Talk:Roman Shukhevych

Thread to discuss the lede instead of reverting
User:Neptune777, please explain why is the source of the information you've deleted not reliable. Alæxis¿question? 19:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have other source source Kalba Myroslav. Shukhevych as the leader, commander, man // Chronicles of UPA. T. 45. - Toronto - Lviv. - P. 357. Ukrainian language. Neptune777  3:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it's already mentioned in the lede that he was a politician and military leader. You can't remove sourced information unless the source is problematic and you haven't explained what's the problem with it. It is an article in a peer-reviewed journal by an author from Sweden, so it looks completely legitimate.
 * Also please be aware of the WP:3RR rule. Alæxis¿question? 09:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition "Chronicles of UPA" is affiliated source, composed by UPA or OUN members, and Kalba Myroslav most likely not a historian Cathry (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with this sourced information being in the article's lede, though perhaps the language can be softened somewhat.  "Collaboration" seems to be a POV-term in this case :.  The article in general, however, seems to have undue weight with respect to the negative aspects of Shukhevych's career.  I emphatically oppose the removal of any of that negative information, provided  it is appropriately sourced, because the solution ought to be to build up other sections rather than remove info.  I don't have time to do that, but hopefully someone will.Faustian (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This term is used by reliable source. Wikipedia's definitions are not always correct. Cathry (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Collaborator
This is not a neutral term and its accuracy can be argued either way. As such, it probably doesn't belong in the lede and more neutral wording (such as ally) is more appropriate. Collaborationism is defined as "Collaborationism is cooperation with the enemy against one's country in wartime." While Shukhevych was technically a citizen of Poland, he spent his life opposing Polish rule and like many of his non-ethnic-Polish peers probably never recognized the legitimacy of it. It can be legitimately argued that he seems to be have been driven to cooperate with the Nazis by his nationalism rather than by personal enrichment and did not do so against what he considered his own country (Ukraine); as such his cooperation and alliance is analogous to, say, the Polish patriots (and Russian citizens) who allied themselves with Napoleon. Those aren't labelled as collaborators, either. My purpose is not to endorse a particular POV here but pointing out that the label "collaborator" is not neutral or non-controversial. On the contrary, the fact that he was an ally of Nazi Germany seems to be universally recognized.Faustian (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See here. Plenty of scientific books apply term collaborator to Shukhevych. Cathry (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But others do not. Indeed, many of the sources you linked to explicitly dispute that he was a collaborator.  This one dismisses it as Communist propaganda: .  Him being a collaborator is not the consensus position - therefore it should be mentioned in the article body, not lede.Faustian (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording is good enough ("a some-time ally of Nazi Germany") - the reader will be able to make his/her own conclusions after reading the whole article. Alæxis¿question? 08:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One dubious source can not сhange consensus. How can it be a propaganda, if he сommanded Nazi units? Cathry (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Collaborator?? How should we call Stalin after signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Chamberlain in relation with partition of Czechoslovakia or Mościcki in relation with annexations of Zaolzie?

In his postwar memoirs, Winston Churchill compared Germany and Poland to vultures landing on the dying carcass of Czechoslovakia and lamented that "over a question so minor as Teschen, they [the Poles] sundered themselves from all those friends in France, Britain and the United States who had lifted them once again to a national, coherent life, and whom they were soon to need to sorely. ... It is a mystery and tragedy of European history that a people capable of every heroic virtue ... as individuals, should repeatedly show such inveterate faults in almost every aspect of their governmental life."

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nationalist collaborator Roman Shukhevych's men were part of a pogrom that killed over 6,000 Jews.Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't link disambiguations to manipulate. The UK coined the Munich Agreement, Poland didn't participate. Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

...politician and one-time German ally.
I took a liberty to edit the lead that contains obvious errors. Whereas the lead is supposed to summarise the article, it says Shukhevich was an Ukrainian politician. Meanwhile, I found no description of his political activity. Indeed, during the pre-war period, he was engaged in terrorism, during the war he was a military leader, and after the war he had no opportunity to be engaged in any political activity either. Therefore, his characterisation as a "politician" in the lead looks somewhat odd. In contrast, the notion that he was a terrorist is missing. I fixed it. If you believe I made a mistake, please, revert me, but no earlier than a sufficient amount of text about his political activity will be added to the article.

