Talk:Stepan Bandera

Over-egged pudding in lead

The first sentence includes "Ukrainian far-right leader of the radical, militant wing..." We have RSs for that but (a) it is a lot of value-laden adjectives in the first sentence, and (b) are we certain that the preponderance of RSs use these terms as the main way he is described? I'd advocated a cleaner simpler first sentence - "Ukrainian nationalist leader of the radical wing of the OUN" - and then maybe unpack the other terms a little later in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For comparison, Britannica lists him as "Stepan Bandera (Ukrainian political leader)"; Ukraine's internet encyclopedia says "Revolutionary, politician, and ideologue of the Ukrainian nationalist movement"; Wikidata has "Ukrainian nationalist leader"; wikipedia.fr has "leader politique ukrainien" (Ukrainian political leader); .de has "nationalistischer ukrainischer Politiker und Partisanenführer” (Ukrainian nationalist politician and partisan-leader); .es has “líder nacionalista ucraniano” (Ukrainian nationalist leader) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion we can leave the lede as it is. Sources often speak of him in these terms and his political faith is not in doubt, there is no point in going around it for WP:SPADE. Mhorg (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

BobFromBrockley, I read on de wikipedia: "Stepan Andrijovytsch Bandera ( Ukrainian Степан Андрійович Бандера , scientific transliteration Stepan Andrijovyč Bandera ; born January 1, 1909 in Staryj Uhryniw , Galicia , Austria-Hungary ; † October 15, 1959 in Munich ) was a Ukrainian nationalist politician and leader of the far-right , terrorist wing of the OUN , the OUN-B." [1] JimRenge (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

German version is wrong because entire OUN was a terrorist organisation, not just OUN-B Marcelus (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

For me, this points to the unhelpfulness of using lots of contentious adjectives in the first sentence, and benefit of switching to a neat, neutral opening that can be unfolded properly in following sentences. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think lack of adjectives makes it more neutral? Marcelus (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not about adjectives in general; it's about contentious adjectives, and loading lots of them into a first sentence which would read better if it was simple, encylopedic and informative instead of a cumbersome polemic. We have the rest of the lead to be more precise in unpacking his role. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the lead does not elaborate on ideology. How would you propose mentioning this later in the lead? Mellk (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I would (a) simplify the first sentence to something like "was a Ukrainian nationalist politician involved in the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists", (b) expand para 2 to mention he joined OUB in 1929 and briefly characterise it (e.g. "Involved in nationalist organizations from a young age, he joined the right-wing nationalist OUN in 1929"), (c) introduce OUN-B in para 3, (e.g. "Bandera was freed from prison in 1939 following the invasion of Poland, and moved to Kraków. In February 1940, the OUN split and he became the figurehead for its radical, militant wing, known as the OUN-B." Para 4 already includes the fact his legacy is contested with some seeing him as a fascist. This would be much more informative, and have a clear, readable, NPOV opening sentence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the Britannica version is succinct and accurate enough. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the right way to introduce this article is, but I think you're right, we should be trying to introduce this article in a manner that is more encyclopedic. See the kind of advice given in WP:WTW or WP:IMPARTIAL for instance Tristario (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

My proposal: was a Ukrainian far-right leader of the OUN-B, radical, wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists Marcelus (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Pledging to work with Nazi Germany

He prepared the 1941 proclamation of the Ukrainian state, pledging to work with Nazi Germany after Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. sentence from the lead. While true, I suggest only important enough facts are to be represented in article lead.

For example, Encyclopedia of History of Ukraine http://resource.history.org.ua/cgi-bin/eiu/history.exe?&I21DBN=ELIB&P21DBN=ELIB&S21STN=1&S21REF=10&S21FMT=elib_all&C21COM=S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S21P03=ID=&S21COLORTERMS=0&S21STR=0001124 gives the following short description:
BANDERA Stepan Andriyovych (pseudonyms: Stary, Baba, Biylikho; December 1, 1909 - October 15, 1959) was a theorist and prominent figure in the Ukrainian national liberation movement of the 1930s to the 1950s. He was the son of A. Bandera, born in the village of Staryi Ugriniv (now in the Kalush district of Ivano-Frankivsk region). He was a member of the Ukrainian Military Organization (1928), the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (since 1929), the regional executive of the OUN in western Ukrainian lands (from 1931), and the deputy regional leader of the OUN (from June 1932). From 1933, he served as the regional leader of the OUN in western Ukrainian lands. He was sentenced to death at the OUN Warsaw Trial in 1935-1936 and the OUN Lviv Trial in 1936, but the punishment was later commuted to life imprisonment. He was held in the "Saint Cross" prison in Warsaw (1933-1939). After his release, following the collapse of the Polish state at the beginning of World War II, he led an opposition faction within the Ukrainian nationalists, whose supporters advocated for radicalization of the forms and methods of struggle. At the II Great Assembly of the OUN in April 1941, he was elected head of the revolutionary leadership, which prepared the "mobile groups" of the OUN and initiated the proclamation of the restoration of Ukrainian statehood on June 30, 1941. He was arrested by the Nazis and imprisoned in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp on July 6, 1941. He was released in September 1944 and resumed his duties as the head of the OUN. Due to disagreements with the leadership of the regional leadership of the OUN in August 1952, he stepped down as the head of the OUN. From 1946 to 1953 and 1956 to 1959, he served as the head of the leadership of the OUN abroad. He lived in cities such as Innsbruck (Austria), Zeefeld, Munich. He was assassinated by KGB agent B. Stashynsky in Munich. The surname Bandera is a symbol of the Ukrainian national liberation movement of the 1930s to the 1950s.

