Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army/Archive 5

Making things up from sources

Yet another example of Jo0doe talk claiming something that is in a source, that isn't there. An excerpt from this conversation: [1]

• Full of the story would be to mention (as also mentioned in article) what all “Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks” fairytales originated from post-war OUN/UPA brochures (Shankovskyy, Krochmalyuk etc) so noted many times in publication of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science

That is your claim. Cite the page number where UPA's battles with Germans were described as fairytales or as nonexistent in the work by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science. On the contrary the source for that info, Shankovski, is described on page 187 [2] as a "well-known historian."Faustian (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See tiny figures above the words - it decribe the source .Read this http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/8.pdf - and note the words about Shankovskiy reliability Jo0doe (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC).

(I bolded the words above). Well, when you look up http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/8.pdf you see that Shankovsky isn't mentioned! I guess Jo0doe (talk) counted on noone accessing that file or being able to readit in Ukrainian. He was wrong, as usual.Faustian (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Source was recently updated - so you can't find it online - but still exist in paper versionJo0doe (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How convenient. Has your opinion of Shankovsky also been updated?Faustian (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Note mine nor Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science Більш ніж десять років фундаментальних досліджень історії українськогонаціонально-визвольного руху 30-х–50-х рр. ХХ ст. в Україні*, ... мали переконливо довести подальшу неконкурентоспроможність північноаме-риканських дослідників на цій, колись повністю їм приналежній, ниві. Moreover If you carefully read recent (2006 but not 2004 which I actually refer) you can find at least 2 instances when non reliability of facts provided by Shankovskyy is stressed directly under his citations. While, why you attempt to put user in misconception assuming "well-known” as “well-reliable” in at least at Ukrainian it’s not the same. However Expected replay from an editor which challenged the reliability of USA Prosecution at IMT tribunalJo0doe (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you lie about me "challenged the reliability of USA Prosecution at IMT tribunal". You think that if you repeat the lie enough, someone will believe it? Shankovsky isn't mentioned in the above phrase. You make claims, but don't prove them, because apparently you can't. Please provide exact page number and exact words of the critique of Shankovski.13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here mentioned ALL North-American researches (most of them affilated with OUN/UPA) as you not point.Your abuse is notedJo0doe (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the word "all", above. So Shankovsky is not mentioned, "North American researchers are", and you cite this as proof that Shankvosky is criticised. There is no end to your dishonesty, is there?Faustian (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• So You state what Lew Shankwosky is not North American researchers ? Did you read this article what I spoken about? Your repeated abusive is noted Jo0doe (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I state that your quote above doesn't say "ALL". I also wonder why you refuse to give the author's name and title of the publication where you got the quote. It seems convenient.Faustian (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent Publication of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science – It’s enough for WPJo0doe (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. You are claiming something is written in a "Recent Publication of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science" and refusiong to provide title and author. I guess after I've repeatedly shown your misuse of sources it makes sense to hide them. A good example of your approach.Faustian (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again – I don’t plan to use this data in Shankowskiy articleJo0doe (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuses. If you make a claim, back it up. But you can't, because your claim is false. Remember:

An excerpt from this conversation: [3]

• Full of the story would be to mention (as also mentioned in article) what all “Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks” fairytales originated from post-war OUN/UPA brochures (Shankovskyy, Krochmalyuk etc) so noted many times in publication of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science

That is your claim. Cite the page number where UPA's battles with Germans were described as fairytales or as nonexistent in the work by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science. On the contrary the source for that info, Shankovski, is described on page 187 [4] as a "well-known historian."Faustian (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

See tiny figures above the words - it decribe the source .Read this http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/8.pdf - and note the words about Shankovskiy reliability Jo0doe (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC).

(I bolded the words above). Well, when you look up http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/8.pdf you see that Shankovsky isn't mentioned! I guess Jo0doe (talk) counted on noone accessing that file or being able to readit in Ukrainian. He was wrong, as usual.Faustian (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You, Jo0doe, then claimed that the article was revised and the criticism was no longer there. Then you said it was somewhere else, and gsave us quotes from an "Article" whose title and author you conveniently refuse to provide. Rather funny.Faustian (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you carefully read recent (2006 but not 2004 which I actually refer) you can find at least 2 instances when non reliability of facts provided by Shankovskyy is stressed directly under his citations.Jo0doe (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on your empty claim. Provide it, please. Or have you "conveniently" forgotten where it is? After having been proven to be dishonest, you have gotten "smarter" - you no longer give page numbers or even authors so that noone can check what you said.Faustian (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Suitability of the book Українська Повстанська Армія - Історія нескорених - Львів, 2007 as a source for this article?

Can some objective editors comment on the useof this source? It is used as an exclusive reference for the following statements:

• OUN declared its primary purpose was to protect the interests of the Ukrainian population, starting out as a resistance group that grew into a guerrilla army

Article about facts but not declaration. Moreover OUN-SD declared UPA as a base of future Ukrainian Army in Ukrainian Independent state under Dictatorship of Bandera.Jo0doe (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• For the most part, the UPA used primarily light infantry weapons of those armies that it fought, mostly Soviet and German. Trophy weapons were the basic source for the insurgent arsenals. In 1943-44 during large-scale operations, insurgent forces also used heavy artillery and sometimes even tanks. However, insurgents used heavy technology more as a means of propaganda of their military might, rather than as an actual means of conducting battles, so the light infantry weapon remained the basic weapon used by the UPA

1943-44 during large-scale operations, insurgent forces also used heavy artillery and sometimes even tanks. insurgents used heavy technology more as a means of propaganda of their military migh – HoaxJo0doe (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• The all-national character of the liberation struggle of Ukrainian insurgents is confirmed by the large scale participation of women. Ukrainian women were amongst the first to assist UPA soldiers, providing them with food, clothing and shelter. For this, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian women were arrested as "bandit supporters" and were deported or killed. However, many were active members. In 1943-44 there was an autonomous women's network. Certain aspects of insurgent activity depended mainly on women. Most couriers and messengers, medical personnel, workers in the underground printing establishments, and were also active as intelligence agents. Some women occupied high posts in the underground. Kalyna Lukan - "Halyna" was the leader of the Kosiv nadryon leadership, Iryna Tymochko "Khrytsia" supervise the Verkhovyna nadryon in Lemkivshchyna, Daria Rebet was a member of the OUN Leadership and a member of th presidium of the underground parliament

It’s directly related to OUN(B) underground – while article about UPA. So create WP Article OUN(B) underground (which actually notable historical events as lasted from 1940 till mid of 50s).Jo0doe (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• One of the more important aspects of the Ukrainian national liberation movement was its publishing activity. Its main directions were: the publication of propaganda-ideological materials, textbooks, works of military-theoretical character, periodicals and literary works. The earliest leaflets appeared in 1943 and were a way in which the Ukrainian movement waged war against the enemy. The most renown publicists of the time were Petro Fedun "Poltava", Osyp Diakiv "Hornovy", Dmyro Mayivsky "Petro Duma". In their works they concentrated on the principles of the Ukrainian national liberation struggle, the geopolitical situation in Europe and the world in connection with the Ukrainian question, problems of national transformations in the USSR and socialist satellites. UPA periodicals contained ideological articles, informational reports and decrees, interesting facts from Ukrainian history and training materials as well as prose and poetry of Ukrainian underground members. Over 130 periodicals appeared, 500 brochures, dozens of training manuals, memoirs, poetic collections, thousands of leaflets, appeals and responses were published

Once more- facts about OUN(B) underground – however exist many more detailed and historical works about OUN(B) publishing source. But, once again, note – article about UPA.

• Posing as Ukrainian insurgents these special formations used violence against the civilian population of Western Ukraine. In Jun 1945 there were 156 such special groups with 1783 members

Why not provide more details from V.Bilas and Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science about special formations composed predominantly from former OUN/UPA members?Despite clear understated POV

Jo0doe (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell us more about the book - authors, etc. I'm not sure it meets wikipedia standards as a reliable source, but will not make that judgment without more knowledge about it. For this reason I hesitate to call for removal of content. What do editors think should be done? I'm inclined at the very least to leave in uncontrovertial info such as types of weapons used or the fact that UPA was a guerrilla army.Faustian (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

here is a link to the book

http://upa.in.ua/book/

and the authors : http://upa.in.ua/book/?page_id=5

best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.204.200.96 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The evidence around this is somewhat mixed. The book's title "Ukrainian Insurgent Army: History of the Undefeated" implies an obvious POV. On the other hand, some of the the authors' credentials render the book legitamacy:[5]. The first author is Volodymyr Viatrovich, described as a kandidate (roughly equivalent to a Ph.D.) of history, director for the cente rof research of the liberation movement, "scientific worker" of the Ukrainian Studies Institute of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences

The others have masters' in history and are described as junior researchers for the Ukrainian Studies Institute of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "...their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand...". Which their credentials indicate they are. On the other hand, "... Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories..." This book wasn't published by a university but by the "Center for Research on the Liberation Movement." Given the authors' background, it's not a mere propaganda brochure, but neither does it meet the highest standards of a reliable source acording to wikipedia.

For this reason, in my opinion, as long as what is cited from this source doesn't contradict what is written by sources with better credentials according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it should be included. That would mean, it shouldn't contradict Burds' work, or that of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, or Magocsi, or Subtelny, etc. The book offers quite a bit of valuable information and should not be discarded.

