This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Commanders

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As per Jo0Doe's suggestion to display pictures of all the commanders - opinions on using a table structure as done in the Armia Krajowa article shown below. (Armia Krajowa article has a "GOOD ARTICLE - GA" rating in Wikipedia).

We need to find photos of all the commanders - and better will be to have dated from the time of "intencive training" at Canaris camp.

Does Algemaine-SS has a "GOOD ARTICLE - GA" rating in Wikipedia? as OUN/UPA has same objective namely Poles and Jews?Jo0doe (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

**Commanders of AK**
	Name	Codename	Period	Replaced because	Fate
1.	General Michał Karaszewicz-Tokarzewski Technically, commander of Służba Zwycięstwu Polski and Związek Walki Zbrojnej as AK was not named such until 1942	Torwid	27 September 1939-March 1940	Arrested by the Soviets	Joined the Anders Army, fought in the Polish Armed Forces in the West. Emigrated to the United Kingdom.
2.	General Stefan Rowecki	Grot	18 June 1940-30 June 1943	Discovered and arrested by German Gestapo	Imprisoned in Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Executed by personal decree of Heinrich Himmler after Warsaw Uprising has started.
3.	General Tadeusz Komorowski	Bór	July 1943-2 September 1944	Surrendered after the end of Warsaw Uprising.	Emigrated to United Kingdom.
4.	General Leopold Okulicki	Niedźwiadek	3 October 1944-17 January 1945	Dissolved AK trying to lessen the Polish-Soviet tensions.	Arrested by the Soviets, sentenced for imprisonment in the Trial of the Sixteen. Likely executed in 1946.

Questions on interrogations

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Although I am not going to deny that there were excessives during interrogations, however I do question about burning people alive and displaying mutilated corpses. That sounds highly questionable, and apart from some foreign historian's refrence and some nationalist faeces there hardly is not reliable source to support this. Also I hope noone minds moving Armstrong to the aftermath as I feel the statement is too general.

As for controversies and claims, then again this article is after all about UPA not the conflict of UPA vs. Soviet Union, thus the objective here is to describe the UPA not the NKVD/MVD which have their own respective articles. Also what is wrong with the heading "the end of the UPA (years)". --Kuban Cossack 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Armstrong. The NKVD interrogation techniques were described by Burds (who also described UPA brutality) and were documented by the Soviets themselves. These are excellent articles, certainly not pro-UPA propaganda: [1] (it is published in Russian by the Russian academy of Sciences also: [2])

"Guilty or innocent, local women faced interrogations that were at the very least terrifying, but more often brutally violent, and in which the Soviets imparted a sense of “knowing” the arrested woman had actively worked with the underground. If the woman detainee was actually innocent, from the Soviet point of view, no harm was done: a few days later, she would be released, battered but free. And her experience would have the added advantage of intimidating any future collaboration with rebels. But if the woman was guilty, the systematic cycle of sleep- and food-deprivation, isolation (including incarceration in a dark room with executed corpses), brutalization, and intimidation usually broke the prisoner."

"An especially useful case study is the story of the arrest, interrogation, and recruitment of Liudmilla Foia, an ethnic Ukrainian woman who survived repeated rape, beatings, and interrogations for over two months, but was only “turned” when her parents were implicated. Foia’s case is especially revealing because of the virtually unprecedented quality of her files: in the archives appear not only her Soviet police records, but also the records of her subsequent interrogation by the Ukrainian rebel underground, captured two weeks later in a Soviet raid."

And: "a former member of the Soviet special forces in West Ukraine bragged among fellows in the Higher Party School in Moscow in summer 1945: “I hung one nationalist upside down and burned him on a slow fire; I cut pieces of flesh out of him […] and he, that son of a bitch, died shouting ‘Glory to Ukraine!’ What a son of a bitch! How many of them I tortured!” Taken from:

"Words of a student in the Higher Party School in Moscow, as reported by Ukrainian film director Oleksandr Dovzhenko in his diary, entry dated some time between 30 June-11 July 1945. Cited in the Introduction to Litopys UPA, Vol. 1 Vydannia Holovnoho Komanuvannia UPA (Kyiv-Toronto: Litopys UPA, 1995), ix, xx. Extract originally published in Aleksandr Dovzhenko, “Dnevnik. 1945, 1953, 1954,” Iskusstvo kino, 9 (1989): 48."Faustian (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree there were individual instances that NKVD made itself very clear, and yes I agree individual cases would make Abu Graib seem like paradise. However it does make me wonder whether this was a clear torture policy or something that was spontaneous on the low level, with noone condemming nor condoning higher up. Also wrt former party school members bragging to Dovzhenko, who later writes it in his diary, for a Toronto based institution to take that as an evidence, and for this author to then cite it so that we use that as a direct evidence for mass burning alive.... seriously if individual diaries of conversations during parties are used as sources it makes me question the respective articles let alone believe in what's written there. --Kuban Cossack 16:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We just write what's in the sources; as wikipedia editors we don't have the right to judge whether or not what the source says is legitimate or question the author's methodology. Doing so would be our original research. As long as the source is the work of a resepcted scholar in a peer reviewed or otherwise legitimate book etc. we don't second-guess what the author wrote, we include it inthe article. We can, of course, find other conclusions in other equally legitimate sources and include both in the article. Burds found the evidence compelling and important, there's no reason not to include it in the article because you or I question where he got a particular piece of data. regards,Faustian (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Dovzhenko's diary would be a primary source, Litopys UPA would be second source, this is a tertiary source. You are free to quote that According to Jeffrey Burds, a Northeastern University historian, who observed in the Introduction to the first volume of the UPA chronicle which in turn cites that Aleksandr Dovzhenko noted in his a diary a conversation at a Higher Party School in Moscow in summer 1945 that a fellow told him that he personally hung a banderloga upside-down and burned him on a slow fire cutting flesh out of him. If you ever ask someone to have a peer review trust me that will be mercilessly removed. --Kuban Cossack 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Burds is a secondary source. According to WP:PSTS *Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.^[1] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview [my emphasis added - F.]; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.