Without going into the details on pledges contained in the Proclamation. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is it not important? Mellk (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A fact may be important, or it may be not. A source given here has not found that fact to be important enough to include it into its summary. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we wouldn't include this detail in the lede, it's covered in the body, and this detail has been well covered by other sources Tristario (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's important enough for the lead. I'm not 100% sure of the wording. We currently have two sources in the lead:

• Tadeusz Piotrowski's Poland's Holocaust, which is a controversial source, which on p.211 (not p.221 as the footnote now says) mentions a letter from Bandera himself but says nothing about pledging support for Hitler ("...argued the case for an independent Ukrainian state but said nothing about the OUN-B's intended course of action...")
• Sol Littman's Pure Soldiers Or Sinister Legion, a sensationalist journalistic work not a scholarly work, which mentions the pledge but doesn't attribute it to Bandera ("...issued by Stetsko on behalf of the Bandera faction of the OUN promised...").

The second of these only is cited in the body.

So we don't have a source saying Bandera pledged support. Tristario say it's "well covered by other sources" so maybe we could insert the sources which do say this.

Remember, this page is under "reliable-source consensus required" rules, so if Littman and/or Piotrowski are challenged we need to reach consensus before restoring. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You may be right, actually. You're welcome to adjust the wording/sourcing. David Marples says something similar to what's in the lede, except he says it was Stetsko doing it on Bandera's behalf. [2] (p. 560-561) Tristario (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I added new source Motyka (2006). In the act of the restoration of the independence OUN pledged "close cooperation with the National Socialst Great Germany, which under the direction of Adolf Hitler are building the new European order". This part was removed from the official OUN documents. Marcelus (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Among other, the lead is unclear as of now because it suggests Bandera "pledged to work with Nazi Germany". What do the sources say? Was it Bandera? Was it OUN who pledged? A declaration? A declared Ukrainian state? Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So if we are not clear on this, why the lead should say this?

I checked Liebe's Life of Bandera, who has been criticized for being too critical regarding Bandera, and the only thing regarding the "cooperation" he says in the conclusion is
In the proclamation, Stets’ko stressed that the OUN-B wanted to closely cooperate with the “National Socialist Great Germany, which, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, is creating a new order in Europe and the world.”
So it was Stets’ko, actually. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Is Encyclopedia of Ukraine considered a reliable secondary source by editors of this article? Jgmac1106 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source. Articles on the OUN-UPA are written in a very one-sided manner, whitewashing the organisation, and tend to be quite old and out of date with modern knowledge. Marcelus (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ve now amended the text in lead and body to correspond to sources as per this discussion. One issue remains: we cite Littman saying the proclamation concludes with Glory to Hitler, which contradicts the proclamation’s article which has Glory to Ukraine. As noted, Littman is a bad source. Can we check this? BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley mention of Hitler and in generally subservience to Germany was removed from postwar editions of OUN documents, so that's why. Marcelus (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The image we have is dated 1941 and the materials in the proclamation article ditto. The line about pledging to work with Germany and Hitler’s new order, removed post-war, is present there. But none of them include a line with “Glory to Hitler” as we had Littman saying. Littman is a sensationalist non-academic source so I’ve removed that bit and question whether we need to check anything else we cite Littman for. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not actually for basing our edits on primary sources, but it seems that you are correct, so I rescind my previous opposition, and agree with your edit. Marcelus (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Marcelus. You're right about the OR issue, but my edit was based on the fact our sole secondary source was week (I don't think we should use Littman, certainly without attribution), on the primary sources in this article and the declaration article, on the text in the declaration article, but also on Motyka, the secondary source we use here for the pledge but who doesn't mention the "glory" bit. Would you mind undoing your last edit, so we avoid the appearance of an edit war if I revert it? We should, however, strengthen our secondary sourcing for the declaration in both this article and the other one. Motyka would presumably be the best starting point.