What do others think?Faustian (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:RS policy it’s not Academic and peer-reviewed publication - so you can use such info in article .Ukrainian Insurgent Army: History of the Undefeated"

Reread WP:RS. It lists numerous criteria for a reliable source, including authors who are " generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." Nowhere is it stated that only academic or peer-reviewed publications can be used. Obviously, the more criteria met, the better the source. For this reason, I strongly feel that the work in question should be ranked below the work of Burds, the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Magocsi, Subtelny, etc. and in case of contradiction the latter work should be used exclusively. But in my opinion since the work in question meets at least one criteria it should not be discarded.Faustian (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

" Since it does not published by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science (which sole Intuition highly regarded in history matter in Ukraine). Moreover age of “researchers” 31, 26, 27 and origin – all as one from Lemberg reflect the questionability as for reliability as for NPOV of authors. "Scientific worker" – copy machine operator? @Center for Research on the Liberation Movement@ was appeared 1,6 years ago – so post “director” does not mean anything while roughly equivalent to a Ph.D.) of history reflect the quality of Ukrainian education – when technical schools became an Academy , and we’ve a 28 age of Doctors in History. However I recently read this “funny stuff” – mix of propagandistic statements distorting the history and numerous claim for “right history”. So usage of propagandistic revisionism by the time of availability of Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science work is against the WP:RS policy Jo0doe (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So you admit to being biased against young researchers and against scholars from Lviv (I like the fact that you chose to use the German spelling - are you implying Nazi affiliation?). In your response you claim "not published by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science (which sole Intuition highly regarded in history matter in Ukraine)." Can you prove it using reliable sources? And when you write "while roughly equivalent to a Ph.D. of history reflect the quality of Ukrainian education – when technical schools became an Academy , and we’ve a 28 age of Doctors in History." - is this critism of the Ukrainian educational system true also of the people working at the Institute of History? Or are the latter not from Ukraine. By the way, I will teach you a little about the Ukrainian, Russian, and Soviet education system - the degree of kandidat can and often is/was obtained by age 28 today and decades ago.Faustian (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• So, actually, did you read this book? Or here as same case as with Armstrong 1963? So – I assume any objections on mentioned by me under each citation from this not reliable source. Or you object to WP Policy? Jo0doe (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I neither read the book nor cited it. You ought to apologize for insulting Ukraine by stating that "roughly equivalent to a Ph.D.) of history reflect the quality of Ukrainian education – when technical schools became an Academy , and we’ve a 28 age of Doctors in History." But even better, show me the wikipedia policy that makes historians from Lviv unreliable sources or that discriminates against age.Faustian (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I’ve noted a strange thing – editor confidently used “our” instead “my”, “we” instead “I” and put questions to “objective editors “ and themselves provides an answer on such questions - and argue by them to other editor concerns. Quite detailed citing book in existence of such even he does not believe? Really Strange Things.

The world must be strange, indeed, to someone who is confused about simple matters. I suggest you review the usage of pronouns in English before commenting on them.Faustian (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So dear Faustian (or may be Faustians) - I assume you against WP:RS policy

• Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

So which reputation can be gain for 1,6 years in hard and controversial historical matters?

Prove using WP:RS that someone is an unreliable source if he has "1.6 years" experience.Faustian (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves. Any contra arguments? Jo0doe (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I stated my misgivings about the source based on the publisher and the source's title. "Extremist" is your POV, but the book may indeed be "promotional". As I said, "The book's title "Ukrainian Insurgent Army: History of the Undefeated" implies an obvious POV." That's why I ranked it below the works of Burds, Institute of History.., etc. On the other hand, at least one of the authors is a Ph.D. historian many of the authors work for the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (albeit, not in the History but in the Ukrainian Studies department). Your counterargument that they aren't reliable because of the city where they live or because of their age is rather ridiculous.

Your opinion is clear. I wonder what other editors think?Faustian (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My 2(two) counterargument was quite clearly noted – 1) Not reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy 2) facts appeared in book from first pages contradict with by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science publication

For instance (in addition to cited above) hysteric claims about “right history” what UPA units fighting Germans from autumn 1942 and what UPA killed Viktor Lutze near Rovno and many other similar “brave” propaganda from persons which obtained their kandidate for shmat sala from their kum’s or kuma’sJo0doe (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't insult living people like that with your referrals to their education.Faustian (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed what kandidate (roughly equivalent to a Ph.D.) of history, director for the cente rof research of the liberation movement, "scientific worker" of the Ukrainian Studies Institute of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and rest masters' in history event don’t know what Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science has concluded about. So it’s actually reflect the level of their proficiency in this matter.Jo0doe (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that not many know about that work. That's the problem when a source isn't meanstream - even if correct.Faustian (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes a notable point - I don’t want to oppose you - especially in term of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences – as they may be don’t know about commission established by President decree in 1997 in Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and worked till 2004. I can’t oppose to your conclusions and visions – as such will be hurt for your Jo0doe (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Kuchma a reliable source according to you? I simply follow wikiepdia guidelines:

I will show you step-by-step. Hopefully you will understand. Look at the wikipedia page [WP:RS]. Scroll down to this part: [101]. Read this:

• The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes.

Went I went to google scholar, I saw that Googlescholar shows 353 books/citations with PR Magocsi: [102]. Jeffrey Burds has 162: [103]. The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences shows 57: [104], only 18 of which are after 1990.

Understand now? Or does it have to be explained in even simpler terms for you.

As for Burds, yes he is a specialist in banditry, insurgency, etc. - exactly what this article is about. And his work in this narrow field is cited at least 10 times more in the English-speaking world than that if the Institute of History is cited on any subject after 1990. There is simply no comparison. As for Magocsi - his book about Ukrainian history, cited in this article, has 82 hits on googlescholar [105]. More than four times more than does the Institute of History after 1990.

Let me remind a about a very important and central point: As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

How many people have scrutinized the work of the Institute of History? How many people have reviewed it? How many of its works have been published in peer-reviewed journals? And remember -English-language ones count more.

I didn't make those rules up. Do you understand wikipedia guidelines? Do you need a translator? It's great that Kuchma organized that commission. So how many people (other than Kuchma) have scrutinized its work?Faustian (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

UPA and Soviet Infiltration Section

This info seems to mirror what is found in a few previous sections - fighting the Soviet Army, Spring 1945 and the end of UPA. Is this section necessary? Can it be removed or integrated (with references) to the other sections? It seems redundant.Faustian (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

a b c d Krokhmaluk, Y. (1972). UPA Warfare in Ukraine. New York: Vantage Press, (page 242)

So - no attempt to act accordingly to act inline with WP: policy - Hoax was replaced by not WP:RS source, while hoax itself remains in place - since citation bcd does not exist at p 242. While titanic effort to challenge the reliability of USA Prosecution at IMT tribunal is noted. As also an abusive habitJo0doe (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean showing how you lied about what the IMT source really said: [6]? Now you are lying about a lie. You claim I "challenge the reliability USA Prosecution at IMT tribunal". That's a creative interpretation of showing how you misrepresented what that source said. Faustian (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• So It's great what at least you agreed and gives a right name of your actions - see more wider explanation [7]? Jo0doe (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"I know you are but what am I?" - great argument. It worked well in the first grade.Faustian (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually – it’s great what you do not oppose to fact of hoax existed and deliberately returned many times by same editor, which actually insert it in Wpedia. So – would be better to wait some time and reportJo0doe (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to say or referring to? Use Russian or Ukrainian, it'll be easier to understand than your English in this case.Faustian (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sum of zeros

Or in figures 0+0+0 = 0 actions of editor which added to Tys-Krochmalyuk citation ref from Lew Shankowsky – namely Історія Українського війська. - 2-е вид., допов. - К.: Панорама, 1991 from here [8]

• DYK what so called “Y.Krochmalyuk” “work” (actually authors originated from same institution which failed in Vietnam and Laos – as noted in Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science publication) also used Lew Shankowsky Istoria Ukrainskoho Viyska Winninpeg 1953. So adding such ref similar to citing Der Stürmer through Völkischer Beobachter and visa versa.

As regards to Ivan Mukovskyy – a “notable historians” Ph D (History) Professor by Kyiv University for TOURISM ECONOMY AND LAW (by 1997 – technical school of Hotel servicing (технікум готельного господарства) see Уночі з 21 на 22 квітня потужні відділи УПА повели наступ на Іванову Долину (Костопільщина), здобули цей добре укріплений населений пункт, підірвали 2 залізничні мости, здобули багато зброї й тонну вибухівки (Great – same Shankovskyy Історія Українського війська. - 2-е вид., допов. - К.: Панорама, 1991. - С. 32, 34. ) and see p.259-260 http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/16.pdf about Janova Dolina and about nationality of such “Germans” (origin of Lew Shankowsky placed in doctored by Lebid group (since original mentioned the бюлетені "Вісті" з фронту УПА" ч. 1. 1943 – З 21 на 22 квітня переведено настп на Іванову Долину (камінолом в Костопільщині). Німці тут були добре укріплені і за всяку ціну боронили цей важний для них господарчий пункт. У висліді бою спалено кілька вулиць міста, зірвано два залізничні містки, знищено різні магазини, забрано одну тону вибухового матеріялу. Втрати ворога, включаючи поляків, що брали чинну участь у бою поруч німців, величезні. Нараховують сотні постріляних й полонених. З сторони повстанців 4 вбитих і 3 ранених. While in some extent this article interesting in information on numbers which supplied by them from Olexander Lysenko (ЦДАГО України and ЦАМО РФ) while in general – strange mix of self contradictory statements and different in quality source. So, may be better to avoid enriching the WP through «Ідея і чин» "Вісті" з фронту УПА" ,«За самостійну Україну», «Бюлетень», «Вісник української інформаційної служби», «Прапор молоді», «Юнак», «Вісті», «Інформатор», «Повстанець»,?Jo0doe (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who discovered Mukovsky (even though I've since used him) but am open to discussion by editors who are not trolls regarding whether or not he is a reliable source. I wonder where his doctorate is from. As for your other comments - since you are not a reliable source your judgment is irrelevent; better to stick to facts.

As for Mukovsky - he is listed as a doctor of history in an article he cowrote published by the journal of the Ukrainian parliament: [9]. He also has articles published by him by the Ukrainian ministry of defence, listing him as a "historian": [10], and [11]. So he seems like a reliable source, although not on the same level as Burds, Magocsi, Institute of History, etc.

Don't forget that as wikipedians we report what others write, provided that they are reliable sources. If Mokovsky is a reliable source, then wherever he got his infromation, it is worthy of inclusion into wikipedia. We do not have the right to second-guess or use our personal biases or likes/dislikes to make decisions on what parts of reliable sources we use or do not use. So if Mukovsky is reliable, we include even things that he got from Shankovsky. Same with the info from the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Acadamy of Sciences - we include all of it that's relevent, not just the info whose references meet our personal threshold. Otherwise we are committing OR.Faustian (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• SEE WP:NPOV good research section. And don't add 0 to 0 (Tys-Krochmalyuk citation ref from Lew Shankowsky and visa versa)- as results is similar. Same infor - becouse of similar source - so you again omit a Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences conclusion and facts providedJo0doe (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean - your misciting of those sources or selectively citing from them [12].Faustian (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean I follow the cornerstone rule of WP: -

• All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

So I’ve made numerous attempt to represent all involved party data regarding the event –namely

Germans, Soviets, Soviet Partisans, Poles and UPA – but every time my edits was reverted to OUN(B)/UPA.