A tertiary source would be an encyclopedia. Where Burds got his information doesn't need to be in the article unless Burds himself said it that way. Burds may or may not have considered other info taken from that source as credible, however he found this particular piece of information as credible, and there's no need to editorialize it. Burds' article was indeed peer reviewed - it appeared in a peer reviewed journal, and is translated into Russian and published in Moscow by the Russian Academy of Sciences: [3].Faustian (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Burds case a well documented - multiplying and quadrupling the events, mixing real data with forgery “memoirs” etc – as for most prominent example – he found NKVD report in December 1946 (while it was reorganized in spring 1946) etc. As regards to “Oleksandr Dovzhenko in his diary” – this wording initially appeared and Y.Tys-Krochmalyuk short version of brave OUN/UPA history. – So I’ve no farther comment on multiplying this fakes into burning people alive. Certainly silly anti-soviet propaganda.

Your claim that Burds either doesn't know what he is doing when he described what happened (and that you know better than Burds), or that he is some kind of pro-UPA propogandist, are original research and don't belong in wiklipedia.Faustian (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No - simply anti-soviet propagandist - as most late 80-x US sovietologist were. Case mentioned - (NKVD report in 1946 - faked Y.Krochmalyuk-Dovzhenko etc. Intresting how will be used this fact [4] if it happened with Soviet -? Mass raping by occupants? Is'nt - Please read what WP rules think about propaganda any replay on "1.5 year mistakes"?Jo0doe (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So now a guy who uses as his source the website of the People's Labor Party dismisses the work of Jeffrey Burds. As I said before, it reflects more on you than on Burds.Faustian (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you Like I can forward you almost complete collections of NKVD-NKGB-MVD-MGB documents about 1944-1948 actions against UPA – so – you can find by themselves were is the reliable information.

"Finding by themselves" is original research. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources not primary sources, archives, etc. See WP:PSTS Faustian (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Read [[[WP:PSTS|wikipedia policy again]]:

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.

Also this policy: WP:NOT#OR

If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge.Faustian (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So by all means do your archival research, get the results published and then we will have your analysis on the wikipedia page alongside that of Burds, Magocsi, the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, etc.19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Faustian (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean published in WP:PSTS? Jo0doe (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also I highly recommend to read International Military Tribunal Vol.7 and 8 were you can find very similar actions which “witnesses” reported about – but conducted “little beat earlier” and by their masters to whom they proud to assist. Jo0doe (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Source by both Subtelny and Magosci, each of whom recommends this book as a source for further reading

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Yuriy Tys- Krokhmaluk, UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York, N.Y. Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-80823 published in 1972 Citation:

General Kovpak succeeded, without meeting much opposition on the part of German, in reaching the Carpathian foothills. In the mountains, however, he encountered a powerful resistance on the part of UPA, which proceeded to destroy the Soviet forces completely. P.276

(in 1946) Russian agents, disguised as beggars and refugees, traveled from village to village disseminating typhus-carrying lice. When these criminals methods of Soviet Police come to light, the OUN underground network ordered mass vaccination of the populace in several areas. P, 285

And a lot of same quality and style “facts”…

You keep trying to avoid or ignore the fact that as wikipedia editors we report what historians tell us, not make our own conclusions. The fact that some Soviet historians may have shown poor judgement (or, their work was constrained by political factors) is an entirely different issue than the information supported by Subtelny or Magosci. It is irrelevent. What IS relevent is that, apparently, the same source that claimed UPA to not have engaged in fighting against the Germans also claimed that UPA killed 40,000 Ukrainian civilians (an allegation that you have still not addressed). This speaks poorly for that source's credibility. If you can find a legitimate historian that supports your view, then regardless of where he got his info, put his claims in and reference them to provide balance in the article. Your (or mine) personal second-guessing doesn't belong.

So – one sources – is Ok (disseminating typhus-carrying lice) while rest – like IMT Exhibit USA-277 (Document L-18) “Solution of Jewish question in Galicia” Exhibit USA-290 (Document 3257-PS) “…Exhibit USA-494 (Document 2992-PS) and rest are “This speaks poorly for that source's credibility”???Jo0doe (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's recommended doesn't mean that Subtelny and Magosci claim that every single thing within it is accurate. Neither of the two legitimate scholars included those innacuracies in their work. I limited my use of Krokhmaliuk's book to those specific topics covered by the legitimate scholars - you actually added more information from Krokhmaliuk's book into the article than I did. Since you feel negatively about Krokhmaliuk, those were obviously bad faith edits on your part.Faustian (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply follow the "recommendations by Subtelny and Magosci" - so book fool of lie and it does not matter how lie is used in full or selectively (to hide stupidity) - it' remains lie - thus This speaks poorly for that source's credibilityJo0doe (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

More from Burds about Soviet crimes

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

[5], page. 129-130:

"On 10 Septmeber 1948, a woman typist in a local office of MGB submitrted a 19 page denunciation of MGB abuses against the local West Ukrainian population (under the cover of "the struggle against banditry"). This led to the arrest and imprisonment of an oblast procurator and his staff. The allegations - later proven - included excessive force, illegal murders, extortion and embezzlement." Elsewhere Burds describes the systematic brutalization of the western Ukrainian population during the first years of Soviet rule there.Faustian (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Burds noted the NKVD report in December 1946 (when NKVD does not exist) - This speaks poorly for that source's credibility. Please see Bilas Vol.2 - for step by step story.Systematic - based only on one area report? Deception Jo0doe (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your or about Burds' work cannot dictate the contents of wikipedia articles.Faustian (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about joint AK-UPA actions