Can I also remind editors of the reliable source sanctions at the top of this page - if I'm wrong about Littman can we discuss and reach a consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

As Marcelus has not responded, I take the liberty of editing as it seems we have consensus. I hope it is clear that this is not edit warring. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Member of USLC post-war

He was a member of Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, in Munich. 62.169.197.95 (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Mhorg (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Here https://www.radiosvoboda.org/amp/30053945.html 62.169.197.95 (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you put here the parts of the text supported by the source that you would like to add? Mhorg (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"Судячи з документів, які я бачив, перше, що слід виокремити, це особисті амбіції. Тому що той же розкол, який відбувся в ОУН на мельниківців і бандерівців – це переважно було зумовлено особистими амбіціями і тим, що люди різного віку перебували в одних лавах. Мельниківці були переважно старшого віку, а бандерівці – молодші, прихильники радикальної боротьби." 2A02:8108:1640:5282:45:66D2:6897:2EDF (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Current "photograph"

The current image of Bandera used in the infobox is so intensely retouched that I do not think it ought to be used, it doesn't even look much like Bandera, at best one could call it an "idealized portrait". I would suggest this image would be more appropriate for use. I know the resolution is not spectacular, but at least it isn't so creepily airbrushed. There are some better images of Bandera online, but I am not sure whether they would meet the criteria for "fair use"[3][4]. Llados (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should put a realistic photo. In my opinion this one is fine.[5] Mhorg (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that one would be my preference as well :) Llados (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The photo seems to be in the public domain; like the current picture, it was almost certainly taken on the territory of the Second Polish Republic, so I have uploaded it. [6] Llados (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

His Views

I am trying to add a topic sentence to the view section. Look aty the three scholars cites

The section begins with Rossolinski-Liebe, H whose biography is pretty much considered a hit piece, Himka, PA Rudling, whose work has been rejected and his academic integrity called into question.

I want a framing sentence on views that explore the scholarship on "views" from a less bias standpoint.

Further my link to Russian Disinformation page. The efforts of Russia to utilize the Bandera Narrative since 1944 are more than well documented. Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Rossoliński-Liebe, Himka and Rudling are widely considered to be reliable. The accusations against Bandera are not the result of Russian disinformation, but of his actions as an active fascist activist and Nazi collaborator whose organisation committed crimes on a massive scale. Marcelus (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Rossoliński-Liebe
There is notable academic critique of Liebe's book. See for example Talk:Slava Ukraini#Rossolinski-Liebe, Stepan Bandera. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The critic is about putting to much emphasis on negative aspects of Bandera and OUN's activities, nobody claimed that Rossoliński's book is unreliable or spreading false version of history. Marcelus (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No but the critique and other views are worth to be included. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking with user who claimes that Rossoliński is a author of "hit piece" and that Himka and Rudling "has been rejected", it doesn't leave much room fo nuance. Marcelus (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am saying I see a pattern that violates WP:IMPARTIAL

If Bandera's views are defined by Rossoliński, Rudling,and Marples that is not impartial.

I could even find better Snyder quotes so it does not look like he is saying Bandera was a fascist and that't the only goal. Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The View section isn't about hsi views. It is about scholars. Why do people need to know PA Rudling is a Swedish American?

Wouldn't a more relevant detail be that is speaking tour in Canada was canceled because his scholarship was called into question? and then Defending History wrote their defense of Rudling?

It is hard to say WP:IMPARTIAL when the "views" section follows Rossolinski, Rudling, and Marples (who of the three presents a more balanced approach.

I think it is best to not highlight the authors in text and let secondary sources and quotes back up claims. Take personality out of it. Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I would take

According to Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe "Bandera's worldview was shaped by numerous far-right values and concepts including ultranationalism, fascism, racism, and antisemitism; by fascination with violence; by the belief that only war could establish a Ukrainian state; and by hostility to democracy, communism, and socialism. Like other young Ukrainian nationalists, he combined extremism with religion and used religion to sacralize politics and violence."

and make it

According to some scholars Stepan Banderas views on Ukrainian Nationalism were driven by numerous far-right values and concepts including fascism, racism, and antisemitism reflected in a fascination with violence.155 These historians argue Bandera felt b only war could establish a Ukrainian state through hostility to democracy, communism, and socialism. Like other young Ukrainian nationalists, he combined extremism with religion."

do that so none of the paragraphs start with an author Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you think Manyareasexpert? How about you marcelus? I see you edit Ivan Katchanovski page so you must be familiar with these scholars.

I will wait for other editors as well, before making change. But I want to focus on Bandera's views as established in secondary sources. Not provide mini-bios of scholars Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

We should keep "According to Rossoliński-Liebe" if it's him saying that, other than that, it's been taken from "Conclusion" section of his book so it's pretty valuable. If other researches have commented on Liebe's conclusions, we should mention those as well. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that Jgmac1106's latest modifications have made the article worse. I tried to fix them but some parts don't look right to me. For example, this is the "Views" section. As far as I know and read, Rossoliński-Liebe, and Rudling are the Western academics who have dealt most with Bandera. Mhorg (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't thoroughly gone through all of the recent edits, but care should be taken to avoid original research, and that the content is actually supported by the sources cited. Some of the recent edits also aren't very well written in terms of the clarity and the english Tristario (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I notice there have been quite a few reverts, I hope everyone is complying with WP:3RR or any other restrictions Tristario (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

General comment: any controversial interpretations should be attributed to the respective historian. Attributions need not include ethnicity/nationality (e.g. "Swedish-American") unless there is clear relevance.