While your actions is clear against the WP:UNDUE rules

• must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.Jo0doe (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So I illustrate what you actually did in article, in terms proposed by Irpen namely – “If Subtelny included a ref to Krokhmaluk, we should say "According to Krokhmaluk, cited by Subtelny, the guerrillas destroyed.":

UPA defeats 100 SS divisions – Accordingly to Krokhmaluk used Lew Shankowsky Istoria Ukrainskoho Viyska Winninpeg 1953. Accordingly to Professor by Kyiv University for TOURISM ECONOMY AND LAW cited Lew Shankowsky Istoria Ukrainskoho Viyska Winnipeg 1953. and Accordingly to XXX cited Lew Shankowsky Istoria Ukrainskoho Viyska Winnipeg 1953.

It’s actually clear editing in bad faith as you put visitors in misconception by deceiving in the way what they believe what numerous scholars approve the reliability of mentioned hoax.Jo0doe (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

While you omit the stating what Firstly, Lew Shankowsky is neither a scholar nor a primary source (like the archival data would be) but a biased witness from lowest commander staff of UPA. Secondly, the origin of Shankowsky data is well known – Shankowsky summarize the appeared in “Ідея і чин» "Вісті з фронту УПА" ,«За самостійну Україну», «Бюлетень», «Вісник української інформаційної служби», «Інформатор», «Повстанець». Jo0doe (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice example of original research. The problem is that nobody is citing Shankovsky directly. That, indeed, would be inapropriate. Instead, he is being cited through reliable sources, such as the book by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (which refers to him, directly, as a "well-known historian") and by Mukovsky.

This is a chronic problem with you. As wikipedia editors it is not our right to determine which parts of reliable articles are good and which bad. It is not our right to exclude info taken from articles based on what we feel the article's authors did. If the author of an article that meets the standard of a reliable source decided that certain information from, say, Shankovsky, was good enough for inclusion into HIS article, we can do nothing. That info goes into wikipedia. Our personal opinion about the source is original research. Our using other sources about a source we don't like is likewise original research - WP:SYN . So if source A uses Shankovsky, and source B states that Shankovsky is bad, we can't exclude source A's use of Shankovsky based on what source B said. Review the example in section WP:SYN, please.

Sorry that you don't like the wikipedia policy of no original research WP:NOR.Faustian (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It’s article about UPA but not about Shankowsky or Mukovskyy- so what OR you are spoken about . So if Shankowsky claims what in Janova Dolina UPA defeat a German (based on doctored by Lebid Вісті" з фронту УПА" while majority of historians known that is was first large scale ethnical cleaning of Poles – it quite clear red flag about reliability of this source. Yes – he is well known Diaspora “historians” but it does not change quality of his “works”. So once again – per WP:NPOV policy we should as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. So we can use a Shankovsky – but we must include it accordingly to WP:UNDEU rule. So problem is what sources cited him directly – see ref numbers. So it’s no necessary to ref Shankovkyy through Shankovskyy – 0+0 always gives 0. But we should not forget other sources which dismiss doctored “Вісті" з фронту УПА" propaganda – even you can see from III Extraorinary UPA congress minutes what there no battles nor Bach-Zalevsky – etc. See own OUN-SD-UPA non doctored in 1946 documents published by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science about their activities toward Germans in August 1943 – i.e. at the time when they “defeat” Bach-Zalevsky 5 armored trains and 27 planes- Me-262 I assume – as no one can defeat the UPA-Ghost squadrons…Jo0doe (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's relevent because you want to exclude data from article about UPA that's taken from a reliable source, because that reliable source happened to get it from Shankovsky. And that's where the OR comes in.Faustian (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I plan to follow the WP:UNDUE policy and not put visitors in misconception by providing a lot of refs which actually directed to same not WP:RS source and omit WP:RS citations which clarly depict "battles" as post war propaganda and thus hoax Jo0doe (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So you plan to decide which RS sources are right and which ones are wrong - OR. If they conflict, then both sets of information need to be included. Although we ought to follow wikipedia policy in placing some sources (English-language, with many people having scrutinized them) over others (inaccessbile and thus unverifiable, or in sources not seen much by outsiders as reflected in googlescholar). We report what is there, we follow wiki guidelines, we don't make personal judgments.Faustian (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

yes wiki guidelines is wrong for this article. All must be done accordingly to Faustians decitions - which one is wrong and which one is bad. We must use only google count - other source is fringe. You (Faustians) win – I can’t oppose to your conclusions and visions – as such will be hurt for yourJo0doe (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines are clear - you just don't like them and then pretend that I'm making them up. Your last refuge.Faustian (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

http://yurizhukov.com – Bering ltd

So pay par request “history” pushed here as high-quality reliable sources? Director Zhukov as historian? Expected habit to put visitors in misconception Jo0doe (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Prove that this is the same Yuri Zhukov. 2. If so, prove that he doesn't have a background in history. 3. If so, it's still irrelevent because the info that was written by Zhukov and included in the article was from a peer-reviewed journal [[13]:

• Yuri Zhukov, "Examining the Authoritarian Model of Counter-insurgency: The Soviet Campaign Against the Ukrainian Insurgent Army", Small Wars and Insurgencies, v.18, no. 3, pp.439-466

Never mind the first two. You forgot to list his achievements:

http://www.yurizhukov.com/4.html

Another peer-reviewed article he has written:

“A Tale of Two Fleets: a Russian Perspective on the 1973 Naval Standoff in the Mediterranean” [with Dr. Lyle J. Goldstein], Naval War College Review LVII, no. 2 (Spring 2004), pp. 27-63.

 &Winner: 2004 Literary Award, U.S. Naval Institute and 
                Surface Navy Association.
  &Winner: 2004 Edward S. Miller History Prize, U.S. Naval 
                War College Foundation.

A peer-reviewed monograph:

“The Evolution of the U.S. Navy’s Maritime Strategy in the Context of Major Political and Military Events of the Cold War, 1964–1991,” in The Evolution of the U.S. Navy’s Maritime Strategy, 1977-1986, ed. John B. Hattendorf, pp. 279-303. Newport Paper 19 (Newport, RI: Naval War College Press, 2004).

Thanks for the website, and for helping prove that Zhukov is a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Excluding sources based on your personal preference is inappropriate.Faustian (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don’t oppose Zhukovs as a reliable source for Naval history. Or we can expect here a new data regarding UPA battle-cruiser “Stepan Bandera” and destroyer “Yaroslav Stetsko”, submarine “Dmytro Klyachkivskyy” which operated in Syan or Zbruch? But can’t find any prove what he is confident with Ukrainian history 30-50 XX. Please find one more source with 1600000 km and 10000.000 population and include such data - together with data from Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science - So could you advice me were Vatutin was wounded and whenJo0doe (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to follow WP:RS. Just because you don't like what is written doesn't mean that extra conditions have to be attached to its inclusion.

I have already done a lot of searching on your behalf. Please find one source that states that UPA did not enjoy freedom of movement in an area of specifically 160,000 km and 10 million population in area. And no creative interpretation please - it must be specific.Faustian (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As you included this claim – please provide any other source for this exceptional claim – per WP:RS - could you provide any prove what author of such claim confident with Ukrainian history 30-50 XX? May I remind you, what burden of evidence – it your obligation (as Author of edits).

• So could you advice me were Vatutin was wounded and when
• So – could you advice me on Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science areas of UPA activity by autumn 1944? – As far as I can read it only Western Regions of Ukraine which has specific acreage and known estimated number of population –
• DYK what Soviets conduct enumeration of population for western region of Ukraine by late 1944 and early 1945 ?Jo0doe (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So I don’t plan to find info what Earth is note cube – since burden of evidence regarding exceptional claims– it’s your obligationsJo0doe (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I added the info and the citation, the burdon of proof is on you to prove that it is wrong. There is no wikipedia requirement that every piece of evidence needs more than one citation. I added info, I added the citation which is RS (peer reviewed journal article, written by as we have seen someone with several publications). Your exceptional claim that Zhukov is wrong ought to be referenced. So find the references please. And try to use RS sources. Before you begin I suggest that you think about the difference between "freedom of movement" and area of heavy activity. Faustian (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since I added the info and the citation, the burdon of proof is on you to prove that it is wrong

yes wiki guidelines - WP:PROVEIT is wrong for this article. All must be done accordingly to Faustians decitions - which one is wrong and which one is bad. We must use only google count - other source is fringe. You (Faustians) win – I can’t oppose to your conclusions and visions – as such will be hurt for yourJo0doe (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's right for this article. Go to WP:PROVEIT. Read there :

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

So, in the article I added and "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" proved it using the reference:

• Yuri Zhukov, "Examining the Authoritarian Model of Counter-insurgency: The Soviet Campaign Against the Ukrainian Insurgent Army", Small Wars and Insurgencies, v.18, no. 3, pp.439-466

WP:PROVEIT does not state that it needs multiple sources, nor does it say that sources require additional verification if Jo0doe doesn't believe them. Is states All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Which is exactly what I have done.

If you have additional claims, then you should prove them too. These are not "Faustian's rules" - they are wikipedia policy. If you don't like that, try to change the policy. Until the policy is changed, we have to follow the rules if we like it or not.Faustian (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Kremlinology versus History

Citation from Burds “work” agentura in Russian За первые 17 месяцев повторной оккупации Западной Украины советскими войсками…. Table from Burds “work” agentura in Russian

Подчинение западных окраин советской власти 1944-45 Взято в плен и арестовано Украина - 230217 (источник – совершенно секретный доклад Берии Сталину датированный 22 ноября 1945

Арестовано 250676 Источник совершенно секретный доклад Министра МВД УССР Строкача Хрущеву

Хотя эти показатели намного меньше тех оценок, которые традиционно приводились украинскими эмигрантами на Западе, они тем не менее подтверждают грандиозный размах той бойни которая сопутствовала установлению советского режима в Галиции после второй мировой войны

• and historian data

I.Bilas which used similar archives –

Captured bandits 1944- 50387 1-st half of 1945 – 46059

Arrested band assistants 1944- none 1-st half of 1945 5717

Deserters 1944 –none 1-st half of 1945 3797

Those whom Refused to serve at Red Army – 1944- 43376 1-st half of 1945 30788

So how significant the difference in figure composition. But historians and Kremlinologists it’s two different scholars – with two different directions Last need to sell their “works” and need a “roasted” facts while first – directed to unhide unknown past. It’s actually same difference between WP and community newspaper – last need to have good sells first tend to be reliable source Jo0doe (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Burds is a well-known scholar. In addition to being affiliated with two of the top Western universities, (Ph.D. in History from Yale, with a Harvard institute) his work has 162 hits on googlescholar [14], which is recommended by wikipedia as a good guage of a source's worth: [15] "The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes".