Regarding Shukhevich as a "one-time ally of Nazi Germany". That sound a little but apologetic, because, if we use this approach, we can call Himmler a "one time Holocaust perpetrator" (he did that just one time, from ca 1938 till 1945, but that was really one time). Second, even using this approach, Shuchevich was not one-time ally. There were at least two different episodes: Nachtigall and Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201. These were two times. Third, he was not an ally. He was a volunteer at German service. The best word to characterise such type activity would be "Nazi collaborator", but, since some sources (mostly Ukrainian ones) disagree with that, let's be neutral and just name the positions he occupied in German army/police. I fixed these factual errors and added references. It seems I preserved a chronological order: a terrorist before the war, then a German army/police officer, then an UPA leader, and concurrently war criminal. Any objections? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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) 00:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Краковець Пам'ятник Шухевичу 09395.jpg

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) 01:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Roman Shukhevych UIA.jpg

Removal
- was it wrong info? That does seem belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Volodymyr Viatrovych, I read from his article "was criticized for whitewashing crimes by Ukrainian nationalists". I think we should be extremely cautious about including a section produced with his work. Mhorg (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

As I read today in a text written by Per Anders Rudling there appears to be a tendency among certain parts of the Ukrainian diaspora and Ukrainian academics (including possibly Volodymyr Viatrovych) to "gloss over" Shukhevych's role in the killing of Poles and other war crimes. This "saving of Irene Reichenberg" could be a part of attempts to improve Shukhevych's image (worldwide). As such it could be worth mentioning in the Roman Shukhevych section of this article, in a paragraph about how Shukhevych is currently being portrayed in Ukraine. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  14:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This above mentioned "glosing over" and the feeling I have that other academics are pushing for a "war criminal status" of Shukhevych without presenting what I would call credible evidence for it makes me very unsure of what text to believe about him. I think that with all of Shukhevych's activities being clandestine it is obviously not well documented what he actually did an was responsible for, clandestine organisations do not tend to do that naturally. I can not shake the feeling that we will never be sure what Roman Shukhevych actually did during World War II. —  Yulia Romero  •  Talk to me!  15:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure as well. I think the person who included that material should appear on this talk page and justify the inclusion. Unless they do it, I would consider this a justified removal. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ↑—I agree with My very best wishes. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes @Yulia Romero There is no doubt of the criminal history of Shukhevych during the war, his wartime biography also is rather well established. Marcelus (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If so, did this particular episode (i.e. "Rescue of Irene Reichenberg") really took place? My very best wishes (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Uncertain, but highly doubtful. So far she is described only by unreliable Ukrainian sources, e.g. Viatrovych who is know for forging fake facts and documents. It's probably story similiar to Stella Krenzbach or Leiba Dobrovskii. Post-UPA propagandists were doing a lot to get rid off the stain of antisemitism from the organisation. Marcelus (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , is the BBC an unreliable source? -Futurama cyclop (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, an article that tries to prove the thesis that the OUN-UPA and Shukhevych personally had nothing to do with anti-Semitism, or that they did not participate in pogroms, is not reliable. Marcelus (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a POV, and Original research. Futurama8 (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We need better sources than journalism for something like this Tristario (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those edits clarifying Shukhevych's involvement in the massacres Marcelus Tristario (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Shukhevych, nor on UPA, so I seldom edit about them. It was never my attention to make Shukhevych a better man than he actually was. (I actually think the Kholodny Yar Republic are much more suitable national heroes of Ukraine). But I am also not here to make Shukhevych/UPA look worse than they were since Wikipedia should not be an extension of (current) russian propaganda (which is trying to make (current) Ukraine like a neo-nazi state). I just want the lead of this article as NPOV as the current lead of the Wikipedia article about Muammar Gaddafi. And the rest of the article to be NPOV too of course. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  15:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually the Leiba Dobrovskii is a very NPOV Wikipedia article. The Stella Krenzbach is bit too long I think and stuff should be made footnotes in my opinion. —  Yulia Romero  •  Talk to me!  15:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not daying that the articles are bad written, but these people were used by pro-UPA propaganda Marcelus (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is kind of a "saving Jews" story. I noticed same thing on other pages with regard to Polish people saving Jews during Holocaust. No doubts, some of them indeed heroically saved Jews from Nazi, but some of such claims were poorly sourced. This is something similar about a Ukrainian historical figure. Quickly looking, I simply did not find strong RS to support the story. I may change opinion if someone provides such sources.My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The lede should be expanded to give an overview of the rest of the body of the article too, and if that were done that would make this article more consistent with how those of other historical figures are written. If anyone wants to do that that would be good --Tristario (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, ... I see that instead of providing strong sources and trying to build consensus on talk, the user resorted to edit-warring and socking. If anything, this convinces me it was good removal. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The letter of Per Anders Rudlings
This source and quote has been removed: "I would like to bring to your attention an announced Canada-wide lecture tour by Ruslan Zabily, former director of the OUN(b) facade organization The Center for the Study of the Liberation Movement and currently the director of the National Memorial “Lonsky Street Prison” Museum in Lviv. Zabilyi holds a Masters degree and has, to my knowledge no publications in peer reviewed journals. He has been central to the promotion and glorification of the OUN, the UPA, Stepan Bandera, and Roman Shukhevych."