Specific comment: Jgmac1106, you say that Per Anders Rudling's speaking tour in Canada was canceled because his scholarship was called into question. I believe that is incorrect. My understanding is that Rudling, having signed (with many other scholars) a letter in support of Ruslan Zabily, a far more junior historian who had been harassed by the Ukrainian state, then criticised a Canadian speaking tour by Zabily, for which he in turn was criticised by nationalist diaspora organisations in Canada (who did not call his scholarship into question), after which several very reputable scholars supported Rudling. You may want to consult WP:BLPTALK and consider striking out your comment.

Of course, Rudling has a particular perspective and so it is good to attribute his views to him and balance them with other views, but up until now there has been strong consensus that he is an excellent source, as are Marples, Rossoliński-Liebe and Himka. This page is under sanctions related to antisemitism in Poland that require a high standard reliable source consensus, but the rule does not apply to "an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution", so I see no reason to remove anything citing them. Of course, other editors can add additional balancing material from other reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

thanks @Bobfrombrockley I am aware of active Sanctions and why I am asking for consensus first.

I do not think it should be controversial to suggest articles relying on Rossoliński-Liebe, Himka, and Rudling need balance to avoid WP:undue.

Examine the way /Lviv_pogroms_(1941 handled Himka, citing:

"https://assets.ctfassets.net/4wrp2um278k7/49qXJfjUqkGkaYAwmcKqCo/893093588735e3c4cd3a08568e57df39/9789048526826_ToC___Intro.pdf"

So my requests have been:

-Remove the word "together"

-Not use nine year old survey data

-use past tense

-balance Hinka, Rudling, and Rossoliński-Liebe with more recent work form Kiebuzinski,Motyl, Snyder.

That should not be controversial Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the use of "together" you opposed is gone. (I agree with you on that.)
• I don't think we need to remove the 2013 survey, although it takes up a lot of room.
• I don't think there is any present text description of a past survey in the article any more.
• Please do feel free to include more Kiebuzinski, Motyl and Snyder. I would support that.

However, you need to address the issue of your allegation against Rudling. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jgmac1106 For the sources supporting the sentence "Stepan Bandera was first and foremost a Nationalist who supported efforts for an Independent Ukraine", what are the page numbers and quotes in those sources supporting that statement? Tristario (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

And this is why the articles notes sections are longer than the entire article. I will look it up the exact page numbers and put a quote in the citation in the morning. Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I just want to be sure the sources support what exactly is written. Someone added a "Page Needed" tag, that's good Tristario (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That someone was actually me Tristario (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed this sentence as I checked the sources supporting it and they didn't appear to support the sentence. If I'm mistaken page numbers and supporting quotes could be provided. Otherwise, please be careful to make sure the sources cited actually support what is written. Tristario (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Controversy Sentence in Lede

I changed the controversy sentence to:

Bandera remains a highly controversial figure in Ukraine. Many Ukrainians hail him as a role model hero or as a martyred liberation fighter, while other Ukrainians, particularly in the south and east, condemn him as a fascist Nazi collaborator and reflect Soviet Narratives of utilizing a false narrative of denazification of enemies in the Republics of the Soviet Union. Critics claim OUN-B, and thus Bandera, hold responsible for massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians during World War II.. The narrative of denazification was used by Vladimir Putin to justify Russia's War in Ukraine.

I did not call it disinformation and it is a historical fact that Russia has spent decades and millions of dollars trying to define Stepan Bandera as a Nazi responsible for Lviv Massacre (while he was in a concentration camp) Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

reflect Soviet Narratives of utilizing a false narrative of denazification of enemies in the Republics of the Soviet Union; this a nonsensical sentence, you cannot say arbitrary that it is a "false narrative". It's hard to say what this sentence even means.

The narrative of denazification was used by Vladimir Putin to justify Russia's War in Ukraine; how is that relevant to the Bandera's biography? Why you put that in the lede?

{tq|Stepan Bandera as a Nazi responsible for Lviv Massacre (while he was in a concentration camp)}}; Bandera wasn't even arrested when the pogrom started (June 30). OUN militia took active part in the pogrom. Also OUN committed a lot more crimes against Jewish people both before and after Bandera's arrestation.