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I know there were some joint AK-UPA actions against Soviet invading forces and German occupation at the end of the war. Alas, a book which had a some overview of them was lended by me to a person who I no longer have contact with. So can anybody name those joint battles ? Additionaly I know that some in UPA experienced such pressure from Soviet invasion and attacks they went as far as to propose a Polish-Ukrainian confederation--Molobo (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Coral Sea and Great battle near Velyki Piski village - AK-UPA cooperation - myths mentioned in Tys-Krochmlyuk (As also UPA-Hungary Army and UPA-Chechoslovakia cooperations agreements) - Lie as usual for "intencively trained" Nazi slavesJo0doe (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not fully understand your post. Are you saying that AK-UPA cooperation is a myth? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, no one understands him. I think he is calling the AK and the UPA "Nazi slaves". That is certainly something he would say. Ostap 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I came across this bit of info in the UPA Chronicles [6] that might interest you:

In the spring of 1946, while making some modifications to mine and rocket detonators, the author's fiance, "Hrab", was injured. Splinters from the detonator wounded his face and a piece become deeply imbedded in his left eye. The wound in his eye did not heal and infection set in, which could not be treated under insurgent conditions. The only thing to be done was for him to get a specialist. At that time, the UPA command was cooperating with the Polish underground, the Armiha Krajowa (AK), which changed its name to WIN (Wolnosc i Nezawislosc). They organized joint attacks on communist centers in Verbovychi and Hrubeshiv. Using WIN contacts, "Hrab" was able to get to Lublin. There the renowned Polish eye specialist, Dr. Tadeusz Krwawicz, did a complicated operation on his eye. "Hrab" was supposed to stay in the hospital for a week, and than for examination and an additional operation on the lens of his eye. But a nurse who was working with the Polish underground informed "Hrab" that the State Security (UBP) was showing an interest in him. So on the day after the operation, "Hrab" left the hospital. Later, he returned to be examined by Dr. Krwawicz and it appeared that the eye was healing well. However, in the fall of 1946, the eye developed an acute infection. This time, it was not possible to save the eye. Dr. Krwawicz removed the infected eye and put in a prothesis.Faustian (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No deception at WP

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dear editors – unfortunately numerous issues mentioned by me above still does not resolved (silence or switching themes does not mean resolve). Since I presume what WP visitors deserve reliable and well sourced information I’ll do it accordingly to WP:Sources policy. No more “disseminating typhus-carrying lice by soviet agents” sources and “historians” based their “works” on such ALONE . No twisting and misuse date, citation and events (as mentioned many times above). No more images from unknown origin. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued removal of referenced information (blanking) will be reverted, no matter what the excuses for such misbehavior are.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Faustian Continued removal of referenced information (blanking) will be revertedJo0doe (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines Relevant to This Article

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

On what kind of sources should this article be based? Original archives, interviews, etc. compiled by wikipedia editors' own research, or scholarly books and articles from peer-reviewed journals written by respected academics? Wikipedia policy is clear WP:PSTS:

Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event.^[2] Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.^[3]^[4] Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

So, therefore, in cases where one's personal research finds information which seems to contradict what is written in a secondary source, the latter information is preferred because wikipedia is based on the secondary sources. This seems like a good policy, because it prevents wikipedia articles from becoming vehicles for personal unpublished research projects and is a good control against Cherry picking.

Similar to the previous point, does archival research by editors whose purpose is to advance a position (such as the position that a particular seciondary source is not credible) belong in wikipedia? Policy is quite clear WP:NOR:

Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

So, arguing that particular sources that one does not like are wrong constitutes an unpublished fact, argument, speculation or idea. Such an argument is original research. Even when one uses facts to do so - as demonstrated below.

In what way should sources be used? Wikipedia policy is clear [7]:

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material. However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research...

The last sentence is key here and I'll repeat it in bold: However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research.

What kind of sources are considered reliable? Wikipedia policy is clear [8] :

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

We should keep the above in mind when we use sources or criticize them.

Are long lists of facts or information automatically included in articles just because they are true? Wikipedia policy is clear WP:INDISCRIMINATE:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In addition to other sections of this policy, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: ....# Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.

The above applies to clutter that does not provide important information but which leads to poor readability of the article.

This page may be useful to review also :Wikipedia:Consensus.

A review of behavior particualrly relevent to this article is found here Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The most important section is this one[9]:

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

In addition, such editors may:

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

I hope this clarifies some issues.Faustian (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for - I realy miss this infi
A disruptive editor is an editor who:
Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.

fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. (Krochmalyuk,?)

Your confession? Because you added more of Krokhmaliuk's material to the article than did any other editor.Faustian (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably you forgot yo mention Wikipedia:SOURCES

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

That's a good point. That's why we should stick to the work of scholars from respected institutions such as the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Harvard, Princeton, etc. published by respectable journals or universities, which is what I have done rather consistently.Faustian (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pity to know what many time published known for evryone data (like Names of Highest SS officers and Kovpak Karpatian raid as also OUN(B) Canaris origin as many others) ommited here. Well respected sources rejected by sole editor which failed to expaline "1.5" mistake Jo0doe (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability

Latest comment: 16 years ago25 comments2 people in discussion

Just few instances in recent revert from well sourced version: fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Lead

Ukrainian military organization - non referenced claim (removed sourced “military formation”)-OR

Trivial distinction which can be changed. This source [10] refers to UPA as the military arm of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So - I assume you agree what you revert to OR versionJo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

UPA's primary purpose was to protect the interests, of Ukrainians – non referenced claim (removed conclusion by Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,)

I didn't add this part.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So - I assume you agree what you revert to OR versionJo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

“Some UPA units” - misrepresents reliable sources - Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine which mentioned whole involvement of UPA

Add the reference to this claim of yours, with page number please.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Whole chapter is about - please read carefullyJo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

“UPA recruitment poster” - manufactures original research

No answer So - I assume you agree what you revert to OR version Jo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rest few first section

“UPA's membership is estimated to have consisted of 60% peasants of low to moderate means, 20-25% workers (primarily rural lumber and food industries), and 15% from the intelligentsia (students, urban professionals” - misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

This statement is referenced in the article to this source: [11]:

"Peasants constituted as much as 60 per cent of UPA’s overall personnel strength, providing the bulk of the fighting force. Accustomed to physical hardship and endurance and directly affected by the aforementioned economic, social and political grievances, peasants were the most effective and motivated element of the UPA’s enlisted ranks.27 In part due to its focus on the rural population and rejection of Marxism-Leninism, the OUN-UPA was less effective in attracting the industrial working class, although in 1943 – 44 this segment of the population – largely in response to Nazi atrocities – came to represent as much as 20 – 25 per cent of the UPA’s personnel, most of them from the rural lumber and food industries. The intelligentsia, including students and urban professionals, constituted 15 per cent of the UPA’s force strength. This was the most educated and capable demographic within the organisation, providing a substantial portion of the officer corps and military instructors." Faustian (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Faustian (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

can't find "of low to moderate means" "workers" and reason of removal the info from Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine unexplained (were stated (based on one of UPA commander data what UPA predominantly composed from peasants of low to moderate means)Jo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(Nuremberg Trial O14-USSR) – on Nuremberg Trial does not present any documents which started nor from O nor from 0 – see www.loc.gov for details.

Didn't add this part. But it was referenced from Andrew Gregorovich's work.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So - I assume you agree what you revert to OR version and prevail "Adrew Gregorovich's work" to IMT documents publised at Library of Congress? What about WP:PSTS rule?Jo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

During service from May till October 1942 the “Ukrainian Legion” in - misrepresents reliable sources and manufactures original research

No answer So - I assume you agree what you revert to OR version Jo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite the stated opinions of Dmytro Klyachkivskiy and Roman Shukhevych - misrepresents reliable sources (In source mentioned Despite the stated opinion by Stepnyak…)

Still waiting for your translation of that part.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Already done - but you revert to OR Jo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

By late 1943 and early 1944, the UPA controlled much of the territory of Volyn, outside of the major cities, and was able to organize basic services for the villagers such as schools, hospitals, and the printing of newspapers fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources

Will find this source.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

???Jo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

the German General-Kommissar Leyser to be in control of 80% of the forests and 60% of the f rmland cites unencyclopedic sources also not WP:V

Sourced.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

cites unencyclopedic sources, please provide WP:V sourceJo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Etc. etc etc.

Picture UPA fighters in Rivne Oblast, in 1947 - fails to cite sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research (

Hopefully the person who added this will place the source.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So - I assume you agree what you revert to OR version Jo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

who defend the [Soviet] regime misrepresents reliable sources, and manufactures original research

????Faustian (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't find Soviet word in mentioned documents? Does Poles were a defenders of Sovie regime?Jo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Columbia University professor John Armstrong "If one takes into account the duration, geographical extent, and intensity of activity, the UPA very probably is the most important example of forceful resistance to an established Communist regime prior to the decade of fierce Afghan resistance beginning in 1979 – cited through John Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism New York: Columbia University Press, 1963 fails to cite sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research (Afgan war in 1963 book)

Will add correct date.Faustian (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So - I assume you agree what you revert to OR version, Please also add number (ISBBN or Congress catalog) Jo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

ANd all above mentioned many times - but without seccessJo0doe (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Should I need to point more instances? Untill fixed I revert to soursed versionJo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Verified

Picture UPA fighters in Rivne Oblast, in 1947

Source uk:wikipedia.org in article Українська повстанська армія
stored as image Upa_1947.jpg‎
Also found commons.wikimedia.org as Upa_1947.jpg‎
With some difficulty tracked down original editor for Ukrainian Wikipedia and he identified source as http://www.cdvr.org.ua/army.php?roz=7 about the book "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" published in Ukrainian in 2007.

Jo0Doe - I believe this meets Wikipedia:Verifiability.

http://www.cdvr.org.ua appears to be an interesting website with a large amount of photographs and a large amount of archive material. Bobanni (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

uk:wikipedia.org can not be assumed as reliable source in themselves. While www.cdvr.org.ua and thier publications can not be treated as WP:RS - becouse it a private institution http://www.cdvr.org.ua/about.php and not recognized by anyone from respect historians. P.S. Probably you can't read my concerns about arms and closing for as for "UPA" and for "1947"Jo0doe (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. So soviet, polish, german and ukrainian publications - more reliable - as As a rule of thumb rather then

Toronto press

So University of Toronto Press according to you doesn't count as a University Press? Faustian (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly to WP:RS Ukrainian historical publications by University of Toronto Press are less reliable as compared with “Naukova Dumka” and rest numerous scientific publishing houses existed (and few of them still remain) in Ukraine, Poland, Russia and Germany. Jo0doe (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

N.Y. Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army

Again, you added more of this stuff than I did. I generally limited citations from his work to what was discussed by other authors.Faustian (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Limited citation of lie does not change the lie itself, we should act accordingly to prevent “disseminating typhus-carrying lice by Russian agents, disguised as beggars and refugees” in all kinds and types.Jo0doe (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Zhukov (I can't identified were (university presses???) his article were published )Jo0doe (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Zhukov's article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. Check the reference yourself. Faustian (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

“peer-reviewed journal” by historians familiar with Polish and Ukrainian history for 1939-47? I assuming it as not such.Jo0doe (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinions are well-known (even though they don'thave a place here on wikipedia), but thanks for sharing them again.Faustian (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nedilna battle, Maskirovka unit, typhus-carrying lice and December 1946 NKVD report

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Above mentioned sentences spoiled the WP credibility thus, dear editors which found consensus amongst themselves I remind you what’s actually reflect inaccuracy of data in “consensus” version (current vs referenced or ).