Bilas is a member of the political party Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists - the heir of the OUN, and considers himself "Hetman of Ukraine's Kozatsvo." (incidentally, this leads me to suspect you cherry pick when citing him, because you do so only when presenting information unfavoerable to UPA) [16] He has five citations on googlescholar: [17]. Furthermore, his work is not in English and not available online, leading to problems with verifiability. Remember WP:RSUE:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

So - English language source by author from top universities with 162 citations on googlescholar, vs. non-English, non-accessible source by relatrively unknown scholar who is also a member of a nationalist political party.

Thank you for demonstrating your judgment when weighing which source is best.Faustian (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So – very difficult case – In addition to numerous but single editor we’ve he a author from many universities at ones. So here we’ve one almost unknown @Co-Director, Center for the Study of Russia and the Soviet Union@ with difficulties with mathematics (by adding 15 apricots with 3 apples with 1 water melon – he received 19 watermelons) as also with Russian (“maskirovka”-units) as also with history (vs dozens of known historians which used same archival data – and – a mystery – provide similar figure – see work of Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Science (section for 1945), Olexander Lysenko – head of of Institute of History WWII department and many other published at www.history.org.ua. However, just be calm and confident with yourself – I don’t oppose you – I just collect facts Jo0doe (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you are so baffled when the facts are presented to you in a very straightforward manner. Could this explain your seeming inability to quote facts correctly as shown here:[18] and here: [19] and here:[20]etc.?

Still, funniest of all is when you state that Ivan Bilas, member of the political party Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists - the heir of the OUN, who considers himself "Hetman of Ukraine's Kozatsvo" (incidentally, this leads me to suspect you cherry pick when citing him, because you do so only when presenting information unfavoerable to UPA) [21] who has five citations on googlescholar: [22] is a worse source than Burds, who in addition to being affiliated with two of the top Western universities, (Ph.D. in History from Yale, currently with a Harvard institute) has work that is frequently cited as demonstrated by 162 hits on googlescholar [23]. Given the above example of your judgment, your collection of "facts" that you try to gather will be scrutinized closely and treated accordingly.Faustian (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So much desperate efforts to mislead none. All clear since the times of the “Krochmalyuk 1973”. So – month passed away – and pity, no effort traced to match [[WP:V] and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV at article itself – however – so many empty words at talk page. But we’ve knew many interesting – so we’ve found what IMT does not condemn Nazism and Fascism, what most reliable source about scholars and science it’s a Google. But most notable one it’s the fact what 1 is more then 5. It’s Great!!! But, Faustian, just be calm and confident with yourself – I don’t oppose you – I just collect facts

• DYK what at RU:WP has a interesting newspaper [24] – which Armstrong does not note – since he use a doctored by Lebid source and note a date of publishing – it’s about a “Germans arrests” fairytale. So – I plan to enrich en:WP commons – so many articles need such “unknown” info Jo0doe (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Because your WP:V and your WP:NOR are currently not polluting the article, such efforts are not necessary. Your lies above are noted - I never claimed IMT does not condemn Nazism and Fascism. But it's a typical pattern for you, as shown here:[25] and here: [26] and here:[27]. In terms of emptiness of comments, as documented on these talk pages my comments are consistantly backed by by appropriate wikipedia links or links to articles. You, on the other hand, have often refused to provide author names or titles. I guess you have been caught being dishonest too often for that.Faustian (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

backed by by appropriate wikipedia links or links to articles - WP:Honest – isn’t? – especially in light of Glaring example from here [28] – so I conclude here what I’m blind.

While – so civil Because your WP:V and your WP:NOR are currently not polluting the article, such efforts are not necessary. Your lies

Oops - you cut out the rest of my sentence. A pattern for you - quoting selectively and cherry-picking. Let me remind you: Your lies above are noted - I never claimed IMT does not condemn Nazism and Fascism. But it's a typical pattern for you, as shown here:[29] and here: [30] and here:[31].

So if' I lie - why you repeatedly asked for

Did the IMT conclude that OUN and Nazi goals were the same and did the IMT claim that the goal of OUN was the extermination of Jews? Yes or No?

in terms of

Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal documents Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews [47]. Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed”

using http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/imt/02/htm/t448.htm [32] [33] Jo0doe (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing there indicating that the IMT concluded that OUN and Nazi goals were the same. There is a transcript in which an Austrian officer says that 6 years earlier he overheard Keitel tell Canaris that Ukrainian organizations and Nazis had the same goal. You have so far not included any proof that the IMT agreed with what Keitel allegedly said. And yet you chose to place in the article, "Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal documents Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews [47]. Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed”". As I explained elsewhere, this is like a transcript stating that a witness at a court stated "I heard someone say that Person X killed Person Y" and you twisting that by stating "According to documents in the court, Person X killed Person Y." A glaring example of misrepresenting a source to push your POV. What can you say after you've been exposed? Of course - you will lie that I object to IMT findings.Faustian (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Austrian officer says that 6 years earlier he overheard Keitel tell Canaris that Ukrainian organizations and Nazis had the same goal. You have so far not included any proof that the IMT agreed with what Keitel allegedly said. - I assume you as too young person to be a one of Major War Criminals Defendant at IMT - even they has more reasonable way of conduct - so - here you present your personal consern of US IMT Procesutor reliablity. Just a short thanksJo0doe (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In order to "personal consern of US IMT Procesutor reliablity" I would have to actually disagree with the conclusions of the US IMT prosecutor. Did the US IMT prosecutor conclude that Nazi and OUN objectives were the same? Did the US IMT prosecutor conclude that OUN objectives were extermination of the Jews? Yes or no?Faustian (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry - I'll unable to give you an answer on your questions - since it located beyond the overall principles of Jurisprudence Jo0doe (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE

• If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Great words – so it’s best way to ignore WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

• A vital component: good research

Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later.

• Balance

When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

• Fairness of tone

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.

We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation. We should present all significant, competing views impartially. This does not, however, mean that all views should get equal space, nor that they should be presented as equal: Minority views should not be presented as equally accepted as the majority view, for instance, and views in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all.

All above thrown to trash been – all sources (regardless they WP:RS or not) must be cited to prove the version of “according to the UPA/OUN” namely “a guerrilla war during the Second World War and in the decade afterwards”;” Among the anti-Nazi resistance movements it was unique, in that it had no significant foreign support.” ” used heavy artillery and sometimes even tanks” etc . So all WP WWII (as also post and pre) article must be rewrite “according to the UPA/OUN” – no more communists propaganda what they liberated Ukraine and Poland from Nazi’s – all was done by OUN/UPA ghost squadrons. IMT documents materials is collection of worthless papers which does not conclude anything – Am I correct, Faustians? Jo0doe (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rather funny that you mention the above points, given that your effort has been a giant attempt to violate them as is evident in these talkpages. I'll just remind you that the statements you object to have been backed up by citations from RS.Faustian (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So, your common mistakes with “We” instead “I” and “our” instead “my” here transformed into you instead I. So I appreciate you self critics, but still unable to detect RS per redflag policy. So what I can see here – pay-off publication by Navy analytics, outdated passing-through apocrypha by Nazi collaborators and Ukrainian Diaspora publicists. One and sole kremlinogist - @Co-Director, Center for the Study of Russia and the Soviet Union@ which experienced difficulties as with basic mathematics (by adding 15 apricots with 3 apples with 1 water melon – he received 19 watermelons) as also with Russian (“maskirovka”-units). However I point your “glaring examples” – please do not overcharge yourself by adding more and more examples of how put others in misconception – it’s more then enough at this talk page. However, just be calm and confident with yourself – I don’t oppose you – I just collect facts Jo0doe (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt at correcting grammar is almost as humorous as your claims about who is or is not a better source. I have primarily (though not exclusively) cited Magocsi, Burds, Subtleny which you collectively refer to as "pay-off publication by Navy analytics, outdated passing-through apocrypha by Nazi collaborators and Ukrainian Diaspora publicists. One and sole kremlinogist - @Co-Director, Center for the Study of Russia and the Soviet Union@ which experienced difficulties as with basic mathematics (by adding 15 apricots with 3 apples with 1 water melon – he received 19 watermelons)". That's a good example of your "judgment" when it comes to sources.

Still, funniest of all is when you state that Ivan Bilas, member of the political party Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists - the heir of the OUN, who considers himself "Hetman of Ukraine's Kozatsvo" (incidentally, this leads me to suspect you cherry pick when citing him, because you do so only when presenting information unfavoerable to UPA) [34] who has five citations on googlescholar: [35] is a worse source than Burds, who in addition to being affiliated with two of the top Western universities, (Ph.D. in History from Yale, currently with a Harvard institute) has work that is frequently cited as demonstrated by 162 hits on googlescholar [36]. Given the above and numerous other examples of your judgment, your collection of "facts" that you try to gather will be scrutinized closely and treated accordingly.Faustian (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• So much desperate efforts to mislead none. All clear since the times of the “Krochmalyuk 1973”.

So – month passed away – and pity, no effort traced to match [[WP:V] and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV at article itself – however – so many empty words at talk page. But we’ve knew many interesting – so we’ve found what IMT does not condemn Nazism and Fascism, what most reliable source about scholars and science it’s a Google. But most notable one it’s the fact what 1 is more then 5. It’s Great!!! But, Faustian, just be calm and confident with yourself – I don’t oppose you – I just collect facts

• DYK what at RU:WP has a interesting newspaper [37] – which Armstrong does not note – since he use a doctored by Lebid source and note a date of publishing – it’s about a “Germans arrests” fairytale. So – I plan to enrich en:WP commons – so many articles need such “unknown” info Jo0doe (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Because your WP:V and your WP:NOR are currently not polluting the article, such efforts are not necessary. Your lies above are noted - I never claimed IMT does not condemn Nazism and Fascism. But it's a typical pattern for you, as shown here:[38] and here: [39] and here:[40]. In terms of emptiness of comments, as documented on these talk pages my comments are consistantly backed up by appropriate wikipedia links or links to articles. You, on the other hand, have often refused to provide author names or titles. I guess you have been caught being dishonest too often for that.Faustian (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just one instance, when I refused to provide author names or titles for information given by me in the article UPA. Please, please, pleaseJo0doe (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You dishonestly imply that I was referring to the article page. Your refusal is on information you presented on the talk page.Faustian (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a short - thank you Jo0doe (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Adopting a strategy analogous to that of the Chetnik leader General Draža Mihailović

Illiteracy of one lead to hoax for many.