Your personal view seems to be based on false premises, I don't think you know enough about this matters to be able to edit this article. Marcelus (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

how is that relevant to the Bandera's biography?
"Nazi banderites" is how Russia justifies its invasion. See discussion Talk:Stepan Bandera#Pledging to work with Nazi Germany , why is "pledging to work with Nazi Germany" is still in the lead? Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't say anything about "Nazi banderites". If we want to include that in the lede we should make at least somehow linked to the Bandera's biography. For example: The cult of Bandera and the OUN-UPA in contemporary Ukraine was given by Russian propaganda as a pretext for the 'denazification of Ukraine' and invasion in 2022. Marcelus (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The cult of Bandera and the OUN-UPA in contemporary Ukraine
I thought we are about to maintain some level in our discussion. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Marcelus (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with removing the controversy section from the lede then. But if we are going to say Bandera is a controversial figure we need to acknowledge 80 years of active measures to make him a controversial figure.

If you think Stepan Bandera is defined by the controversy then both sides need better representation in citations.

Further stop putting "together" back. Bandera was in Sachsenhausen concentration camp at the time of the Lviv Massacre "together" is just not true Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Bandera wasn't in Sachsenhausen before winter 1942, possibly later. Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

So the articles cited about Ukrainians in the South and East explicitly state that Bandera was at and directed his followers during the Lviv Massacre?

I have never seen that so please share. I would hate to be wrong

Also I read both those sources where are the statistics about "some Ukrainians" in the East and the South? I do not find those claims in the sources cited. Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This article itself (though citation needed) said Bandera was not there.

The word "together" does not belong unless you can prove it with multiple secondary sources

I do not need to prove Bandera wasn't involved. Editors who want to make the claim need to prove he was. Jgmac1106 (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand that Lviv pogroms wasn't the only OUN crimes against Jewish people? Marcelus (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is not lede, assuming it has to be written somewhere. Mhorg (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Mhorg the article contradicts the lede.

In late 1942, when Bandera was in a German concentration camp, his organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, was involved in a massacre of Poles in Volhynia and, in early 1944,

However, Portnov notes that "Bandera did not participate personally in the underground war conducted by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which included the organized ethnic cleansing of the Polish population of Volhynia in north-western Ukraine and killings of the Jews, but he also never condemned them."

That was my original issue. Why is controversy mentioned in the lede if there is no contrvoersy section below

It is almost like people want to force Bandera's involvement into the definition and they are not editing with good intent.

I am trying to remove the word "together."

(Though I think the entire paragraph needs to be a section of the article rather than in the lede orphaned from any evidence) Jgmac1106 (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

And Marceuls Bandera was arrested in Krakow on July 5, 1941 Stetsko in Lviv on July 12.

Petliura Days was not until the end of July and was a reaction to Petliura assassination. Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Petlura was killed in 1926, first pogrom in Lviv was on July 30, 1941 Marcelus (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It might be better to just say "whose followers were responsible for massacres". That's more clear. Tristario (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, "whose followers" avoids ambiguity. Jabbi (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you know enough about this matters to be able to edit this article.

I apologize for calling Rossolinski-Liebe biography a basic hit piece. I just think relying on these three authors can lead to WP:UNDUE influence and stated this conclusion too emphatically

The majority of claims up to WWII period are based on

Rossolinski-Liebe

Rudling

Himka

This can lead to a bias point of view and violate neutrality policies.

Kiebuzinski, Motyl, and Snyder have all criticized Himka's scholarship (see Lviv_pogroms_(1941)). Rudling's work was rejected on a speaking tour in Canada, and he was defended by many people cited on this page. As others noted many have called parts of Rossolinski-Liebe scholarship questionable.

I am not suggesting they be deleted but I think we have to watch for WP:UNDUE.

It can be small things. Why the Plast Uniform? Is that to show Bandera as a child or is that because Plast is Rudling's basic theory to prove a Bandera Cult existed in Canada amongst the Diaspora community?

For example I deleted the claim using Himka saying the Concentration Camp was "comfortable." While Himka does write that there was nothing comfortable for political dissidents at Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Is that to show Bandera as a child or is that because Plast is Rudling's basic theory to prove a Bandera Cult existed in Canada amongst the Diaspora community?, you need to explain more clearly your line of thinking. What's the connection between Plast in Poland, in 1920s and Canada? Marcelus (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus, when you make edits, it would be helpful if you describe what you're doing in the edit summaries, or possibly on the talk page. It can be difficult to keep track of your edits. Tristario (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

For instance, this edit is confusing, since you don't have a description, and you're mostly adjusting citations, but you also make a number of changes to the article too. It would be easy for someone to miss the changes you made to the article besides the citations. Tristario (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to make more extensive descriptions of my edits. None of them was imo controversial so far, but I see your point. Marcelus (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying the edit has to be made. I am saying we consider all the historical edits on this page with WP:UNDUE in mind. Using the Boy Scouts to as proof of a Banderite Cult does not make sense.

This is a central thesis in both Rossolinski-Liebe and Rudling's work. Proof of Ukrainian Disaspora keeping the Bandera Cult alive is Plast. This idea, Boys Scouts cause Banderite Cult, then filters down through deprecated sources like Gray zone, then online trolls.