military organization – “military formation”
UPA's primary purpose was to protect the interests, of Ukrainians – OR (Also which interests and which Ukrainians?)
Estimates of armed personnel at various times ranged from 15,000 - 100,000 – sentence which has no sense. Moreover even less figures (60-80K) described as “fantastic’ by most recent research by Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Some UPA units were involved in… sounds like some of guards of Auschwitz_concentration_camp involved in …
among the people of Western Ukraine – OR
In other regions of Ukraine, - OR and twist a mentioned in source
UPA's membership is estimated to have consisted of 60% peasants of low to moderate means, - twisting two source different data.
UPA Formation – incorrect heading for 1941- 1942 period (UPA formed at spring-summer 1943)
A captured German document of November 25, 1941 (Nuremberg Trial O14-USSR) – All presented on IMT documents from countries has following coding –“ USA-290” “GB-321” “USSR-3” “RF-433” (mean country code and document number).
Despite the stated opinions of Dmytro Klyachkivskiy and Roman Shukhevych … - manipulation with mentioned in source info.
By late 1943 and early 1944, the UPA controlled much of the territory of Volyn – contradict with Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine data.
Removal of significant well referenced info from WP:RS speaks badly about editors efforts (to hide the deceptions about “Battles” – I assume and thus exploit WP as soapbox)
Near the villages of Kamyanka and Lypa, 3 insurgent battalions repulsed the incursions of 2 German SS divisions – does such info has a relation to Collaboration section? (silly manipulation with article structure)
Once more – Removal (from section Collaboration )of significant well referenced info from WP:RS speaks badly about editors efforts

Polish-UPA war – really stupid name of chapter –clear OR
Once more – Removal (from section Collaboration )of significant well referenced info from WP:RS speaks badly about editors efforts
early actions occurred in areas under the control of Taras Bulba-Borovets rather than of the OUN – manipulation with mentioned in source conclusion - Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine data
whether these events were ever planned. – one opinion instead of community of historians – really interesting editing.
unaffiliated with UPA – OR – someone still wants to whitewash and justify through OR
The UPA's activities can be seen as a reaction to past – look like whitewash and justify
However, UPA also killed ethnic Ukrainians, those who did not cooperate with them – which relation such data has to this chapter? – looks like someone use silly methods to whitewash and justify.
Speaking of the escalation in violence, a former soldier in a Polish nationalist partisan unit stated – WP is not collection of memoirs of unnamed soldiers.
UPA first encountered them in late 1942 – does UPA exist in “late 1942”?
Ukrainian partisan leader Sydir Kovpak etc – someone don’t like reliable comprehensive information – and prefer the deception like “remnants were subsequently harrassed by UPA in the Carpathian mountains, and some destroyed altogether” originated from typhus-carrying lice source.
stated that in spring 1944 clashes – manipulation with mentioned in source
Despite heavy casualties on both sides, - does such statement has a sense?
By the autumn of 1944, UPA forces enjoyed virtual freedom of movement over an area 160,000 kilometers in size and home to over 10 million people and had established a shadow government – unreliable info – same as “Lithuanian names”.
They blockaded villages and roads and set forests on fire – all Carpathian forests ? - originated from typhus-carrying lice source.
Soviet forces lost approximately 12,000 "killed or hanged", - deception
Spring 1945- late 1946 For more details on this topic, see Sluzhba Bezbeky. – interesting but someone would like to SB atrocities exit only as “UPA responded to the Soviet methods by unleashing their own terror against “ ?
Areas of UPA activity were depopulated – “you have to have visual impact”? WP is not
250,000 people were arrested in Western Ukraine - deception data dismissed at Bilas Vol 2
suspected of being UPA members underwent extensive torture; reports exist of some prisoners being burned alive etc – anti-soviet propaganda – what WP speak about propaganda?
UPA stopped killing the families of those it deemed collaborators by mid 1945 – so what about “seventeen women and one adolescent boy which were killed since November 1947” removed from article?
UPA proved to be especially adept at assassinating key Soviet administrative officials – “maskirovka unit”?
According to NKVD data, between February 1944 and December 1946 11,725 Soviet officers, agents and collaborators were assassinated - “maskirovka unit”?
Morale amongst the NKVD in Western Ukraine was particularly low. – yes. Because NKVD does not exist in December 1946
personnel files reveal higher rates of transfer requests, alcoholism, and nervous breakdown – very impotent info for UPA article – WP:ISNOTSOAPBOX – does someone read this stuff?
The first success of the Soviet authorities came in early 1946 in the Carpathians, which were blockaded from January 11 until April 10 – OR
For this reason, by 1946, UPA was reduced to a core group of 5-10 thousand fighters – this info has any sense.
image A fighters in Rivne Oblast, in 1947 – not with WP:PSTS policy
Also the Soviets skillfully exploited Polish-Ukrainian ethnic hatred by using Poles as informants – for 1947-55 period – does anyone knew what poles relocated by 1946?
Although sporadic UPA activity continued until the mid 1950 – maybe OUN/UPA underground?

made numerous violently antisemitic statements. – but removed sources confirm what proponents and members of OUN(B) actively participated in Holocaust -
In 1944, the OUN formally "rejected racial and ethnic exclusivity" - “you have to have visual impact”?
according to former head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation at the USIA, some Soviet propoganda works complained about Zionists "closely cooperating with" Bandera ringleaders – Disinformation as such
During the following years the UPA was officially taboo by Soviet Union – OR

I even don’t mentioned the huge removal of well sourced information - what about WP:IDONTLIKEIT ?Jo0doe (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

New data from International Military Tribunal - Nuremberg

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In addition to removed from article some new interesting data about “resistance group”

Exhibit GB-321 (Document 032-PS) Report dated April 2 1943 from Rosenberg to Himmler about murder of the people of the Zuman wooded area (Reichcommisariate Volinien – Podolien) . In December 1942… hundreds of peoples in Zuman and it’s vicinity were shot down with the aid of entire police company[Ukrainian].” IMT Vol XI

Von dem Bach Zalewski was appointed Chief of the anti-partisan fighting on 30 January 1943. IMT Vol XI p. 246

Exhibit USA-147 Germany aims is the freedom of the Ukrainian people… Ukrainian State can be formed (From Rosenberg speech June 20 1941) IMT Vol XI p. 478

Document L-221 “Rosenberg continues that certain independence movements in the Ukraine deserved support as well.” IMT Vol XI p. 481