I think it is instead useful to keep it in the article, as it describes precisely this academic's complaint. I would be for restoring it. Mhorg (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. The subject of this article is only mentioned in passing. The letter is an attack on a lecture tour by Ruslan Zabily, who is not mentioned in our article. It is a letter circulated by email about a 2012 speaking tour: an ephemeral primary text, sourced from a blog. I see absolutely no reason why it's due here. If the beed betweeen Rudling and Zabily is noteworthy, it could be included in one of their articles, but it has zero bearing on this article. There are currently 10 footnotes citing Rudling, so it's not like we're excluding his perspective from the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand why you may want to keep it in the article, but as a source it's not very good, and I don't think it would pass the guidelines in WP:RS - it's not a secondary source, since it's just a copy of an email on a blog, and it's not an acceptable self published source either, since Rudling didn't publish it. Tristario (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose, it's just not up to snuff. As @Bobfrombrockley said, it's an ephemeral primary text that is very poorly sourced. Additionally, I am not sure that it has anything to do with the actual subject of this article. Carlp941 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's avoid an edit war.
Hello Kraplyna, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad to see another person who is interested in WW2 history editing articles on relatively unknown historical figures. Understanding Shukhevych and the UPA in general is pretty important for understanding the Eastern Front.

I appreciate your boldness, but unfortunately, your edits are problematic. I'll give some background on this particular subsection of Wikipedia, and then dive into the substance of your edits.


 * First, this page covers a contentious person, so normal procedures are more strictly adhered to. Please see WP:CTOPS for more information. If we continue to run afoul of these procedures we may cause the page to become restricted, and I'd prefer to avoid that.


 * Second, this pages covers a topic under an active arbitration remedy, so it's even more likely to be restricted. So please, do not revert to your changes. The version I edited represents a previous consensus, and we should not make contentious changes without discussion.  I will not be making any edits during our discussion, please do the same. 

Okay, now let's dive into the substance.


 * First, your edit adds weasel words to introduction. Adding "was a believer in and a fighter for Ukrainian unity (therefore a Ukrainian nationalist)" not only makes the introduction stylistically unpleasant, it weasels around the fact that Roman was a nationalist. He was in a nationalist organization fighting a nationalist cause for nationalist reasons. This is a well known, well cited fact. Let's just state that as plainly as possible. As a guideline, we tend to avoid weasel words.


 * Second, your edit removes relevant information from the introduction and places it in the World War 2 subsection. The source is a well-known, independent researcher who specializes in Eastern European nationalism. There is no need to bury this information. Introductory paragraphs should include all relevant controversies, and Roman's participation in war crimes is relevant. See MOS:LEAD for more information. If you'd like to polish the original language, that is fine, but please discuss the changes you'd like to make here first.


 * Third, your edit adds irrelevant, promotional language to the intro. This will be harsh, but I, nor anyone reading Wikipedia, cares that he "was a highly educated person with fluent knowledge of German, was self-learning English language, had a good sense of humour, beautiful signing voice, and could play the piano." Loads of people speak German, are in the process of learning English, have a sense of humor, play piano and sing - it's a nice detail, but it has no place in the introduction. You would not open an article about, say Volodymyr Groysman, with the fact that he was a commercial director for his father's business. The most relevant thing about Groysman is that he was Prime Minister. The most relevant things about Roman are his participation in the UPA and its crimes. If you feel your edits really need to be added to the article, you can add to the Education subsection. The Most importantly, he had great leadership skills and a strong willpower, for which he was respected portion of your edit is plainly promotional language. Promotional language violates Wikipedia policy, so please do not re-add it.

Lastly, the last portion of your edit is highly problematic and your grammar is incorrect. "Shukhevych has been a target of Russian propaganda for many decades, with many documents not available to researchers for many years during USSR occupation of Ukraine" is a poor summation of what your cited source says. Additionally, your cited sources are Ukrainian Nationalist backed, anti-communist state institutions within Ukraine with the specific goal of cleaning the reputations of Ukrainian collaborators. Institutions of national memory are generally useful for some uncontested basic facts, but when the questions have answers that are unpleasant to their state benefactors, we tend to not defer to them. To illustrate my point - your source lies. I would normally be more charitable, but lie is simply the best word to describe it. Here's the lie in underline italics:


 * "The widely known topic of the probable participation of the members of the OUN (b) in the Lviv pogrom and the discussions about how much this participation was at the level of individuals, and how much it was centralized at the level of the leadership of at least local branches of the OUN (b), also indirectly concerns Roman Shukhevych. The fact is that at one time the first stage of the propaganda war against the Ukrainian community in the West became the topic of seemingly mass shootings and pogroms committed by the fighters of the “Nachtigall” battalion, commanded by Roman Shukhevych[3]. Today, this version has been completely refuted, which is recognized even by such an ardent opponent of both the then OUN (b) and the diaspora nationalists, John-Paul Himka [4] "

The lie, is just that, a lie. It's also sloppily cited, the [4] footnote says the whole document "completely refuted" the idea that Nachtigall committed pogroms. A claim that specific should cite a specific page. Himka never refuted this, and the source linked directly contradicts this claim. From page 226.