This article needs to be strictly about Stepan Bandera. Yes, he was a Plast Scout, but was that picture chosen because of WP:UNDUE and thus trying to make an inference about the Ukrainian Diaspora?

Just suggesting we balance out articles with source that are not also derived from the work

Rossolinski-Liebe

Rudling

Himka

You have to look at your secondary sources and make sure they aren't just part of the RSS mills built to repeat:

Rossolinski-Liebe

Rudling

Himka Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Moving Views under chronological

We currently mix two text structures. The Views subheading is in the middle of the timeline. How do people feel about moving after Death so the chronological text structure isn't broken up with research into Stepan Bandera's views?

What do you think Marcelus,Tristario,Mhorg, and Manyareaexpert. Given contentious article i thought it best to reach consensus first. Jgmac1106 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this. I think the previous order is better, "Views" is about the views he held during his life, so the more correct chronological order is prior to "Legacy", and possibly prior to "Death" Tristario (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought it belonged outside of chronology given that the text structure of the section details how three people define his views through their historiographical analysis written long after Bandera was assassinated in 1959

We can move it back if other editors agree. Jgmac1106 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding qualifier to and changing tense

This edit was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepan_Bandera&oldid=prev&diff=1173646701

The comment was m,ade that not every sentence needs a qualifier. I think when using one poll nine years old as a way to make a claim about present views a qualifiewr is not only necessary but warranted.

Please discuss the change here before reverting the edit. 2015 is neither now, nor can one make a claim using secondary sources citing data that old. Jgmac1106 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss the edit instead before introducing it to an article on a contentious topic. A lot of material in this or other articles are based on the sources nine years old or older, adding qualificators to all of them is a significant disruption which would swiftly lead to editing restrictions. Please bring sources instead showing that this is not the case anymore. Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

How is nine years old present tense? It is just syntactically wrong. Why is this data even in the lede with citations if is is a subsection below?

The rule with secondary sources is to, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source"

How can a survey from nine years ago express opinions today? It feels like WP:SYNTHNOT issue to me to support the claim with nine year old data Jgmac1106 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you are the only one who has issues with this sentence. Please get consensus first for the changes you want to make. I, for one, do not see any urgent need in these changes. Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It it is a misuse of statistical data almost a decade old in violation of WP:SYNTHNOT to draw a conclusion about historical figures with ten year old survey data.

This is a biography and MOS:PRESENTstates "Generally, use past tense only for past events, and for subjects that are dead"

Yes, it is a Pet peev of me as a psychometrician. Will day a bit of bias against math mistakes is showing. Jgmac1106 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Ymblanter check out https://ratinggroup.ua/en/research/ukraine/desyatyy_obschenacionalnyy_opros_ideologicheskie_markery_voyny_27_aprelya_2022.html

Look to the results of the 10th annual survey:

The support for the recognition of the OUN-UPA as the participants of the struggle for the national independence of Ukraine has significantly increased: 81% support it, and only 10% are against. This support has increased 4 times since 2010, and doubled since 2015.

It is almost like nine years of war impacts opinions of figures of nationalism, but I think Sociological Group “Rating” (Rating Group) would count as a primary source.

Let me see if it is cited anywhere else. Jgmac1106 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey Ymblanter Multiples secondary sources cite the annual SGR data.

How about this (with caveat I don't think paragraph belongs)

"Public opinions on Stepan Bandera have evolved over time. In 2015 Survey data showed Bandera to be a controversial figure in Ukraine. In 2012 just 22% of had a favorable opinion ands in 274% in 2022 with the largest growth in the south-eastern regions of Ukraine. Jgmac1106 (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

References

We still have recent sources saying that Bandera is controversial in Ukraine [7], and there are others too. And neither of the sources you just cited seem to mention Bandera Tristario (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Results of the study cited in the seccondary source you shared but from articles that may not be as biased ."Bandera Cult" is a signal of lacking credibility IMO. There is no cult. That is preposterous at face value

Better sources of the survey IMO:

https://dif.org.ua/en/article/a-telling-sign-how-ukrainians-are-treating-stepan-bandera from a less bias source

https://dif.org.ua/en/article/victory-day-and-its-role-in-the-historical-memory-of-ukrainians-what-meaning-do-citizens-attach-to-this-date

(data is included in the Shevtsoca article I already cited)

Secondary sources support idea that opinions of Stepan Bandera are 50/50 in the South in East but if the data is in the definition we should include the trend lines. Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not edit this article because the talk page is usually a cesspool, but I feel I have to comment on this. First of all, newer surveys show a change in attitudes toward Bandera, which to an extent is understandable, but there's also the fact that newer polls a) don't have access to the population in Crimea, the so-called DNR/LNR, or the chunks the other two oblasts annexed by Russia, where one can expect a much higher proportion of anti-Bandera views, and b) probably do not include Ukrainians who, since the start of the war, fled to Russia and, to a lesser extent, Belarus (the UN has almost 3m Ukrainians as having crossed to Russia since February 24, and a breakdown of this number is nigh impossible, and the overwhelming majority are probably not registered as refugees in Russia - some probably moved on, others might have taken Russian citizenship, others are probably lodging with friends/relatives, and yet others might just be "living their lives"). Unless we decide to just exclude several million people from the Ukrainian body politic, we should be very careful with these sources.