Document 1039-PS In report submitted by Rosenberg to Hitler on 28 June 1941 noted what Rosenberg met with Admiral Canaris and had a talk to choose certain persons, who would also able to do political work…. Admiral Canaris had organized certain group of Ukrainians. IMT Vol XI p. 567Jo0doe (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

UPA's relationships with Western Ukraine's Jews

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

During the war Roman Shukhevych's wife, Natalia Shukhevych was sheltering a Jewish girl Irina Reitenberg. According to BBC Roman Shukhevych saved her from the Holocaust. More on relations between members of OUN and Jews here in Ukrainian. Maybe this should be added to this section. Bandurist (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Silly CBU deception - please look more about actual info[12] simply compare „Ярослав Стецько, як керівник українського уряду, створеного 30 червня 1941 року, вже на початку липня цього ж року був німцями заарештований і утримувався до вересня 1944 року в концентраційному таборі „Заксенгаузен”. and [13] p.63 Я.Стецько писав "Робимо міліцію, що поможе жидів усувати". And see more detailed at IMT documents what actually Ukrainian militia did?Jo0doe (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

what a perfect stupid sentence

Оприлюднені днями архівні документи СБУ свідчать, що КДБ під час та після Другої світової війни здійснював спеціальні провокації з метою очорнити представників двох народів в очах одне одного.

Does they knew when KGB established - especially I like idiotic phrase КДБ під час ... Другої світової війни здійснював спеціальні провокації з метою очорнити представників двох народів в очах одне одного.Jo0doe (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, but what has what you have written got to do with Shukhevych and Reitenberg? Bandurist (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Direct - SBU deception by order from higher commander from Khorunjivka. Same as their Holodomor exhibition 2006- not WP:RS Jo0doe (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are taking phrases out of context which deceives readers.

Олександр Іщук представив віднайдені в архівах СБУ документи КДБ, які свідчать про провокаційні заходи, що вживало радянське керівництво для загострення українсько-єврейських відносин. Зокрема було продемонстровано листівку із звинуваченнями проти одного з провідників ОУН Ярослава Стецька, яка була надрукована КДБ на івриті та англійською мовою та, згідно з вказівками його керівництва, розповсюджувалася від імені єврейських організацій. Як вказав О. Іщук: «Листівка містить заклики, що можна однозначно розцінити як розпалювання міжнаціональної ворожнечі».

That's not very nice. I wonder what the quality of your other postings is like. And please explain why you suggested the word idiotic and stupid in a discussion of sources?

The material about Irina Reienberg states: У 1942-1943 рр. від німецьких переслідувань єврейську дівчинку Ірину Райхенберг переховувала Наталія Шухевич – дружина Головного командира УПА. Сам Роман Шухевич зробив для єврейської дівчинки документи на прізвище Рижко Ірина і, після арешту гестапівцями дружини, сховав дівчинку у монастирському сиротинці, завдяки чому вона пережила Голокост. http://www.ssu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=77689&cat_id=39574&cat_id=39574

Bandurist (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

it's originated from Yad-Washen? - did you read this [14]? If from SBU - it's not WP:RS - also many instances of deceptions originated from them in recent time.Jo0doe (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why idiotic and stupid –

Because KGB does not exist in WWII time and sentence здійснював спеціальні провокації з метою очорнити представників двох народів в очах одне одного has no sense at all – becouse OUN(b) leaders are not representatives of whole Ukrainian nation. Moreover would interesting to know whom from Jewish peoples KGB discredit in their “special provocations in WWII times” – in general it’s sounds even more stupid if compared it with “frozen meat of kulak sold on Besarabka under NKVD approvals in 1933” from Mace. Jo0doe (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Аналізуючи ідеологічні засади визвольного руху, які висвітлювали ставлення ОУН до євреїв, Володимир В’ятрович зазначив, що згідно з публікаціями провідних ідеологів руху, його програмних постанов, ідеологія українських націоналістів не містила положень, які давали б підстави звинувачувати ОУН в антисемітизмі. У відновленій незалежній державі євреям гарантувалися рівні громадянські права та обов’язки.

- deception as such - see more here [15] p.63Jo0doe (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

командира УПА - «Північ» Петра Клячківського -??? :)) They even don't know what Klaychkivslyy was Dmytro...Jo0doe (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the KGB under the name of KGB did not exist we know, but please look at the passage again. It does not state that the KGB existed during WWII. I read it that it states that the SBU used documents that were in the KGB archives which I understand they inherited. Your interpretation of the passage is inaccurate.

The initial info was from the BBC site, yet you immediately brand it as a SBU deception. Do you not think that the BBC does not check its information before it lets out a report? And you brand it silly? You are very hasty in your judgement. You removed a number of key words and phrases and put materials out of context. That is not the type of attitude or scholarship that I feel should be included in Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Your method of logic is hard to follow. На городі бузина - а в Києві дядько.... Bandurist (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know if BBC-Ukraine got skilled historians- as far as I can see from text,- seems – not, if they even unable to read published in 2004 quite comprehending work by Institute of History, Ukrainian Academy of Science. Probably you’ve missed a point what report based on SBU “presentation” which full of mistakes and conducted against the Ukrainian Law “On information”. Once more – please read carefully – “представив віднайдені в архівах СБУ документи КДБ” – key words “KGB documents” – nor NKVD, nor NKGB – but “KGB” – sounds same as “tank and heavy artillery at UPA”. I put only clear idiotic text – which reveal the quality of information in general – good for idiots but not for WPedia and it visitors. Did you read Yad-Washen statement about current Ukrainian deception? Moreover for that time Hebrew was much more less used as compared with Yiddish. Why English but not German or French leaflet (most of Alias comes from non English-speaking countries) ? Distributed were ? Amongst whom? Look like them think what in MGB (as for 1950) worked same level personnel as in present Khorunzhivka-SBU. Jo0doe (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

about Irina Reienberg:

DYK when Lemberg Ghetto were established were all Jews must be?
DYK about documents “Jewish question solution on Galicia” dated June 1943?
How you can explain the miracle satiation when Gestapo arrested wife of Shukhevich and even not search in her home for husband. After that – Shukhevich comes to his arrested wife home and by themselves issue for her documents?