"Scholars now incline to the opinion that it was the militia set up by the OUN government on 30 June 1941 that spearheaded the pogrom on the following day. Indeed, Nachtigall veteran Myroslav Kalba, in arguing the innocence of his battalion during the pogrom, cited an alleged order from battalion commander Roman Shukhevych: “Do not commit any crimes or retaliation against our enemies, whether Poles or Jews, because it is not our task to deal with them.” In the opinion of Patryliak, if such an order did indeed exist, then the meaning of Shukhevych’s words was that Nachtigall was to serve as one of the nuclei of a Ukrainian army, whose main task would be to fight at the front, while the destruction of enemies from the civilian population was the responsibility of others, namely “special German groups, the Banderite security service, the militia, and so forth.”"

At its most charitable, Himka is saying that if an order did exist, then Shukhevych was preventing an opposing army from stopping the pogrom. That is not a refutation of their participation, but a confirmation of it. Preventing people from stopping a pogrom is participating in the pogrom. It gets worse, as Himka directly proves Shykhevych's participation in the pogrom. From page 227.

"“The Jews deliberately provoke,” he wrote. “They say they find the situation intolerable (im nema zhyttia), so they want to destroy our people and our population.” He announced to Bandera: “We are making a militia which will help to remove the Jews and protect the population.” This seems to have been a purely local militia. The formation of the militia in Lviv began in earnest on the morning of 30 June 1941. Stetsko wrote in his memoirs that he entrusted the formation of the militia to Ivan Ravlyk, who had accompanied him to Lviv as part of the OUN expeditionary group from Kraków. From other memoir literature, however, it is clear that  Roman Shukhevych, the commander of Nachtigall, also played some role in appointing the militia leadership. In fact, the militia recruited on St. George’s Hill, right where Nachtigall was encamped. "

Himka plainly says Nachtigall participated in the pogrom, but your source lies and says the opposite. I am frankly stunned at the audacity of the lie. ''' Please do not include this source in any future edits in this article. Reliable sources do not lie. ''' If there is a Russian propaganda campaign aimed at Shukhevych, your source does not prove it. Find a different source, preferably not from the national memory institute. I'd recommend independent, scholarly sources from those not currently engaged in the Russo-Ukrainian information war.