But there's a deeper issue at hand here. Less than a week ago you were here saying that the work on Bandera by the FUB's Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe is pretty much considered a hit piece (?!?) and that Lund University professor Per Anders Rudling's work has been rejected and his integrity called into question, both of which are not only patently false statements (both are very much considered serious scholars in academia), but also violations of BLP, particularly since no source is provided for those statements. The fact that you also appear to suggest a link between their work and Soviet/Russian disinformation is the cherry on the cake. But you do not stop there: now you call the DW article Tristario linked you a bias [sic] source. At this point it's worth asking if every source that does not agree with you is, in your opinion, biased. You seem to have some very strong opinions (which sometimes seem to emerge in the form of snide remarks to your fellow editors), and you give strong WP:RGW vibes (even if, perhaps ironically, you're trying to "right" the view of a war criminal), but I do not think you have the knowledge to back your position. I'll give you two examples below, if you'll forgive the extended criticism:

1) A few days ago you claimed the pogrom known as Petliura days was a reaction to the assassination of Symon Petliura, when it happened 15 years after the fact - I assume you read and misunderstood "our" own Wiki article, which states that "[a] second pogrom took place in the last days of July 1941 and was called "Petliura Days" (Aktion Petliura) after the assassinated Ukrainian leader Symon Petliura". This means that the pogrom was named after Petliura, not that it happened as a response to his killing. [Additional comment: Marcelus mentioned July 30 as the start date of the Lwów/Lvov/Lviv pogrom. This, I assume, was a typo: it actually started on June 30, that is, before either Stetsko or Bandera were arrested]

2) Similarly, you stated the following: Why do people need to know PA Rudling is a Swedish American? Wouldn't a more relevant detail be that is speaking tour in Canada was canceled because his scholarship was called into question? and then Defending History wrote their defense of Rudling?. This is at best (i.e. assuming good faith) a gross misunderstanding of the Wikipedia article on Rudling, and of the entire episode: there was, to my knowledge, no tour of Canada by Rudling, nor was his scholarship called into question - Rudling criticised a tour of Canada by one Ruslan Zabily (a non-professional historian linked to far-right nationalist movements in Ukraine) that was sponsored by a number of Ukrainian-Canadian organisations of a nationalist bent, including far-right groups such as an organisation of veterans of the UPA (NB: Rudling's PhD is from the University of Alberta, home of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, so he can be considered to be knowledgeable about the position of these Ukrainian-Canadian organisations). In response to Rudling's criticism, these Ukrainian-Canadian organisations sent a letter to Rudling's employer in Sweden, Lund University, complaining about their employee's criticism of Zabily. After this became public, a number of academics signed a statement in support of Rudling.

Now, you're free to edit as you please provided you do not break the rules, but as it stands I think you're making a mess of things, and would recommend you step back, read up a bit more on these topics, and not rush to editing. Fundamentally, however, I think you are committed to a particular point of view (to an extent this is understandable due to the war), while you need to be more accepting of opposing positions, rather than assuming that every source that disagrees with you is bias[sic], a hit piece, [Russian] disinformation, or anything along those lines, as it has clearly led to some pretty nasty misunderstandings. Ostalgia (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I did get my history wrong on Petliura Days. My apologies, but that is why I ask here first before editing so I can rely on your expertise. I was trying to establish a timeline in the discussion of removing one word. "Together"

Because it wasn't true.

I am still okay with Russian disinformation being cited in thedfn but I never pushed for it given other editors did not agree.

Putin September 5th:

Zelenskyy: "It is disgusting that an ethnic Jew is covering up the glorification of Nazism"

Also KIIS surveys collected in 2015 would suffer from the same validity problems you cite in 2023 (why I said best ediotrial move is to strike paragraph from lead)

Putin September 5th:

The whole world knows that it was Bandera who were engaged in the implementation of the monstrous plan of the Nazis. It is necessary to show convincingly, vividly, so that nothing like this happens again in the future. To show whom the current government of Ukraine has erected on the podium and whom they glorify.

But sure, Russian disinformation has played zero roll in defining Stepan Bandera.

I apologized for calling Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe a hit piece, and said it was based more on the fact scholars such as Snyder, Kiebuzinski, and Motyl state that he overemphasized violence in the West while not acknowledging any role of violence in the East.

Can we review what edits I have asked to make:

- Remove the word "together" from the lead since Bandera was arrested July 5th 1941 and wasn't there?