“Bond… James Bond” relaxed compare with such murky fairytales. Big Lie as such –

DYK about recent story with Nazi propaganda training in Kyiv schools for upper society children?Jo0doe (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the claims above are one particular editor's OR and words. And this particular editor has been caught misusing sources in various ways documented in the article's archived talk pages.Faustian (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fate of those deported 1944-52

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is there reliable information on the fate of those Ukrainians and Belarussians deported from 1944-52? From Poland there were 480,000 deported and from the Western Ukraine and Belarussia about 600,000, according to official Soviet data. Were these people allowed to return to their homes? How many perished in the interior of the USSR? Where are they today?--Woogie10w (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Relocated from Poland placed on depopulated after war Ukrainian East and Center. From Ukraine were deported 202K of all nationality - 115 820 of them in 1944-48 from Western Ukraine (most of them OUN families member). 60-70K of them returned in 1955-57(After Stalin Death). Rest after, few remains at Far East. As for instance - you can see the fate of last UPA commander Vasyl Kuk - is it similar to captured by UPA/SB soviet citizens?Jo0doe (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the data. The fact that only 60-70,000 returned indicates that an unknown number perished in the Soviet interior. 1.6 million persons were deported( including Poles & Jews) in 1939-41 and 1.0 million in 1944-47( including Poland). If 1/7 of the deported perished, that would mean 300,000+ dead, not counting 160,000 killed in the fighting from 1944-47. I still wonder about the fate of those who remained in Russia, my hunch is that they settled down and made the best out of a bad stitution.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

in 1939 there 32775 refugees and 15000 jobless from Poland which relocated at Ukraine itself.

Refugees from Ukraine and Belarus relocated to eastern territories of USSR in 1940 - 77710 persons. (Ukraine – 57.774) Poles ”osadnik” – 137132 (by end of January 1941). From them Ukrainians – osadnik -11720 refugees – 1728 Jews – 64553 (all refugees). Accordingly to November 1941 report from Baltic States, Moldavian SSR and western regions of Belarus and Ukraine were deported for 20 years 88.097 persons – interesting but not to GULAG (because NKVD does not manage deported as of end 1941) – “simply” deported. Fact in what from 101K were 60-70K returned only in 1955-1958 – rest later. Number of death in jails and GULAG in 1945-56 widely known and many time published. Also I can’t count 1.600K of deported in 1939-41 as also 1.000K in 1944-47 (see figures above) . Total number of killed in 1944-56 estimated in 155 108 persons, surrendered 76 753. Arrested for belonging to OUN 103 866, from them imprisoned 87 756.Jo0doe (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Massive Edits

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Jo0doe - the consensus of the editors was to limit changes to one section at a time. Many changes that you propose have been rejected by the majority of editors because the conclusion are based on your own original research. You have incorrectly labeled .many Reliable Sources as Unreliable and then deleting valid edits. You have a tenancy of overusing the word "deception" implying that others have made "bad-faith" edits. Bobanni (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army#Nedilna_battle.2C_Maskirovka_unit.2C_typhus-carrying_lice_and_December_1946_NKVD_report? I've provided refernse all for all my edits - while 250000 arests and burning alive still appeared.Jo0doe (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What you provided is not a reference but an explanation of your edit. For example you can not locate Nuremberg Trial document O14-USSR. It is referenced by Andrew Gregorovich who is a respected scholar with the University of Toronto. None of his peers have accused him of fabrication. Maybe perhaps you can not find since there are of a million pages of material see http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=faq

If you deal with these one at a time I am sure the editors can come to a consensus. Bobanni (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look at article before “consensus” – you can find a lot of tiny figures above text – it’s called references. If you look at link to talk page – you can find what actually at “consensus” version spoil the WP credibility – OR, deceptions, twist of data, unreliable data and non academic source and simple propaganda.

Nuremberg Trial materials in full – located at www.loc.gov – not million pages but 30+ volumes 550-700 pages each. While the names of documents presented (coding principles) available at any of them (volumes and if there a lot of “USSR-3”, “USSR-58”,”USSR-356” that mean what documents under names “01-USSR” …“013-USSR” etc never were presented at IMT.- see WP:V what it’s actually mean. Jo0doe (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the claims above are one particular editor's OR and words. And this particualr editor has been caught misusing sources in various ways documented in the article's archived talk pages.Faustian (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess which “various ways”– may be “Nedilna battle”,”Makivka and Black forest battle group”? Or may be Y.Krohmalyuk +page missed+ references? Or current wording “anti-Semitic statements” which does not appear at source “http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/2.pdf” ? Could you please remind just a few instances.Jo0doe (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you keep coming back to my mistakes from years ago when shown your own pattern of intentional misquotes, selective quotes, etc.Faustian (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean this year? So - I assume "page number missed" - for "has been caught" - as for Y.Krohmalyuk (1973)?Jo0doe (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Massive blanking

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Dear editors, You’ve remove a significant amount of information without explanations (comments like “disruptive editor”, “consensus version” have not any traces of reasons). and reinstate data: 1) which, actually, does not exist in source 2) reflect the vision of tiny minority etc. Would be grateful if you can explain your action (inline with WP recommendations). Thank you P.S. If you would like to include info about UPA armament – I’ve a reliable figures and items (but not tanks and heavy artillery) . Women – it should be placed in separate article as Women organization of OUN – it’s a separately existed formation like “Women Corp” and historically does not have a direct relation to UPA. Publication related also mostly to OUN itself (despite nominally attachments them to UPA groups). Create article “OUN underground” – and put everything in it. Jo0doe (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything has been discussed extensively with you (check archives); please do not pretend that you have forgotten. If one person chooses to ignore discussions and work against consensus with most all other editors that is unfortunate.Faustian (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please repeat "discussed extensively", also give a link to "consensus with most all other editors". Thank youJo0doe (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look through the archives - most of what is written has been in response to your changes. Count who has supported your points and who has not done so to see what the consensus is.Faustian (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give a link - becouse I've unable to find "Everything has been discussed". consensus -?Jo0doe (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You can start witht he entirety of achive2 [16].Faustian (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New OR listing

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some UPA units may have been involved in the killing and ethnic cleansing of western Ukraine's Polish population
In order to differentiate itself from Soviet "Partisans" (a term used by communist underground forces) the members UPA tended to use the Ukrainian term "Povstantsi".
UPA remained active and continued open battles
The Soviet government assumed that Ukrainian nationalists (OUN/UPA) were German collaboratorsJo0doe (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanations – lead

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Its growth and strength reflected its popularity among the Ukrainian people.