To summarize, your edits are problematic on multiple fronts. Please avoid promotional language, obscuring relevant information from the introduction, weasel words, and stick to reliable sources. If you'd like to discuss style changes to the introduction, or add relevant context to the historiography of Roman - I am open to that! Happy editing. Carlp941 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you,
 * I will reply to your comments. My answers are in italic:
 * Okay, now let's dive into the substance.
 * First, your edit adds weasel words to introduction. Adding "was a believer in and a fighter for Ukrainian unity (therefore a Ukrainian nationalist)" not only makes the introduction stylistically unpleasant, it weasels around the fact that Roman was a nationalist. He was in a nationalist organization fighting a nationalist cause for nationalist reasons. This is a well known, well cited fact. Let's just state that as plainly as possible. As a guideline, we tend to avoid weasel words.
 * It is important to note that nationalist means in Ukrainian context, i.e. fighting for independence. The text is taken from the definition of Ukrainian nationalism if you hover above the word. 
 * Second, your edit removes relevant information from the introduction and places it in the World War 2 subsection. The source is a well-known, independent researcher who specializes in Eastern European nationalism. There is no need to bury this information. Introductory paragraphs should include all relevant controversies, and Roman's participation in war crimes is relevant. See MOS:LEAD for more information. If you'd like to polish the original language, that is fine, but please discuss the changes you'd like to make here first.
 * Shukhevych had a lot of political work. Those are just 2 of hundreds. They are out of place in the introductions and are placed in the context.
 * Third, your edit adds irrelevant, promotional language to the intro. This will be harsh, but I, nor anyone reading Wikipedia, cares that he "was a highly educated person with fluent knowledge of German, was self-learning English language, had a good sense of humour, beautiful signing voice, and could play the piano." Loads of people speak German, are in the process of learning English, have a sense of humor, play piano and sing - it's a nice detail, but it has no place in the introduction. You would not open an article about, say Volodymyr Groysman, with the fact that he was a commercial director for his father's business. The most relevant thing about Groysman is that he was Prime Minister. The most relevant things about Roman are his participation in the UPA and its crimes. If you feel your edits really need to be added to the article, you can add to the Education subsection. The Most importantly, he had great leadership skills and a strong willpower, for which he was respected portion of your edit is plainly promotional language. Promotional language violates Wikipedia policy, so please do not re-add it.
 * This was taken from the scientific work with rigorous study of his life and contemporaries. It is the description by the people who knew him in person and lived at that time, and they decided what is important to mention, obviously reflecting that time 
 * Lastly, the last portion of your edit is highly problematic and your grammar is incorrect. "Shukhevych has been a target of Russian propaganda for many decades, with many documents not available to researchers for many years during USSR occupation of Ukraine" is a poor summation of what your cited source says. Additionally, your cited sources are Ukrainian Nationalist backed, anti-communist state institutions within Ukraine with the specific goal of cleaning the reputations of Ukrainian collaborators. Institutions of national memory are generally useful for some uncontested basic facts, but when the questions have answers that are unpleasant to their state benefactors, we tend to not defer to them. To illustrate my point - your source lies. I would normally be more charitable, but lie is simply the best word to describe it. Here's the lie in underline italics:
 * "The widely known topic of the probable participation of the members of the OUN (b) in the Lviv pogrom and the discussions about how much this participation was at the level of individuals, and how much it was centralized at the level of the leadership of at least local branches of the OUN (b), also indirectly concerns Roman Shukhevych. The fact is that at one time the first stage of the propaganda war against the Ukrainian community in the West became the topic of seemingly mass shootings and pogroms committed by the fighters of the “Nachtigall” battalion, commanded by Roman Shukhevych[3]. Today, this version has been completely refuted, which is recognized even by such an ardent opponent of both the then OUN (b) and the diaspora nationalists, John-Paul Himka [4]"
 * The lie, is just that, a lie. It's also sloppily cited, the [4] footnote says the whole document "completely refuted" the idea that Nachtigall committed pogroms. A claim that specific should cite a specific page. Himka never refuted this, and the source linked directly contradicts this claim. From page 226.
 * "Scholars now incline to the opinion that it was the militia set up by the OUN government on 30 June 1941 that spearheaded the pogrom on the following day. Indeed, Nachtigall veteran Myroslav Kalba, in arguing the innocence of his battalion during the pogrom, cited an alleged order from battalion commander Roman Shukhevych: “Do not commit any crimes or retaliation against our enemies, whether Poles or Jews, because it is not our task to deal with them.” In the opinion of Patryliak, if such an order did indeed exist, then the meaning of Shukhevych’s words was that Nachtigall was to serve as one of the nuclei of a Ukrainian army, whose main task would be to fight at the front, while the destruction of enemies from the civilian population was the responsibility of others, namely “special German groups, the Banderite security service, the militia, and so forth.”"
 * At its most charitable, Himka is saying that if an order did exist, then Shukhevych was preventing an opposing army from stopping the pogrom. That is not a refutation of their participation, but a confirmation of it. Preventing people from stopping a pogrom is participating in the pogrom. It gets worse, as Himka directly proves Shykhevych's participation in the pogrom. From page 227.