- Change remains present tense into past tense to align with Wikipedia style guides on biographies

- Not use nine year old survey data to define someone who died in 1959.

I don't think those are controversial asks. There is a difference between lazy consensus and enforcing stagnation

I did not say delete

-Himka

-Rudling

-Rossolinski-Liebe

I said relying solely on those sources can lead to WP:UNDUE and editors should do our best to represent a more diverse viewpoint

I also provided Tristario two alternative sources using the same survey data. They are better secondary sources IMO. I did not read the DW article closely because when I see a heading of "Bandera Cult" that to me is a good marker of low credibility. There is no cult

I am fully aware of "Defending History" defending Rudling's scholarship. Many of the editors of this page edit the articles of the signatories and the author pages of Hinka, Rudling, and Rossolinski-Liebe.

Again all I am trying to do is update 9 year old survey data and use past tense per style guide Jgmac1106 (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Your reply quite literally proves my point. What exactly does Putin have to do with any of the authors cited? The suggestion that top Western academics are somehow deriving their studies from Putin's views (!) is shocking and comes close to being in itself a new BLPVIO. Your dismissive statement that I am fully aware of "Defending History" defending Rudling's scholarship. Many of the editors of this page edit the articles of the signatories and the author pages of Hinka, Rudling, and Rossolinski-Liebe, with no acknowledgement of the fact that you completely misunderstood and mischaracterised his scholarship and its reception, just proves that you didn't even read what I wrote. I'm beginning to believe that, if you continue down this road, the break you need to take may not be a voluntary one. Ostalgia (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Ostalgia. My reference to Putin's current lies about Bandera was to illustrate to Bobfrombrockley that my secondary sources about Russian active measures trying to shape the controversy of Bandera as legitimate.

This again is why I suggest to other editors that the best editorial move is to strike the controversy paragraph from the lead. It doesn't belong in a biography dfn regardless of subject.

Again I never said delete, PA Rudling, Himka, nor Rossolinski-Liebe. I said we as editors should be careful to avoid WP:UNDUE and balance out the article overall with more recent scholarship.

I am also trying to be respectful of editors and the Talk page and waiting 10-12 hours to see if we reach consensus before making an edit. Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the article is balanced, the sources we have are reliable and occupy the right space. I also think this whole diatribe about what Putin said is taken out of context. What does it have to do with these academics? Mhorg (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Ivan Katchanovski has been removed, why?

I do not think Katchanovski's work on Ukrainian nationalist organisations has ever been questioned. I think we should restore it, it does not support anything controversial.[8] Mhorg (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly but he's a controversial author and we have good sources in the same place so don't need the additional citation. Katchanovski is a political scientist not a historian and the article is about present-day attitudes to Bandera, not about what happened in the war. It is, however, a peer-reviewed journal article so if most editors disagree I don't object to re-including it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The myth of going in to hiding?

Re this edit: there was a source for this in a previous version, but I think it was removed as footnotes were converted to sfn format. According to Richard Breitman and Norman Goda in Hitler's Shadow, Bandera and Stetsko refused to do this, and in December 1944 they fled Berlin, heading south. Breintman and J.W. Goda. Hitler's Shadow, p.76. National Archives. Quote: Berlin hoped to form a Ukrainian National Committee with both OUN factions and other Ukrainian leaders. The Committee was formed in November, but Bandera and Stetsko refused to cooperate. They escaped from Berlin in December and fled south, emerging after the war in Munich. They cite US military primary sources here: SR/W2 to SR/WC, SR/DC, EE/SSS, January 13, 1952, NARA, RG 263, E ZZ-19, B 10, Aerodynamic: Operations, v. 10, f. 1. Also see Stetsko’s accounts in NARA, RG 263, E ZZ-18, B 126, Name File Yaroslav Stetsko, v. 1, 2. Do we have sources contradicting this? If not, I see no reason to exclude. Could attribute (as we did before) if preferred. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I see we have a different account by Rossoliński-Liebe, so I withdraw that. However, if we have two sets of scholars making factually incompatible claims based on primary sources, do we need to note this? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The version that Bandera was "in hiding" for the entire period from September 1944 to the end of the war comes from him and from the testimony he gave to the Americans, then, of course, it was duplicated, because the information that he had re-collaborated with the Germans was inconvenient for him and his supporters. His participation in the work of the UNK is confirmed by the accounts of participants, both Ukrainian (Shandruk, for example) and German. In addition, he was still in Krakow and interacted with the UPA in Ukraine. Motyka, for example, also writes about this. Marcelus (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Marcelus. Am convinced, and happy to support the current version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Dorril

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepan_Bandera&diff=next&oldid=1174778122

Personally, I don't think Stephen Dorril is a good source to use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Dorril doesn't appear to be a very good source. I think we probably should remove him. And how the information we're attributing to him fits in with the other content we have on the page isn't that clear Tristario (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)