Why added “western” – does Subtelnyy mention “Western”

Some UPA units – in ref mentioned what whole UPA was involved in such actions (read first sentence at ref) and first at p.238 , bottom at p.247

Jo0doe (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanations – structure

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I’ve added clear understandable structure for visitors – someone mesh it into nonsense.

Actually more than one editor has pointed out that your additional section is, sorry, not so readable and moreover is redundant because it includes infromation elsewhere in the article. Wikipedia articles have a lead summarizing the aticle, and then the article. Not an outline of the article between the lead and the article.Faustian (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Please provide a link to prove statement “more than one editor” “includes information elsewhere in the article.”WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Jo0doe (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In history section mentioned all important turnover points in the UPA history which has any or little connections to other sections. Period 1941-winter 43 IS NOT period of UPA formation – see refs about UPA formations time. I can see any reason to put everything in German or Soviet section.

== Explanations – Organization of UPA==

UPA's membership is estimated to have consisted of 60% peasants of low to moderate means, 20-25% workers (primarily rural lumber and food industries), and 15% from the intelligentsia (students, urban professionals). – Please explain the reason of OR and merging in one sentence two different data (one from UPA commander One from unknown origin- presumed Y.Krokhmalyuk)

The above info is referenced in the article. Zhukov states [17] pg. 444

"Peasants constituted as much as 60 per cent of UPA’s overall personnel strength, providing the bulk of the fighting force. Accustomed to physical hardship and endurance and directly affected by the aforementioned economic, social and political grievances, peasants were the most effective and motivated element of the UPA’s enlisted ranks. In part due to its focus on the rural population and rejection of Marxism-Leninism, the OUN-UPA was less effective in attracting the industrial working class, although in 1943 this segment of the population – largely in response to Nazi atrocities – came to represent as much as 20 – 25 per cent of the UPA’s personnel, most of them from the rural lumber and food industries. The intelligentsia, including students and urban professionals, constituted 15 per cent of the UPA’s force strength. This was the most educated and capable demographic within the organisation, providing a substantial portion of the officer corps and military instructors."

The book by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences states [18] on pg. 172

"according to one UPA commander, among UPA's officers and troops 60% were Galicians, 30% were Volynians and Polissians and 10% were Ukrainians from the Dnieper region."

The article states:

"UPA's membership is estimated to have consisted of 60% peasants of low to moderate means, 20-25% workers (primarily rural lumber and food industries), and 15% from the intelligentsia (students, urban professionals). The latter group provided a large portion of UPA's military trainers and officer corps. Sixty percent of UPA's membership was from Galicia and 30% from Volhynia and Podolia."

(I will change Podolians in the article into Polissians as per the reference.)

Please explain what in the article's sentence, above, constitutes OR as you claimed and where you see, in your words, "merging in one sentence two different data (one from UPA commander One from unknown origin- presumed Y.Krokhmalyuk)".

Address this first, and then I will discuss your other points.Faustian (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Please provide what actually “book by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences states” in full, before we proceed.

Why don't you do so? This ought to be a collaborative process, not one in which I do all of the work. The link is there.Faustian (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK - If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.Jo0doe (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

removal of” while Institute of Ukrainian History by Academy of Sciences of Ukraine mentioned what (Armia Krajowa) and Soviet partisans controlled a significant percentage of territory of Volyn by early 1944.”

Jo0doe (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanations -UPA military gendarmerie and security service (SB)

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reason of removal and creation of clear OR and POV based new article in WP Jo0doe (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanations UPA's relations with Germany ===Hostilities===

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

removal of

However General von dem Bach-Zalewski, According to German data since spring 1943, was responsible for overall command of anti-partisan’s actions at controlled by Germans territory and especially he involved in actions in Central Russia (present Belarus territory) [19] and never for Ukraine. Such data also confirmed by him during interrogation at Nuremberg_Trials ^[5] ^[6]

However “General Platle” “General Hintzler” does not mentioned amongst high command staff of the SS [20] [21]. ^[7] ^[8]

However , the “Bandenbekempfung” operations were not conducted exclusively against UPA ^[9]. etc.

However German sourced does not mentioned such battles. ^[10] Also Erich Koch in his November 1943 report and New Year 1944 speech mentioned what “nationalistic bands in forests does not have any major threat” for Germans Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page)..

Same information mentioned in top secret report as of January 21 1944 from famous soviet partisan commander General-Major Feodorov: “while acting from July 1943 till January 1944 in Volynskaya and Rovenskaya regions we did have any facts, were Ukrainian nationalists, excluding numerous brave reports in own press, conduct any action against German occupants” ^[11]

While in general OUN and UPA actions on anti-German front do not play an important role in liberation of Ukrainian territory from Germans occupants.

[^[12]

At same time, despite post war OUN/UPA claims (1947), they unable to prevent German deportation for slave works 500,000 of Ukrainians from west regions of Ukraine, nor “Ukrainian peoples looting” by Germans since OUN/UPA does not control German road and especially railways communication network. [^[13]

such action contradict with WP:Sources policy – you limit article to tiny minority version, which dismissed by WP:RS data and numerous of works. Jo0doe (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments2 people in discussion

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Thus I would like to clarify from editors following claims:

UPA active – till 1955

Explained previously, and is in the archives. You chose to ignore the discussion.Faustian (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Estimates of armed personnel at various times ranged up to 100,000