is a particularly controversial edit. Forcing people to litigate every word is not a good use of editors' time. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you will withdraw your false accusation of misrepresenting a source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not “link correctly”. It just says “Snyder 2003a, pg. 224”
 * Yes, Snyder gets the timing correct - massacres begin February/March 1943, reprisals begin in summer 1943 and massacres escalate in summer of 1943. No one is disagreeing with Snyder. The problem is with the text you put into the article which claimed that the massacres themselves were a result of “escalating tensions”. They weren’t. They were pre planned and as Snyder says “Volhynian Poles were vulnerable to the point of defenselessness (...) when the cleansings began”
 * You can’t skip right to the summer and pretend that the massacres began then as “result of tensions”.  Volunteer Marek   04:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The citation, connects to the source,  (nowiki:  ). Click it and see. This is basic Wikipedia referencing, I shouldn't have to explain it to you.
 * He says that Polish attacks were triggered by a desire to get revenge for prior Ukrainian attacks, and vice versa. The disputed sentence is "The massacres of Poles in summer 1943 resulted from escalating violence between Polish and Ukrainian forces over the course of 1943, during which around 10,000 Ukrainian civilians were killed by Poles." This is unquestionably backed up by the source.
 * If you have an alternate suggestion for how to phrase this issue, please propose it, however, I do not think it is helpful to falsely accuse other editors of misrepresenting sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The citation connects to the description HERE on the talk page, but not in the article where it just said “Snyder 2003a, pg. 224”. Please avoid the condescending tone. You misformatted a ref. It happens.
 * The sentence as written gives the false impression that 1) the massacres started in the summer and 2) they were a result of “escalating tensions”. Snyder does not say that. The massacres began in February (though Snyder has it as March) and they were, according to Snyder, result of a decision made by OUN B leadership (Shukhevych and few Volhynian commanders not listed by Snyder) to cleanse the area of Poles, not “escalating tensions”. There were no tensions. As Snyder says, Poles were defenseless in Volhynia.
 * Incidentally, since we’re discussing this source, it probably should be mentioned in the article that the few surviving Jews in the region survived the Holocaust up to that point by sheltering in Polish villages, according to Snyder, and when the OUN massacres began some of these survivors now fought within the ranks of Polish self defense units.  Volunteer Marek   05:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence does not explain how the attacks started, but why and how they escalated over the course of 1943 (from a few thousand in the first months, to 50,000+ during the summer). According to Snyder, a major factor in this was Polish attacks on Ukrainians. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence misleads the reader into thinking that the massacres began in summer 1943 and that they erupted over “escalating tensions”. Neither of these claims is true and neither is supported by sources.  Volunteer Marek   00:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My sentence doesn't include the word "tensions" at all. I'd appreciate if you refrain from mischaracterizing what I've written. "Escalating violence", the phrase I actually used, is exactly what Snyder describes on pages 222 onwards. We should describe both how the attacks started, and how they escalated. If you think there is a better way to phrase it, please provide an alternative, preferably one that includes the role of revenge in fueling intensification. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, "escalating violence". The same criticism applies. The lede already notes that the massacres led to a wider conflict and reprisals from the Poles. As far as the lede summarizing the article, that's more than sufficient.  Volunteer Marek   02:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: that's why I dislike Harvard style refs on the wiki, particularly in articles being actively edited (and occasionally reverted). I strongly suggest using full citations for each footnote until the article is being upgraded to GA+ at which point we can standardize and prettify the refs. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence misleads the reader into thinking that the massacres began in summer 1943 and that they erupted over “escalating tensions”. Neither of these claims is true and neither is supported by sources.  Volunteer Marek   00:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My sentence doesn't include the word "tensions" at all. I'd appreciate if you refrain from mischaracterizing what I've written. "Escalating violence", the phrase I actually used, is exactly what Snyder describes on pages 222 onwards. We should describe both how the attacks started, and how they escalated. If you think there is a better way to phrase it, please provide an alternative, preferably one that includes the role of revenge in fueling intensification. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, "escalating violence". The same criticism applies. The lede already notes that the massacres led to a wider conflict and reprisals from the Poles. As far as the lede summarizing the article, that's more than sufficient.  Volunteer Marek   02:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: that's why I dislike Harvard style refs on the wiki, particularly in articles being actively edited (and occasionally reverted). I strongly suggest using full citations for each footnote until the article is being upgraded to GA+ at which point we can standardize and prettify the refs. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)