So if we deeply read the Yugoslav_Royal_Army_in_the_Fatherland or Chetnik we can see many similarity – [[41]] [[42]] which removed from this article by titanic effort of sole editor.

I have added information about UPA atrocities to this article. No need to lie about me, as you do about many other things.Faustian (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So the differences existed - Chetniks was nominally royalists while “UPA/OUN(B) has a similar to Nazi objectives” and ideology as also they proclaim Hitler as liberator of “Ukraine”. So I don’t know instances were Chetniks commanders trained at Abwehr camp in 1939-41 as Shukhevich and many others. While, taking into account [[43]] this info putted into wrong chapter – as usual.Jo0doe (talk)

I'm sorry you object to the work of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences when it suits you do to so. The following statment within the article is referenced to that work.:

UPA, fighting a two-front war against both the Germans and approaching Soviets (as well as Soviet partisans), did not focus all of its efforts against the Germans. Indeed, it considered the Soviets to be a greater threat. Adopting a strategy analogous to that of the Chetnik leader General Draža Mihailović, UPA held back against the Germans in order to better prepare itself for and engage in the struggle against the Communists. Because of this, although UPA managed to limit German activities to a certain extent, it failed to prevent the Germans from deporting approximately 500,000 people from Western Ukrainian regions and from economically exploiting Western Ukraine. The source is found here: [44] It's the fourth paragraph that starts on page 179. Anything not specifically found on that paragraph relating to UPA/Chetnik comparisons needs its own source, otherwise it's original research (which is what you are fond of doing). Faustian (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another Thank for Glaring example about how you twist the source. Thank you, once again what you’ve omit conclusion. I’m sorry - work of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences does not about Chetniks – so this pass-through passage from author which not familiar with Chetnik nor with Mao’s movement – just an indicator of fairness of source citing – you know –

Your personal judgment which is irrelevent. We have planty of examples of your judgment and what it's worth. Stick to facts please, the facts is that the summary of what was written by the Instittue of History is accurate.Faustian (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully [[45]]Jo0doe (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Hopefully you will start doing that, as I have been doing.Faustian (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You "honest" citation of Y.Krochmalyuk 1973 and Armstrong 1963, as also Subelnyy 1988 (in adition to Instittue of History ) is noted many time in article historyJo0doe (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You accuse me of dishonesty because I mistakenly wrote "1973" instead of "1972" as the date for one of the references. Similarly, because I included the info for the second-edition of a book rather than the third, which I subsequently corrected. This says more about you, than about me.Faustian (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I do not do this - it's your fantacy extrapolatiion. I just noted factsJo0doe (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So what was the meaning of your quotation marks around the word "honest", followed by the 1973 and 1963 dates?Faustian (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Ad personam" not "ad rem"

As a matter of fact, statements of sole editor are arguments «ad personam» not «ad rem» and suggest that the person who wrote these words has no other reasonable arguments to defend its statement. Jo0doe (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Several allegations I'd like to get answer to- Part 2

• as here [46] no reasonable replays were given.

there are differences between the conclusions of Western scholars and those from Ukraine. Jo0doe (talk) considers the leading Western scholars in the field of Ukrainian history to be a minority view, perhaps because they are not as well known in Ukraine itself. These include Orest Subtelny (who, among other things, wrote the Encarta Encyclopedia entry about Ukraine), and Paul Robert Magocsi. Their introductory level texts are among the first books to pop up when one searches for "Ukraine" and "history" on amazon.com. The books are here:[1] and here:[2]. The other scholar Jo0doe (talk) objects to is Jeffrey Burds, whose homepage is here [3] and CV is here: [4]. His expertise is in a narrow field of Ukrainian and Soviet history directly related to the topic of the article, insurgency and counterinsurgency.

So would be glad to see refs on official statements by leading Western scholars institutions what they are leading Western scholars in the field of Ukrainian history. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Leading western instuitutions include Harvard, Yale and Princeton. That is where those guys are from. 2 +2 equals 4. But let's look at praise for their work. Subtelny was chosen to be the author of the entry on Ukraine for Encarta - a good indicator of his stature in the West, no? Here is for Magocsi: [47] and an excerpt from a review of his book cited in this article [48]:

Paul Robert Magocsi, a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, is a professor of history and political science at the University of Toronto. His present book is the product of a course he began teaching in 1980, and he has expanded it over the years into an encyclopedic work on Ukrainian history. Although Magocsi describes his study as being in the "form of a text book" and recommends it for course adoption, it is a far more monumental work than the typical product in that genre. Indeed, it is reminiscent of some of the great works of Russian and Ukrainian history of the nineteenth century, such as Klychevsky's A Course on Russian History, which also originated as lectures..."

So where is the praise for the Institute of History's work? Self-praise doesn't count.

Here is a syllabus from a summer course the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (I know you don't like Harvard, but it is one of the top univeristies in the world): [49]. The first book on the course book list is Subtelny's book on Ukrainian history.

Wikipedia has another way of judging a source's worth, as seen here: [WP:RS]. Scroll down to this part: [50]. It states:

• The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes.

Went I went to google scholar, I saw that Googlescholar shows 353 books/citations with PR Magocsi: [51]. Jeffrey Burds has 162: [52]. The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences shows 57: [53], only 18 of which are after 1990.

As for Burds, yes he is a specialist in banditry, insurgency, etc. - exactly what this article is about. And his work in this narrow field is cited at least 10 times more in the English-speaking world than that if the Institute of History is cited on any subject after 1990. There is simply no comparison. As for Magocsi - his book about Ukrainian history, cited in this article, has 82 hits on googlescholar [54]. More than four times more than does the Institute of History after 1990.

Is that enough evidence for you? Or should I continue proving that black is indeed black and white is indeed white, and that in theWestern world at least the work of Magocsi, Subtelny et al is mainstream and known while that of the Institute of History is unknown and therefore not mainstream. Faustian (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• So - you were refuse to provide official statements what mentioned by you persons are 'leading Western scholars in the field of Ukrainian history . Moreover you've limited West to few North American Educational institution and erroniously pose Harvard and Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute as same institution. - So nothing changes since [55]

Jo0doe (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So "Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute" is not the same as "Harvard", according to you. A good example of your approach to reality. Look at the second line of the Ukrainian Research Institute's website: [56] and, indeed, the website address itself. "Not Harvard" indeed. Very funny. Real "Scholarship."Faustian (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Can't see any Harvard, Yale and Princeton statements or Harvard Ukrainian Summer Institute is assumed by you as the same as Harvard- it's funnyJo0doe (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So "Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute" is not the same as "Harvard", according to you. A good example of your approach to reality. Look at the second line of the Ukrainian Research Institute's website: [57] and, indeed, the website address itself. "Not Harvard" indeed. Very funny. Real "Scholarship."Faustian (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

see Harvard - for more detailsJo0doe (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • google scholar

Some searchers consider GS of comparable quality and utility to commercial databases,[6] even though its user-interface (UI) is still in beta. The reviews recognize that its "cited by" feature in particular poses serious competition to Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge, although it generally returns fewer results than subscription services.

So - beta version of history - anything else?Jo0doe (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Any from American_Historical_Society? Jo0doe (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Or may be United States National Academy of SciencesJo0doe (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice job complaining about googlescholar. The problem is what wikipedia states on [WP:RS]. Scroll down to this part: [58]. Read this:

• The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes.

And all your complaints don't change that.Faustian (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don's ask about scholarly credentials I ask about prove of your claim about leading Western scholars - any official statement yet?

Only info from institution founded, funded and represented Ukrainian North American Diaspora and Sovietology in one 2 store townhouseJo0doe (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Harvard's departments and affiliates are in many sorts of buildings. Is a 2 story townhouse a problem for you? But thank you for confirming that, for you, Harvard is not good if Ukrainians are involved (is Institute of History also not good due to involvement of UKrainians? Or are some Ukrainians better than others in your opinion?).

Thank you for confirming that you can't argue against "scholarly credentials." You ask for proof about Magocsi and Subtleny and Burds being "leading western scholars." I have offered it. You didn't like what was offered - you want an "official statement." Sorry to dissapoint you that Western Academia does not have a politburo that decides officially who is leading and who is not. You will have the difficult task of figuring out whether or not 2 + 2 = 4 on your own, without being told officially:

Here is a ranking of the top univerisities in the world: [59]. Harvard is #1, despite some parts being located in 2 story townhouses. Columbia is number 7 (remember Armstrong?), Princeton # 8, Yale # 11. University of Toronto is # 23. No University in Ukraine is in the top 500. Where did your scholars complete their training?

Another ranking of the top universities, based on the social sciences (history is considered a social science), from the Times: [60]. Harvard #1, Yale #4, Princeton #9, Columbia # 10, Toronto # 13. No Ukrainian university in the top 50. In a 2007 ranking of top 150 European universities, not a single Ukrainian one made it to the list: [61]

It's really funny to see you disparage the work of people whose Ph.D's were obtained from the top univerisities in the world, who teach in them, whose work is published by them. Even sometimes in two story townhouses. And in comparison you offer work by people from unknown (outside Ukraine) institutions.

But let's look at praise for their work. Subtelny was chosen to be the author of the entry on Ukraine for Encarta - a good indicator of his stature in the West, no? Here is for Magocsi: [62] and an excerpt from a review of his book cited in this article [63]:

Paul Robert Magocsi, a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, is a professor of history and political science at the University of Toronto. His present book is the product of a course he began teaching in 1980, and he has expanded it over the years into an encyclopedic work on Ukrainian history. Although Magocsi describes his study as being in the "form of a text book" and recommends it for course adoption, it is a far more monumental work than the typical product in that genre. Indeed, it is reminiscent of some of the great works of Russian and Ukrainian history of the nineteenth century, such as Klychevsky's A Course on Russian History, which also originated as lectures..."

Here is a syllabus from a summer course the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (I know you don't like Harvard, but it is the top univeristies in the world): [64]. The first book on the course book list is Subtelny's book on Ukrainian history.

Wikipedia has another way of judging a source's worth, as seen here: [WP:RS]. Scroll down to this part: [65]. It states:

• The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes.

Googlescholar shows 353 books/citations with PR Magocsi: [66]. Jeffrey Burds has 162: [67]. The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences shows 57: [68], only 18 of which are after 1990.

