Talk:Memorial for the victims killed by OUN-UPA (Luhansk)

Reference to communist propaganda is NNPOV 89.178.113.136 (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it. 24.47.118.12 (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I also find the unsourced statement "Incidentally, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) never operated in Luhansk" inserted by Lvivske to be egregiously irrelevant to the article about the memorial. That the UPA didn't operate in Luhansk doesn't mean that people from Luhansk were not killed by UPA forces in WWII elsewhere. 24.47.118.12 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * it merely provides context, quit censoring factual information to suit your cause --Львівське (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article is the monument. Adding unsourced facts you cherry-pick is not context unless it is noted as relevant in published material. And adding historical background on the UPA would mean inserting things like the UPA's collaboration with Nazi Germany in the summer of 1941, which you would probably revert according to the usual case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Find sources for the content you add to demonstrate that what you are putting in is both verifiable and relevant. 24.47.118.12 (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its only "unsourced" because you like it that way. Even if I pulled up a source, you'd delete it because it doesn't jive with your neo-Soviet outlook. That a monument in Luhansk was made for "victims" implies that they were attacked - so it gives context to make a small note on the "victimizing" not actually happening in the region where the monument was placed. If you want to add info on collaboration, of course I'll delete it, because the UPA didn't even exist in the summer of 1941--Львівське (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Re " Even if I pulled up a source, you'd delete it because it doesn't jive with your neo-Soviet outlook." I don't have a "neo-Soviet outlook" and I won't delete it. (Have you ever come across No personal attacks during your entire time here?) Let's see a source that mentions where the UPA did or did not operate in the context of the monument, because Luhansk residents may well have been killed by the insurgents outside the city. If the connection isn't made by anyone but yourself, it has no place here. If there is a source stating that the UPA did not operate in Luhansk in the context of the monument, you can insert it to your heart's content. I have never reverted a single thing you have actually sourced, and I will never do so.
 * What does the monument have to do with it if we're talking about the UPA & Luhansk victims? Quit trivializing context and censoring what goes in and what doesn't. The "connection" doesn't need to be made by anyone else for it to be relevant. Most articles have a history or background section....why? context.--Львівське (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "What does the monument have to do with it"? This article is about it. Why does there need to be a connection? Because the policy here is explicitly "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." 24.47.118.12 (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 24.47.118.12 (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "If you want to add info on collaboration, of course I'll delete it, because the UPA didn't even exist in the summer of 1941" right, it was the leading OUN core that formed the OUN-UPA later that collaborated in '41. Virtually any biography of Stepan Bandera will tell you that he was released from jail in Poland when the Germans invaded in 1939 and worked with them until 1941. But like the above regarding Luhansk, this "context" too needs to be already found in a discussion of the monument in some relevant source to be put in here. You can't just claim something is "context" because it sounds right to you, any more than I can claim that. 24.47.118.12 (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * what is up with this notion that it has to exist in outside discussion? a fact is a fact. Just like how the victims in this sense are those few thousand from Luhansk who were sent to invade the west.--Львівське (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The monument is to victims from Luhansk, not victims in Luhansk. There are monuments to New York City soldiers who died in the French theater of World War I in New York; it is not worth stating that they didn't die in New York City. 24.47.118.12 (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Memorial for the victims killed by OUN-UPA (Luhansk). 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/20110822001301/http://mikle1.livejournal.com/835917.html to http://mikle1.livejournal.com/835917.html

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) 08:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Memorial for the victims killed by OUN-UPA (Luhansk). 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/20110524174416/http://testukr.obozrevatel.com/ to http://testukr.obozrevatel.com/

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) 18:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)