 * "“The Jews deliberately provoke,” he wrote. “They say they find the situation intolerable (im nema zhyttia), so they want to destroy our people and our population.” He announced to Bandera: “We are making a militia which will help to remove the Jews and protect the population.” This seems to have been a purely local militia. The formation of the militia in Lviv began in earnest on the morning of 30 June 1941. Stetsko wrote in his memoirs that he entrusted the formation of the militia to Ivan Ravlyk, who had accompanied him to Lviv as part of the OUN expeditionary group from Kraków. From other memoir literature, however, it is clear that Roman Shukhevych, the commander of Nachtigall, also played some role in appointing the militia leadership. In fact, the militia recruited on St. George’s Hill, right where Nachtigall was encamped."
 * Himka plainly says Nachtigall participated in the pogrom, but your source lies and says the opposite. I am frankly stunned at the audacity of the lie. Please do not include this source in any future edits in this article. Reliable sources do not lie. If there is a Russian propaganda campaign aimed at Shukhevych, your source does not prove it. Find a different source, preferably not from the national memory institute. I'd recommend independent, scholarly sources from those not currently engaged in the Russo-Ukrainian information war.
 * The source cited has a very balanced overview of many different authors and historians looking into this topic with perfect scientific methodology. It is important to cite it instead of relying on less rigorous information
 * To summarize, your edits are problematic on multiple fronts. Please avoid promotional language, obscuring relevant information from the introduction, weasel words, and stick to reliable sources.
 * No promotional language was used. It is well known that the figure is controversion with a large dispute and large body of propaganda written about the figure. It would be misleading for the reader to omit this information from the article.
 * If you'd like to discuss style changes to the introduction, or add relevant context to the historiography of Roman - I am open to that! Happy editing. Carlp941 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Kraplyna (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To make the discussion more manageable, I would suggest to open a separate thread for each topic. My chief concern was about the removal about the information about the collaboration with the Nazis and the participation in the ethnic cleansing of Poles from the lede. You'll need to demonstrate that reliable sources indeed consider it an insignificant part of his biography. Alaexis¿question? 22:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll do my best to respond point by point. I don't think any of these need a separate topic yet, but I'll split it up if needed. I'll follow your formatting, with your words in plain and mine in italics - but I'll bold for ease of reading.
 * It is important to note that nationalist means in Ukrainian context, i.e. fighting for independence. The text is taken from the definition of Ukrainian nationalism if you hover above the word.
 * Okay? If a user is curious about Ukrainian nationalism, they can click the link. Your original edits weaseled around the term. Please review MOS:WEASEL.
 * Shukhevych had a lot of political work. Those are just 2 of hundreds. They are out of place in the introductions and are placed in the context.
 * The reliable, independent sources used in this article think it is relevant to include in their introductions of him. If you have a problem with those sources, here are two more. They immediately talk about Roman's participation in pogroms. They are simply not out of place. Given that your sources are linked to the Ukrainian state and the broader project of rehabilitation of Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators described in reliable sources, I'm strongly against your proposed change.
 * This was taken from the scientific work with rigorous study of his life and contemporaries. It is the description by the people who knew him in person and lived at that time, and they decided what is important to mention, obviously reflecting that time.
 *  Again, it adds promotional language. Reliable sources on this article, and ones I've found (linked above in the previous point), don't find it relevant to include at all, much less as introductory information. A further argument against adding it is that your material is entirely in Ukrainian when English language reliable sources exist. Please review WP:NONENG.  If you feel really strongly about including it, please include a full translation of the article. Please do not include the translation here, so we can keep this discussion manageable. link it! Given that the source is a state university while there is a state-backed campaign to white-wash collaborators, I am hesitant, but I'll give it a fair shake.
 * The source cited has a very balanced overview of many different authors and historians looking into this topic with perfect scientific methodology. It is important to cite it instead of relying on less rigorous information
 * This is a poor rebuttal. The source lied, demonstrably. Please prove the sources linked in the current version of the article are "less rigorous."
 * No promotional language was used. It is well known that the figure is controversion with a large dispute and large body of propaganda written about the figure. It would be misleading for the reader to omit this information from the article.
 * I happy to read more about that alleged propaganda campaign! Please link some reliable sources and we can develop a consensus. Preferably English language sources, or something that can be easily translated. Carlp941 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended Protected Edit Request
I'd like to revert the page to an uncontested version. An admin locked the page after a different user engaged in an edit war with me. Instead of engaging with me in the talk page, this user deleted my talk page contribution, and an IP user made the same changes they were attempting to make. I do not believe these changes were made in good faith, they add promotional language, and contain false information. The padlock was unfortunately added after these edits. I talked with the admin, but as the changes do not meet the definition of vandalism, I was directed to make an edit request. Happy to do so! I'd like the edit protected page to reflect the previous consensus, not one side of a dispute.
 * What I think should be changed (format using textdiff):
 * Why it should be changed:

None needed, in my opinion. Carlp941 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):


 * I'm unfamiliar with the requirements for references for edit requests, but you can see in User talk:Kraplyna that I am not the only one who believes the current version's changes violate NPOV and that my talk section was removed. Carlp941 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the stable version is better and reverted the changes. Cheers! Alaexis¿question? 10:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * the stable version was more accurate. Mhorg (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Seems to have already been completed. Please ping me if I'm missing something ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Misleading categories
Greetings! I see the article is spoiled with misleading categories, like "Nazis". @AHI-3000, you've re-added the category, please provide a source and a confirming quote for it. Your justification for re-adding the category do not categorizes the person as Nazi. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I was actually trying to add back Category:War criminals of World War II by reverting your edits. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring. Please stop adding misleading categories, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How are they "misleading"? The article discusses his role in massacring Polish civilians during WW2, and these statements are not unsourced. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is different from the category you are adding . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the category I'm talking about. Reliable sources say he was responsible for war crimes, he is also listed under Category:Holocaust perpetrators in Poland. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You provided none so there is nothing to discuss. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * did you just not read the article? seems weird to claim this when the article lists plenty Carlp941 (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Anything specific? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're really stretching good faith. Please read the article and inform yourself on references @AHI-3000 is talking about. Here is a direct link to the fourth reference, which talks about his role in war crimes in Poland. If you do not wish to read the entire source, which is reasonable, here is the relevant passage from the source, page 640. This quote is on the article page.
 * "The OUN-UPA-planned ethnic cleansing continued unabated throughout summer 1943. The crescendo came on the night of July 11–12, 1943 when the UPA planned a highly coordinated attack (known among Poles as the 'Peter and Paul action' for the holiday on which it occurred) against Polish villages in three raions: Kovel', Khorokhiv, and Volodymyr-Volyns'kyi. Over one hundred localities were targeted in this action, and some 4,000 Poles were murdered. Finally, the last wave of attacks came in December 1943 before Shukhevych decided to move the cleansing operations to Galicia where tens of thousands more Galician Poles were murdered. Following the killings in Volhynia, the UPA-North group gave the order to 'destroy all traces of the Poles' by 'destroying all Polish churches and all other Polish places of worship'" Carlp941 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what the article says, we are not saying more than that, or it would be an original research. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're shifting the goalposts, and ethnic cleansing by massacre is a war crime. If synthesis is obvious, it is not original research. I am asking you again to engage with the material and research presented, instead of impulsively saying "nuh-uh" to edits you don't like. It's incredibly unproductive. If you can't do that, we may need mediation. Carlp941 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not judging here and are not putting our conclusions into the article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again you are just saying "nun-uh" to edits you don't like. Please demonstrate how I've judged or put my own non-obvious conclusion here. Ethnic cleansing is a war crime, people who do it are war criminals - so the category fits. Additionally, the article calls the actions a crime on page 654.
 * "Thus it was through a mix of coercion, ideology, and rewards that  nationalist leaders were able to recruit average men to participate in heinous crimes.  Without these thousands of participants, the ethnic cleansing campaign never would have reached its scale or magnitude."
 * Not only am I engaging in obvious synthesis (which is not original research), I am going above and beyond, quoting the article that describes war-time ethnic cleansing by force as a crime. Roman Shukhevych is a war criminal. The article states it, and it is an obvious synthesis verified by the source.
 * You should be able to explain what new synthesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't get to say "Of course it's original research. You prove it isn't" followed by this tedious mess. The burden of proof is on you, you are making an accusation of original research. Hiding behind "we don't judge" and demanding I prove a negative is disruptive. Are you going to engage productively, or should I request mediation? Carlp941 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you read the text you posted or are you blindly quoting policy at me to get me to drop this? Please review Wikipedia:Five pillars, you are misinterpreting the spirit of the policy by ripping context away. You are not being productive. I will post the part of the passage you may have neglected to read. I will underline the condition I satisfied.
 * Demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented.
 * I will state it again. I cited a reliable published source that directly supported categorizing Shukhevych as a war criminal. Go beyond "we don't pass judgement" and blindly quoting policy at me. I am not passing judgement, I am citing a reliable source.
 * This is your last chance to productively engage with me one-on-one on this topic without me requesting mediation. Please demonstrate how I reached non-obvious conclusions or synthesized multiple sources to reach a conclusion not supported by the text. I will ask some guided questions to move this discussion along.
 * What part of my conclusion was not obvious or not supported by the text?
 * What new synthesis am I introducing? Roman's participation in war crimes is supported by the text I cited. The sources calls them crimes, and definitively proves his involvement. People who participate in war crimes are categorized as war criminals. Which part of this do you actually take issue with?
 * Carlp941 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You stretch what the source says to "he is a war criminal". We can't and should not do that. Stick to the source. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If a source says someone commits a war crime, they are calling them a war criminal. That is not a new synthesis, but an obvious synthesis supported by the text. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. We're at a stalemate, so I am requesting a third opinion mediation.
 * In the meantime, please do not make any edits to page regarding this topic, and please do not reply to this message. Carlp941 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I should be clear, this process is voluntary. You are welcome to ignore these requests but it would show good faith to abide by them. Carlp941 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But the source is not saying that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We're talking in circles here. Let's wait for the 3rd opinion before discussing further. Carlp941 (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For adding a category like "War criminal" to an article I think it's better to have a reliable source that actually explicitly says the person is a war criminal. I don't have a very strong view on this either way but I think that's the best approach in terms of adhering to policies like WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT, and eliminating subjectivity in the application of categories.
 * There's been some relevant debate relating to this on other parts of wikipedia like here, with differing views. Tristario (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * hmmm, i can live with that standard for adding him under the war criminal category previously mentioned. thank you for weighing in! Carlp941 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed the category since there is no mention of this in the article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not entirely true, the article mentions his involvement in the Lviv killings. At that time Lwow was de jure still part of Poland. Alaexis¿question? 21:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the article mentions the "controversy". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Related discussion AHI-3000 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Source