As for Burds, yes he is a specialist in banditry, insurgency, etc. - exactly what this article is about. And his work in this narrow field is cited at least 10 times more in the English-speaking world than that if the Institute of History is cited on any subject after 1990. There is simply no comparison. As for Magocsi - his book about Ukrainian history, cited in this article, has 82 hits on googlescholar [69]. More than four times more than does the Institute of History after 1990.

Sorry about no official statement though. Perhaps next you will prefer a recomendation by Zeus himself as your criterion?Faustian (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of empty words - no replay as expectedJo0doe (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting way of referring to well-documented with links evidence. Soemthing you rarely do.Faustian (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• What actually I’ve found about Jeffrey Burds, Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University – sole trace of his name appearance - single participation in Seminar in Ukrainian Studies Fall 2006 [70]

And here [71] he as one amongst dozens of others name. And why he listed as Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University not as Harvard?

• So were is their (Burds, Subtelny and Magoci) as “Western majority” noted??? A link please Jo0doe (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You forgot this about Burds: [72]: "Associate, Harvard Davis Center for Russian Studies Co-Director, Center for the Study of Russia & the Soviet Union". And this: [73]: "Ph.D., with Distinction, History Yale University."

So, to summarize, Burds is historian specializing in Soviet insurgency wetc. who is currently an associate and co-director for the Center for the Study of Russia & the Soviet Union at the # 1 ranked University in the world [74][75] who obtained his Ph.D. in History from the world's #11 ranked university [76], # ranked in the social sciences [77]. "Empty words", right?

As I said, Magocsi, Subtelny and Burds are top historians in this field in the Western world. They got their Ph.D.s inthe top univeristies, work in the top universities, and have their works publ;ished by the top universities. The mountain of evidence, with all links, is above. Referring to reality as "empty words" won't make it go away, sorry. And trying to rank them beneath unknown historians with no international reputation is funny.Faustian (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Burds at Harvard Davis Center for Russian Studies [78] - can't see what he is co-director for the Center for the Study of Russia & the Soviet Union at the # 1 ranked University in the world -- instead [79] - he is one of huge list of more notable names - as he is simply[80] Moreover can't see "leading specialist" not here [81] nor here [82]

• * So, actually you’ve failed to provide any assessable evidence what 2 scholars (unknown for American_Historical_Society) from Ukrainian Diaspora and one Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University (guess which # at Universities list?) what they are “As I said, Magocsi, Subtelny and Burds are top historians in this field in the Western world.”

• Are you Princeton? Cambridge? Oxford? Sorbonne?

Pity to note but your edits clear in bad faith.

Your gaming with system is noted – WP:CITE#CHALLENGED- English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. So you pose works of above mentioned persons as similar to work by National Academy of Science institution by using beta searching engine? Isn’t Faustians? Jo0doe (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is Burds' listing on the Davis Center website: [83]. It took me 2 seconds to find on google. This Harvard website provides a link to Burds' website, which states he is "Co-Director, Center for the Study of Russia & the Soviet Union" at Davis. You are proposing that Buerds lied on his website? You will have to back up that accusation with more than just "I couldn't find proof that he is co-director..." As for tha American Historical Society - do they have Ukraine specialists other than Subtelny or Magocsi listed? Do they even have a list of notable historians of Ukrainian history? Or are you desperately trying to avoid 2+2=4?

To repeat, Burds is historian specializing in Soviet insurgency etc. who is currently an associate and co-director for the Center for the Study of Russia & the Soviet Union at the # 1 ranked University in the world [84][85] who obtained his Ph.D. in History from the world's #11 ranked university [86], # 4 ranked in the social sciences [87].

And don't forget - "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber." You have not proven that the work of the Institute of History is of equal caliber. Indeed, none of its people graduated from institutions ranked even closely to those of Burds or Magocsi. Its works are not cited that often, as googlescholar shows. And as you yourself admitted, the Institute's publications change with the political winds: [88] "Interesting, but info about this failed “uprising” appeared at Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army by Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine work published in 2004 and removed from website of Institute of Ukrainian History at Yuschenko times (Chaper 1 Tactics and Strategy of OUN at early stage of WWII pages -17-23 )." (your words)

So, we have two competing sources specializing on UPA. Burds, and the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. The evidence points to the latter being of inferior calibre to Burds' work, sorry. Institute's scholars graduated from and are affiliated with institutions of much much lower reputation than Burds' Yale and Harvard (actually their reputations are unknown), they works are cited much much less often, their works aren't in English, and as you admitted their output's appearance - what info they do or do not show - depends on politics. It's rather funny to see you claim that the two are equal.Faustian (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• just a short thank your for another facts - so you refuse to provide any ref to prove your claims and disparage National Academy of Science InstitiutionJo0doe (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Claims proven with multiple links. As for NAtional Academy of Science - I only present facts. The facts are that its authors aren't affiliated with universities in the top 100, unlike Burds. The fact is that Wikipedia:Reliable sources states: [89].

• The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes.

And the Institute of History has few hits - much less than Burds himself.

The fact is that wikipedia policy states WP:RSUE:

• Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

And the fact is that the Institute's work is not in English, while Burds' work is in English and available on-line.

The fact is that you try to present the Institute's work as "better" than that of Burds or Magosci despite the fact that the evidence is clear that according to wikipedia criteria it is worse as a source. Your counterarguments have no backing in policy and consist of empty implications of, say, Burds lying on his website, or disparaging remarks about Harvard or Yale ("Sovietology!" "An office in a 2-story brick townhouse!") Rather amusing.Faustian (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

”Statements” and “intensive training” by liberation movement of the OUN(B)

So, “top historians in this field in the Western world” omit something, here called by one of editor as ”statements” and “intensive training”. So more details about above from The Einsatzgruppen Reports: Selections from the Dispatches of the Nazi Death Squads' Campaign Against the Jews July 1941-January 1943 [by Yitzhak Arad (Hardcover - Jul 1990) [90] as also from U.S.N.R, Military Tribunal II, Case 9: Opinion and Judgment of the Tribunal. Nuremberg: Palace of Justice. 8 April 1948 documents :

• On July 5, 1941

a non-political and non-party Ukrainian national newspaper appeared for the first time in Lvov. The first edition contains greetings and introductions by the city commandant General Renz, the Ukrainian-Greek UNIATE Metropolitan Sheptitsky and Major Poliansky. The Metropolitan Graf Sheptitsky, who is highly esteemed by all Ukrainians, will read a Pastoral Letter on July 6, 1941, the contents of which have been agreed upon. Contents: The Ukrainian people's gratitude for their liberation by the Germans.

• Location: Tarnopol

On July 5, about 70 Jews were assembled by the Ukrainian and finished off with concentrated fire [machine gunned]. 20 more Jews slain in the streets by Ukrainians and soldiers

• July 16, 1941

On July 2 the corpses of 10 German Wehrmacht soldiers were found. In retaliation, 1160 Jews were shot by the Ukrainians with the help of one platoon of the police and one platoon of the infantry.The influence of the Bandera group is very strong in Zlochev. A revolutionary Ukrainian administration has been established there which welcomes the Germans as there allies with posters and leaflets.

• July 30, 1941

In the first hours after the Bolshevik withdrawal, the Ukrainians displayed commendable activity against the Jews. For example, the Dobromil synagogue was set fire and 50 Jews were killed by the enraged crowd at Sambor. Maltreating them, the Lvov inhabitants rounded up about 1,000 Jews and took them to the GPU prison which has been occupied by the Wehrmacht

• 11 September 1941

Since, however, primarily in the large towns, the ever increasing security tasks cannot be solved by the Einsatzkommandos alone, since they are too weak for this purpose, mounting importance is being attached to the creation and organization of a regular police service. Well screened, particularly reliable Ukrainians are employed for this purpose

• September 17, 1941

In Zhitomir, the unarmed Ukrainian militia were repeatedly molested by Jews and, in one case, even shot at.

• October 7, 1941

On September 19, 1941, from 4 o'clock [a.m.], the Jewish quarter was emptied after having been surrounded and closed the previous evening by 60 members of the Ukrainian militia.

(Bandera) Members were gathered in small groups in at the beginning of the campaign in Lvov or in Sanok where they received short training, propaganda material, and money. Martynok took over the leadership of Lvov group. Machilynsky was in charge of these groups from Sanok. On the way, under the pretest of performing police duties, they continued political work such as installing mayors, organizing military units, and finishing off Jews and Communists, etc. The two immediately took up leading positions with the militia.

• November 14, 1941

Mood of the population

Following a thoroughly hopeful mood within the population at the time of the entry of the German troops, under the impact of the liberation from the Bolshevist blood terror, there can now This is particularly so with Bandera's propaganda, but also in Melnyk's. It was apparently not yet possible to present the German administration as the [supreme] power above all [Ukrainian] parties, having the best of Ukrainian interests in mind.

• February 4, 1942

The original East Ukrainian population is visibly united against the newly-arrived West Ukrainians who are seen as the main carriers of the idea of nationalism

• Exhibit USA-290 (Document 3257-PS) “…Specially detached formation of police executed a planned shooting of Jews. This action as a rule proceeded from east to west. It was done entirely in the public with the use of the Ukrainian militia… So far about 150,000 to 200,000 Jews may have been executed in the part of Ukraine belonging to Reichskommissariat.” IMT Vol III p.564

• Exhibit USA-494 (Document 2992-PS) Anti-Jewish action at the town of Rovno, Ukraine July 13 1942. During the night of 13 July 1942 all inhabitants of the Rovno ghetto, there were still about 5,000 Jews, were liquidated… ghetto was encircled by a large SS detachment and three times as many members of the Ukrainian militia.

SS and militia broke the windows, forced the doors with beams and crowbars and entered the houses… Women carried their dead children in their arms, children pulled and dragged their dead parents by their arms and legs down to the road… Again and again the cries “Open the door! Open the door! Echoed through ghetto.”

So – does this information appeared at the “top historians in this field in the Western world” “History of Ukraine”?Jo0doe (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: were the above quotes the conclusions of historians are the testimony of individuals? If the former, the info included in this article briefly. More detailed inclusion should be at the article devoted to the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists page, as these crimes were committed in the context of OUN activity. If the latter is the case - it's just testimony - then it should still be noted, labelled as a testimony, briefly in this article and at more length later. It would probably depend on whose testimony it is, though.

