Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian People's Militia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. –MuZemike 22:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian People's Militia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

article should be deleted, then made into redirect to new, merged article Львівське (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have restored the removed content so that we can see what the article actually looks like that is being discussed for deletion. Silver  seren C 03:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep it is a plain violation of GFDL to delete one of the contributors to a merged article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? How so?    Snotty Wong   gab 22:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment  Violates NPOV, revisionism, uses obscure non-english sources, dubious topic and violates WP:OR and SYN. This is a typic joe0doe article and there's a reason he keeps getting banned. Enough with this garbage, an alt. article already exists.--Львівське (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Violates NPOV", can you elaborate on how?
 * "Revisionism", i'm not quite sure what you mean with this.
 * "Uses obscure non-english sources", obscurity of sources does not pertain to their reliability. Obscure sources also does not affect notability.
 * "Dubious topic", how so?
 * "Violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH", where and how does it violate them? Silver  seren C 03:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A comment about the obscure non-English sources. The problem isn't reliability (necessarily) but verifiability. The editor who used created this article and who based much of it on those obscure sources, Jo0doe (talk), has a history of misusing sources by leaving out info that only supports his POV to present a distorted picture of what the sources say, etc. for which he got caught and banned for a year. His solution seems to be, to find stuff that almost no one can check - sources that are published in the Ukrainian language, in Ukraine, not available online and thus only available for people who happen to be in Ukraine, have access to their academic libraries, and who can read the Ukrainian language. The issue that some editors have with this article is that it is largely based on such sources. With respect to other sources, the article's creator was caught misusinngthem, as described here.Faustian (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion– but facts reveal a different picture  But I guess – why this wiki-drama actually was staged – As can be seen from this edits    – there no actual difficulties with access to  Patrilyak work cited – so arguing in argumentum verbosium is a no-good approach in discussion concerned a scholar texts. Seems to me not all WP:EEML . plague were uprooted – unfortunately – in result we have a story described in scholar work  presented at An international conference “World War II and the (Re)Creation of Historical Memory in Contemporary Ukraine” .But I suggest WP is not a best place to “make a myths with complications”. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Reconcile with Ukrainian Auxiliary Police. What we have is an edit dispute with two similar, but not identical, treatments of the same situation. The only real solution is for the conflicting accounts to be resolved through talk page discussion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep From what I can tell of the article, this unit eventually became the Auxiliary unit later. However, this article does not pertain to the Auxiliary Unit, but makes sure to specifically remain speaking about this Unit's activities during the early parts of WWII. I see no problems with the sourcing and I believe there is enough information here that this should be kept separate from the other article. Silver  seren C 03:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are two separate questions we seem to discuss:
 * Whether to merge Ukrainian People's Militia and Ukrainian Auxiliary Police or keep them separate. I think it should be discussed on talk pages, not on the afd page as it does not require any deletion. I personally think that it is better to have one good comprehensive article than two stubs but it should be discussed.
 * Whether to delete the previous history to Ukrainian People's Militia after it is made a redirect to the merged article. The second question is quite simple: GFDL requires us to keep all the contributions if even a single world from the Militia article is used. Even if not a single world is used we still better of by keeping this potentially usable text in the history as it maybe used in the future. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is the "People's Militia"'s very existence is in question.--Львівське (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I'm reading I don't think a formal group existed. I think what joe/pawel are doing here is seeing "National militias" existed and saying there was a formal, organized military group, and engaging in OR/SYN, creating this name the "People's Militia". From there they take any dubious source they can find relating to a militia group attacking so-and-so and tacking them all together to push their POV. And of course, I wouldn't double the non-english sources are completely quoted out of context, or that they are just making the words up themselves--Львівське (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per I.K Patrylyak. Military activities of the OUN (B) in the years 1940-1942. - Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine . Kyiv, 2004 pages 228-229 - Exploring issues related to the formation of the Ukrainian People's police units especially to be noted that the paramilitary structure is not a direct precursor of Ukrainian Auxiliary Police.The latter was formed by volunteers by German occupation administration, the first - in contrast - was formed on the initiative of the OUN (B) with the tacit approval of German for military leadership Also see that July-August 1941 article - and Himka's   - OUN militia. Per above - it was two different (militia formed by Bandera's OUN and different affilations German formations) formations with same activities. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those Himka articles show plainly that there was no central militia by this name, there were "militias". He says some were under the SS, others OUN, he claims one in specific to be part of a pogrom, and another article on Kyiv Post debates this, "“Why is there no paper trail showing similar falsification of evidence about OUN militias?”, all with no corroboration, deserve no credibility or weight. It is precisely that credibility and weight of evidence that is lacking in Mr. Himka’s work." link. You are engaging in Original Research and Synthesis, as well as misquoting sources to prove your OR. Also, please note that Himka is paid to write his garbage by he US Holocaust Museum. He's a propagandist mascarading as an historian.--Львівське (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * - seem person got some troubles with Jews - activities of the militia at Stanislaviv described here at page 347-350 (use militia keyword). I guess - may be he can help to identify his father which may stay at podium with Hans Krũger during celebration  Jo0doe (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still ignoring the main point: no such formal unit existed--Львівське (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest a source? Book published by Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (cited above) suggest opposite view.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN is on you. Even searching for the term in Ukrainian yields limited results, 1 of which was a REAL formation that was part of the UNR in 1918. You're inventing a military group up and have no english sources to verify such a group existed in of itself--Львівське (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. I am changing my mind about this having just read through Partyljak. However with a large proviso: Patrylyak is generally quite sober and reliable, BUT his text is habitually misquoted and manipulated by Jo0doe. The article has to be watched closely, so it doesn't become Jo0's vehicle of vilification of Ukrainians.--Galassi (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Ukrainian Auxiliary Police per Bridgeplayer (talk), as the best solution. I am not opposed to keeping it either, because although I agree with most of the criticisms of how this article was made, the topic itself is notable and once the problems are sorted out it probably will eventually deserve its own article anyways, per  Silver   seren  C comments.Faustian (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to keep, and http://www.history.org.ua/index.php?urlcrnt=LiberUA/select_PDF.php&isbn=966-02-2436-2 is a reliable source. The real issue is to keep the article free of Jo0doe's falsifications. --Galassi (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch! If Jo0doe were editing in good faith he would have supplied the link, but I guess he didn't want anyone to verify what he claimed...Faustian (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest an example of alleged falsifications. At Article:talk. Thanks - I've already noted one - but it's not mine (missed text "forced free labour") and ommited 3 more source cited text. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    20:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant    talk    20:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Enough valid information to fill its own article, no need to merge it with another. Google Book search shows two results that mention it in history studies written in English.  Those who can read Ukrainian can perhaps find more sources.  There seem to be plenty of them in the article.  Based on the discussion of others, I'd say this article should be kept.   D r e a m Focus  08:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.