 * Nicholas Doumanis (2016) The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914-1945 - Page 597 provides a brief summary of Shukhevych's career and concludes by calling him a "politically motivated war criminal". It also supports the category Category:Holocaust perpetrators in Poland by discussing that the Nachtigall Battalion under Shukhevych's command participated in the massacres of the Jewish populations in Western Ukraine (Eastern Poland). -- K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks good enough for the "war criminal" category. I'm not sure whether a statement about the battalion he commanded is good enough for the "holocaust perpetrator" category though. Depends on what exactly sources (and the article) say about Shukhevych on that Tristario (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is plenty for him to be placed under both categories you mention. Thanks for finding this source! i'll likely give that book a read. Carlp941 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Manyareasexpert, do you have any objections to re-adding Roman to the war criminal category? an oxford history book calls Roman a war criminal directly. the source is reliable. i also believe this is enough for the holocaust perpetrator category, but our 3O isn't completely on board so i am open to discussion on it. Carlp941 (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is good enough to restore that part. Mhorg (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added Ruling article on a subject, feel free to extend in a weighed manner. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Those edits are unrelated to the discussion we're having here. Would you please revert those changes and discuss the categories at issue? Carlp941 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So Ruling saying  Shukhevych’s critics portray him as a war criminal; his admirers either overlook this episode or regard his collaboration with Nazi Germany as unproblematic. ... As the polarized discussions regarding the legacy of Shukhevych and other OUN leaders show, this process is not without its difficulties is unrelated. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is unrelated. The title of this discussion is  Misleading Categories , a discussion you started after you reverted changes to the categories. You are adding content to the Legacy section. Do you have a problem with the source that @K.e.coffman used to justify Shukhevych's place in the war criminal category? I feel we've met the threshold that both you and our 3O asked for, which is a reliable source directly calling Shukhevych a war criminal.
 * If you don't have a problem with the source, would you please re-add the category for war criminal? If you'd rather I'd do it, I can open an edit request, or do it when I reach the threshold.
 * You are now adding content that we are not discussing and are stomping over consensus building processes. Please don't do that. If you want to discuss the Anders Ruling letter, please revert your changes and open a new discussion. I'm not completely opposed to your edits, but I have some stylistic and content changes I'd like to include. I appreciate your boldness, but on contentious topics, let's avoid discussing a bunch of things at once. Carlp941 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to look at not just one but at a range of sources to decide on a category. Ruling says the opinions on characterization of Shukhevych are polarized. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All the more reason for you not to make unrelated edits without consensus. Please, as a showing of good faith, revert the unrelated edits and discuss the category issue at hand. Carlp941 (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You can apply stylistic and content changes, no revert needed. My notes are on a category. Ruling Rudling says the opinions on characterization of Shukhevych are polarized. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll take a closer look at the Ruling letter today. Carlp941 (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Carlp941, @Manyareasexpert, it seems the name is Rudling not 'Ruling', unless I'm missing something. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If what is said in wikivoice in the lead is true, that "Shukhevych was one of the perpetrators of the Galicia-Volhynia massacres", and if the Nicholas Doumanis source is reliable and "concludes by calling him a "politically motivated war criminal"", then it seems pretty clear that Shukhevych can be considered a war criminal and that the category "war criminals" can be added to this article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. Also I've reviewed the Rudling source and believe it supports adding the category. Rudling is not saying there is a controversy over whether or not he committed war crimes, but a controversy over what those war crimes mean for his legacy.
 * "The disagreements regarding Shukhevych’s whereabouts in 1942 concern not only the interpretations of the events, but also about basic facts surrounding the German occupation of Belarus. Shukhevych’s critics portray him as a war criminal; his admirers either overlook this episode or regard his collaboration with Nazi Germany as unproblematic."
 * One might say, but look! There are disagreements regarding his whereabouts in 1942 during the occupation of Belarus! Which, fine, there are! But this is irrelevant to the allegation of war criminality - the allegations in reliable sources are referring to the uncontested history of his participation in pogroms in Poland. And Rudling refers to this as well, in his conclusion:
 * "The professional historian would also raise the question of whether it is possible to turn Shukhevych into a national hero without legitimizing the ideology of the organizations he led. ‘Ukraine for Ukrainians’ was implemented as brutal policy. Members of both wings of the oun engaged in pogroms in 1941 and ethnic cleansing in 1943, in the ranks of the Wehrmacht, the Ukrainian police in occupied Ukraine, the upa and Waffen-ss Galizien. The ideology of the oun(b) was not static. Yet, at the same time as the oun(b) officially moderated its political positions in the summer of 1943, the upa was systematically massacring the Polish population of Volhynia, expanding the ethnic cleansing to eastern Galicia in 1944."
 * @Manyareasexpert, I don't see a good faith reason to not add the category. People overlooking the war crimes or outright praising them does not make them not war crimes. The reliable sources are pretty clear. Roman is considered a war criminal. You have not stated a single objection to the source @K.e.coffman presents that directly calls him one. You have not demonstrated that reliable sources actually contest whether or not he committed the actions described as war crimes. I believe we have reached a consensus that the war criminal category is appropriate. I believe you know that, and are wanting to move the discussion to what that means for reliable sources' view of his overall legacy. Let's re-add the categories, then open a new discussion. Does that sound agreeable? If so, please re-add the categories, or I can open an edit request. Carlp941 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)