Unless you provide a reliable source that specifically links the individuals who committed these crimes to later UPA membership, your presumption that "because 5,000 police joined UPA, therefore these crimes committed by police were committed by future UPA members" is purely original research. We cannot say "people committed these crimes, then joined UPA" unless a historian whose in a reliable source says so. Don't forget Wikipedia:No original research: "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. ". So where is the conclusion that these people were linked to UPA? Is the work even about UPA? Indeed, does the source make a conclusion about UPA or the OUN at all?

So, find a source specifically stating that these crimes were committed by people who would later join UPA. If this were the case finding such a statement from a reliable source should be easy. Yet, mysteriously, you haven't done so.Faustian (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• just a short thank your for another facts - so you assume U.S.N.R, Military Tribunal II documents as not reliable source and condom Nazi collaborators and war criminals - OUN(B) military formations and leadersJo0doe (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you haven't answered the questions. The same book above also incluides the following reports [91]:

"...in Lenin's time, the Jews, though constituting 1.77% of the entire population, were represented in the Communist party with 5.2%, in the party's Central Committee with 25.7% and in the Politburo with 36.8%. At the end of the Lenin period their participation in the Politburo was up to 42.9%. In the area of high Jewish density, as in Byelorussia, the participation was accordingly higher."(p. 49). One report summarizes recent Jewish-Soviet collaboration: "Again and again, mainly in the towns, the Jews were named as the actual Soviet rulers, exploiting the people with indescribable brutality and delivering them to the NKVD...the Jews especially worked for the Soviets, if not in responsible positions, then as agents or informants."(p. 216)."

"Written on the heels of the invading German Army, numerous reports describe the local Jews becoming responsible for such things as major robberies (e. g., p. 66, 79, 100), prostitution (e. g., p. 68), sabotage (e. g., p. 181), arsons (e. g., p. 59), and killings of locals (p. 30). It is impossible for the reader to ascertain which of these accounts is propaganda or hearsay and which are factual."

Are you going to put that into the article also? Will you put that stuff into an article about Jews? Good luck. Sorry, Nazi claims are not a reliable source. Testimony or reports by Nazi officials are not truth. They are a useful primary source for historians to sort out and verify. Use historians please, not cherry-picked dispatches from archival material. The fact that you resort to this sort of misbehavior suggests that historians disagree with your assumptions - otherwise you would have just included what they had said rather than go on your quest through archives.Faustian (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting note

One example on the discourse on the war and the Soviet past among the some of the children of the members of the post war Galician Ukrainian emigration; or directly participated in the destruction of the Jews during German occupation. Through a victimized national narrative as well as presentation of the Great Famine of 1932/1933, they have tried to compete in order to obscure the “dark sides” of the Ukraine’s national history and to counter accusations that their fathers collaborated with Germans. p.59 ISBN 978-966-02-4679-9 and John-Paul Himka, A Central European Diaspora under the Shadow of World War II: The Galician Ukrainians in North America, in: Austrian History Yearbook 37 (2006), 17–31, here 30.

John-Paul Himka, Ukrainian Collaboration in the Extermination of the Jews During the Second World War. Sorting Out the Long-term and Conjunctural Factors, in: Jonathan Frankel (ed.), The Fate of the European Jews 1939–1945: Continuity or Contingency?, New York 1997, 170–189.

Dieter Pohl, Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung in Ostgalizien 1941–1944, Munchen 1996.

Jo0doe (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Himka's work is great and ought to be used. Pointedly, while describing various Ukrainian crimes against Jews and Poles he never mentions UPA itself committing crimes against Jews (he does discuss the whitewashing of UPA's crimes against Poles by the Ukrainian community).Faustian (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A short break

As far as I can see more than month it’s not enough time to find a WP:RS for non-referenced claims. I hope also what 2 Diaspora historians and 1 new-Sovietologist will be referenced as “top Western scholars”. So I’ll wait some more times. After that I’ll follow the WP recommendation regarding WP:GAME; WP:NOR WP:UNDUE. So – unreferenced/improperly referenced (WP:QS and WP:SPS) claims will be tagged and after some time removed. So per recommendation WP:QS and WP:SPS will be limited per other sources supporting views. So in order to present clearly and distinct for visitors vision on the event origin of vision will be labeled accordingly without misleading omissions. Jo0doe (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you choose to be disruptive you will be reverted by the community of editors, as has happened in the past. It is unfortunate that you reject a western specialist as a "Sovietologist" because he worka at Harvard's Davis Center and obtianed his history Ph.D. at Yale, and other western specialists as "Disapora historians" because of their ethnic background.Faustian (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Point of view written sections

The sections that I have tagged are full statements like "The all-national character of the liberation struggle of Ukrainian insurgents is confirmed by the large scale participation of women". This is nowhere near neutral and unreferenced. An expert on the subject should write these sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.218.228.30 (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - this needs to be rewritten.Faustian (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Flag

Flag of the UPA is not the flag of UPA but political party OUN-B. They were different organizations during WWII. --202.71.90.139 (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Improperly quoted Himka

Where exactly does Himka defend the UPA?Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he does. But he does not in his lengthy article about Ukrainian crimes that are often covered up by the diaspora mention any UPA actions against Jews (he mentions UPA crimes against Poles, and Ukrainian police crimes against Jews).Faustian (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Still hes shouldn't be quoted there, where he is quoted.Xx236 (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? He is a respected scholar, who wrote an article devoted to the Ukrainian disapora's tendency to be quiet about Ukrainian massacres. The article describes several of them, such as UPA's murder of Poles, Ukrainian participation in the murder of Jews, etc. It is indeed notable that Himka does not mention UPA killing Jews among these crimes, and the article accurately states that he does not. So what is the problem with that?Faustian (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What does Himka say? That the UPA didn't kill any Jews? Any partizan organization committed crimes during WWII. Or he doesn't mention that the UPA killed the Jews? Quoting an article because it doesn't contain something is something new for me. Thousands of Ukrainian policemen took some part in the Holocaust and later joined UPA. Did they switch to philo-Semitism during one night? Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The article states "Some historians, however, do not support the claims that UPA was involved in anti-Jewish massacres". Himka's article mentions many crimes committed by UPA against Poles and by Ukrainians against Jews. It does not mention UPA crimes against Jews or UPA involvement in anti-Jewish massacres. This is notable because Himka's article [92] is all about various Ukrainian crimes and the Ukrainian diaspora's attempts to cover them up. Do you suggest that Himka is himself covering something up by not mentioning it? The quote in the article doesn't say "Himka denies that this happened" - that would be original research. It merely states that he doesn't supportrt the claim - he doesn't say that it happened. Because he does not say that it happened. So, the reference is essentially correct. Would you prefer different wording? Such as other historians don't mention UPA being involved in massacres? Or do not mention the existence of anti-Jewish massacres by UPA?Faustian (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is an another article by Himka [93], which covers the two problems I have mentioned - killing Jewish "bands" and police-UPA relations. I believe that "he doesn't supportrt the claim" suggests that Himka denies, but I'm not a native speaker. I hope that there are better non-Ukrainian sources. There is also the problem of "civilian" pogroms (Lviv, Borisov,...). I'm interested non only in "civilins"-UPA connections but also "civilian" pogroms - Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Himka (and many other authors) don't claim that there existed separate groups killing Jews, Poles, Czechs. Many sources call Armia Krajowa any Polish non-communist group and UPA - any Ukrainian non-communist group.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article. Thank you! Some excerpts:

"Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic ideology. (32) The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct. Ukrainian nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-Semitism that existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms. (33) Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists may have disliked Jews, but they did so on traditional or on real-political grounds; rarely would they demonize Jews or place them at the center of some conspiracy. None the less, in the era of nationalism anti-Semitic ideology was widespread in Eastern Europe, and certainly the Ukrainians were frequently exposed to it, even if they did not incorporate it into their own nationalist discourse. In some cases, anti- Semitism was a major component of the ideology of nationalist movements with which the Ukrainian national movement engaged in intense conflict, such as Polish National Democracy in Austrian Galicia and interwar Poland and the Russian Black Hundreds in tsarist Ukraine. In certain states within which the Ukrainians found themselves, anti-Semitism suffused the political culture (late imperial Austria, imperial Russia, interwar Poland, interwar Romania). This constant exposure to anti-Semitic ideology probably facilitated its acceptance when it was also espoused, in a more lethal form, by the German occupation authorities..."

"...the Bandera movement had virtually taken over a police academy in Rivne, where the Banderites stockpiled weapons and taught recruits to prepare for "a war of liberation of Ukraine against Germany" until their activities were uncovered by the Germans in the spring of 1942. (38) The nationalists of the Bandera movement reckoned that as the front moved eastward, relatively few German forces would be left in Ukraine. At that point, the Ukrainian police could overwhelm the German civil administration ("If there were fifty policemen to five Germans, who would hold power then?"). (39)"

"Of course, infiltrating the Ukrainian police formations meant taking part in anti-Jewish actions. Apparently, this did not constitute an obstacle of conscience for the radical nationalists. In fact, taking part in some actions was probably useful, since weapons could be confiscated during ghetto clearings and added to the stockpile. (40) When the Germans discovered the stockpiles associated with the Rivne academy, the members of the Bandera movement denied that they were theirs and said they belonged to Jews. (41) According to the Germans, to finance their activities, the Banderites raised some of their contributions from Jews, whom they often blackmailed. (42) On the other hand, the Bandera movement provided some Jews with false papers. (43) The impression created by the German documentation is that the extreme Ukrainian nationalists were so indifferent to the fate of the Jews (44) that they would either kill them or help them, whichever was more appropriate to their political goals..."

Himka states "Although inadequately documented, it is reasonable to assume that the Bandera partisan movement, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)--like its Polish counterpart, the Home Army (AK)--liquidated Jewish partisan bands because they were pro-Communist. (26) " There is no mention by him, however, of UPA massacring Jewish civilians.Faustian (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reorganizing this article?

This might be a massive undertaking, but I have a suggestion for some reorganization. This article is quite long and perhaps can be split. One article can be devoted to UPA itself, and focus on its organization, membership, attitudes towards it, etc. with a brief section on its history.

A second article can be titled something like "World War II nationalist resistence in Ukraine" or something similar (I am quite flexible on the particular title), and this one will be devoted to the actual fighting. The second article should also include information about UPA's early rivals and how it forcibly absorbed them. It's title would also eliminate any concerns about the inclusion of information about UPA fighting post-1949, when it was officially disbanded. It seems somewhat clumsy or artifiical to me to have an article about UPA without detailing other groups as well, or excluding armed OUN activities that technically weren't done by UPA.

