Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-27 Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood, 1941

Where is the dispute taking place?
Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood, 1941Jo0doe (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Who else is involved in the disagreement?
user:Miacek user:Narking user:Bandurist user:Faustian some IP editors

Briefly, what's the problem?
Dispute on article content. RS sources rejected without discussing. WP:UNDUE by using WP:QS - “The Restoration of the Ukrainian State in World War II. Published by Ukrainian Central Information Service, London 1987” and memoirs from cdvr.org.ua instead of Berkhoff, K.C. 'Ukraine under Nazi Rule (1941-1944): Sources and Finding Aids [part 1 & part 2]' in: Jahrbьcher fьr Geschichte Osteuropas, vol. 45, nr. 1 & nr. 2, pp. 85-103, 273-309, 1997 Berkhoff, K.C. and M. Carynnyk 'The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Its Attitude toward Germans and Jews: Iaroslav Stets’ko’s 1941 Zhyttiepys' in: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 23 (1999), John Alexander Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, Columbia University Press, 1963. etcJo0doe (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

...What's keeping it from being solved?
Nominally "spelling and grammar" in facts - texts from RS about how this event was initiated by Nazi and Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists under Stepan Bandera. Attempts to pose Nazi temporary project as exceptional event and collaborators as a "freedom fighters victims". So citation We greet the victorious German Army as deliver from enemy. We render our obedient homage to the government which has been erected. We recognize Mr.Yaroslav Stetsko as Head of State Administration of the Ukraine. assumed as has "wrong spelling and grammar".Jo0doe (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

...What do you want fixed?
Simply follow the WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:V policy - assist in fixing "spelling and grammar" (if any) without blanking and ORJo0doe (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that the spelling is faulty?
Edit: I've just noticed the spelling is faulty. Or the grammar, viz "deliver". Did the editor translate it themselves? That's no good, if so. Translations should be from reliable sources.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources from UCIS
I don't see a problem with those being used. Others should also be used, if they are reliable sources.

However, It would be intellectually dishonest not to state in the main body of the article what the source is, where there is a potential conflict of interest.

Attribute the sources, and if the independent sources say different, and if there are several, summarise their view and multiple cite (It would NOT be intellectually dishonest to provide inline citations for these sources as footnotes in the usual way, if they are from independent sources).

If there are sources from Ukranian academia that back up the assertions of non-Ukranian academia, then all the better.

An accredited university press source from a qualified person on the relevant subject is reliable until shown to be otherwise. Burden of proof is not on any editor using Columbia University Press material, I would say. Removing sources is bad faith - university presses are our reliable sources on most subjects. We can't trawl through Wikipedia removing such sources unless evidence is shown that they are not reliable. It's straightforward. Not until there's evidence that source is unreliable should it be assumed to be so. The source is independent and academic.

Multiple sources is the answer, anyhow.

Again, I don't think admins need be patient with those who remove reliable sources without good reason. It's intellectually dishonest and anti-Wikipedia.

Hope that helps.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)