A parallel, I suppose, can be made with the situation of two seperate articles for theUkrainian Galician Army and the Polish-Ukrainian War.

I don't want to make this scale of changes without other opinions. What do other editors think?Faustian (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it will have to happen sooner or later. The problem may be maintaining some discipline of the contents of the separate articles, so I think the first thing to do should be to try to define the scope of each, and then title them accordingly. How about a series of articles:

1. "Ukrainian military involvement in WW2" - a general article
2. "Ukrainian nationalist resistance during WW2" - more specific, focused on nationalist resistance
3. "Ukrainian nationalist resistance after WW2" - ???
4. "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" - focused on UPA, its history, organisation, weapons etc.
5. similar articles for other units/organisations

etc. --Lysy^talk 19:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. However I would make #2 and #3 one article, as there was a rather seamless transitions between the two. The nationalist resistence that occurrd during the war continued (and, indeed, escalated) afterward. So separate articles, one devoted to the resistance (a narrative of the fighting, insurgency and counterinsurgency, which would also include UPA's role in massacres) and others to the specific organizations (an UPA article based on this article outlining its leaders in detail, organizational structure, weapons, details about its formation, etc).Faustian (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been thinking about the general Ukraine in World War II article for some time now, but I was having some trouble figuring out how to write it. Then, several days ago, I was visiting the Museum of the Great Patriotic War in Kiev, and I thought: Would it be a good idea to structure the article the same way that the museum structures its exhibitions? [94] If so, it would go something like this.

• Lead
  • Involvement and casualties
  • History
    • Beginning of World War II (Western Ukraine and Bukovina to the Ukr SSR)
    • Initial Invasion (beginning battles, mass surrender, losses)
    • Capture of Ukrainian territory (Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol(?); up to Kharkov – Moscow)
    • Under occupation (Nazi Rule)
    • Underground movements
      • UPA
      • Partisans
    • Liberation (Kharkov, Donbas, Crimea, Kiev (Dnepr offensive), Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive, – Nazis expelled Ukraine)
  • Destruction (Material losses of the nation)
  • Holocaust in Ukraine
  • ??

I think some discussion would help before this controversial article is created. --Bogdan ^що? 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea.Faustian (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between:

• Involvement and casualties, and
• Destruction (Material losses of the nation)

--Lysy^talk 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How about:

• Ukraine in World War II - a general article
  • Western Ukraine under Soviet occupation (1939-1941)
    • Battle of Lwów (1939)
    • Lviv pogroms
  • Operation Barbarossa
    • Battle of Brody (1941)
    • Battle of Kiev (1941)
  • Ukraine under Nazi occupation
    • Ukrainian Nazi collaboration
      • Ukrainian Liberation Army
      • SS Galizien
      • Ukrainian National Army
    • Ukrainian nationalist resistance in WW2 (and after) - a general article
      • Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army
      • OUN
        • Proclamation of Ukrainian Independence
      • Ukrainian Insurgent Army
        • Sluzhba Bezbeky
    • NKVD partisans in Ukraine
      • NKVD units dressed as UPA fighters
  • Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation
  • Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive
  • Losses of Ukraine in WW2 (Material, human and other)
    • Holocaust in Ukraine
      • Lwów Ghetto
    • Volyn massacre

etc.

Now the big question is how we define Ukraine for the purpose of this articles structure. As a country (in what borders?) or as a nation (ethnic group - only Ukrainians?). Depending on the answer the structure and the contents of the articles would differ. --Lysy^talk 21:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of the controversial "Soviet occupation" I would use something like "first unification". Perhaps we should be broad and include both territory and ethnographic territory?

That being said, time constraints mean that for me, the effort would be focussed on separating the UPA and general Ukrainian nationalist resistance" articles as I discussed at the beginning fo this section.Faustian (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right. It's realistic to start with a single article, as you suggested in the beginning. It's only sometimes good to see if/how it would fit in the potential bigger picture. Another question. What units would Ukrainian nationalist resistance in WW2 include ? Military only ? Maybe Ukrainian nationalist military resistance in WW2 ? I'm not sure. --Lysy^talk 08:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your emphasis on OUN and UPA is unwarranted. Lets not forget just how many Ukrainians fought in the Red Army, and how many followed OUN. And for that matter, what are "NKVD partisans"? --Bogdan ^що? 09:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you mean saying that "emphasis on OUN and UPA is unwarranted". What do you think this article is about ? the Red Army ? As for the NKVD partisans I mean the partisan units that reported to NKVD command. Not all partisans were controlled by UPA as you've noticed yourselves. --Lysy^talk 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Involvement and casualties refers to how many Ukrainian fought for whom, how many where so called OST-Arbeiters, and how many died. While Destruction of the nation refers to the non-human element: how many towns, villages, cities were destroyed, on what scale (relative to other countries), how did the economy suffer, how the industry was moved to Siberia, etc. --Bogdan ^що? 09:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you prefer to separate the human losses from the material losses ? And what about non-material losses ? --Lysy^talk 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two different things here, Lysy. Is the structure you laid out above for Ukraine in World War II or for Ukrainian Insurgent Army? --Bogdan ^що? 15:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Does Ukraine as stateexist at 1937-50?Jo0doe (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

World War II nationalist resistence in Ukraine - so look like you once again forgot

Outside of Western Ukraine, support was minimal, and most of the Soviet Ukrainian population considered the OUN/UPA to have been collaborators with the Germans

While it's easy to update first UPA (B-B) article and add FUR - and join them under nationalistic military formation at pre-1939 Poland territories during WWIIJo0doe (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I appologies - may be FUR will not be not so well known for most of editors - Front Ukrainskoi Revolutsyy - OUN(M) military formation which actually conducted small scale actions against Nazi administration since 1942 - and thus attempted to be exterminated by OUN(B)-SB - since Nazi were a best friendsJo0doe (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• So why not

• • Ukraine under Nazi occupation
    • • OUN(B)
        • Proclamation of Ukrainian Independence
      • Ukrainian Insurgent Army
    • Ukrainian Nazi collaboration
      • Ukrainian Liberation Army
      • SS Galizien
      • Ukrainian National Army
        • Sluzhba BezbekyJo0doe (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are no real objections, I will try to split the UPA article before my trip to the dacha on Cape Cod next week. One article be about UPA and will include organization, role of women, a description of its units (a section on the SB as well as Hoverla and other units) its leaders, etc. There ought to be a brief section on its history, with a redirect to the "Ukrainian nationalist resistence" article for more info. The second article will be titled "Ukrainian nationalist resistance during and after World War II". IMO placing "in former territory of Poland" into the title is not a good idea, because nationalist resistence on a small scale was seen far to the east. However the lead should state that it was primarily in western Ukraine. The second article should include info not only about UPA's activities but also about the FUR (Jo0doe could you provide some info?) as well as Bulba-Borovets' resistence, and the activities of the armed OUN/UPA after UPA's official dissolution. Initially both articles will be basically information split from this article, but as outlined above they should each be expanded to include more.Faustian (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Could you find first RS for women in UPA (do not mix UPA and OUN-undegroung - zhinocha sitka OUN) - please find also RS "nationalist resistence for far to the east" - what mean "small scale" - they conduct woodoo rithuals against tanks ? Does "small" is notable for including in WP? Could you find RS about "armed OUN/UPA" formation?

Why "resistance during and after World War II" - have you an info about Ukrainian nationalist resistance in 1939-1942. - May me Shukhevych in Belarus -but it's not called resistance. So - how should be called Ukrainian nationalist resistance in 1943-1944 againt Poles AK and soviet partizans together with SS ? How about SD and SS cooperation? Jo0doe (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will be collaborative rather than disruptive. And don't forget that World War II did not end in 1942.Faustian (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can’t expect similar from Makivka and Black Forest… So why not to put other visitors in misconception but provide a more clarified info : Passive resistance in form of “self defense of people” from spring till autumn 1943 and only in generalberzirk Wolinien-Podolien

(no actions at all at District Galizia), since end of 1943 cooperation and cooperative actions with SS and SD. Please don't forget that World War II did not end at autumn 1943 –so “Nazi collaborators” nominated as “Nazi resistance” has any sense.Jo0doe (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Taras Bulba-Borovets' wife killed by UPA

His Czech wife was killed by UPA [95].Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

UPA-SB if preciselly. As also many malnikivets and rest enemy of people to OUN (B)Jo0doe (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting “Nazi’s affairs history” to suit the new democratic mood

An interesting citation [96]:

Germany had been ignominiously defeated and its great crimes against humanity exposed to the public. The Soviet Union had emerged victorious, but all the Ukrainians who chose not to return there, but to remain in Western Europe, were vehemently anti-Soviet. The Cold War was beginning, and the concept of totalitarianism, which identified common features in Nazism and Communism, was becoming popular. This was the context in which the postwar Ukrainian emigration began to redefine its politics. It downplayed as much as possible the cooperation between the Ukrainian nationalist parties and the Germans and emphasized instead how Ukrainian nationalists fought both the Germans and the Soviets and how the Ukrainian nation suffered enormously at the hands of both.

Mimicry of Democracy

In 1947 Ivan Bahriany complained that the Bandera nationalists were engaging in "political mimicry, masking themselves under democracy, but not changing their reactionary essence [політичної мімікрії, маскуючись під демократію, але не змінивши своєї реакційної суті]."[28] A year earlier he had noted that the nationalist camp was trying to repudiate its heritage of xenophobia, antisemitism, voluntarism, leaderism [вождизм], and antidemocratism, but "not by overcoming these things, but by assuring us that they had not existed [не переборюючи їх, а запевняючи, що їх і не було]."[29] Similar statements were made also by Rebet.[30] Perhaps the most successful practitioner of political mimicry and rewriting history to suit the new democractic mood was Lebed. Lebed had been working with American intelligence since at least 1947,[31] and the democratic rhetoric of his group seemed to have more to do with the politics of their patrons than with any deep-seated change of convictions.[32] Lebed's group published document collections that doctored historical texts to eliminate pro-German and antisemitic statements.[33] Lebed left his papers to the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. Many documents in that collection have been retyped, with no originals preserved, and the years 1941-42 seem hardly to exist, since these were the years of OUN's closest involvement with the Germans.

So – does WP is a good place to continue post-war deceive, dear group of editors? Jo0doe (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting article indeed whose information which you included in the first quotation ought to be incorporated into the OUN article. As for the latter quote - it's part of the description of what Bahriany said about his rivals, not a conclusion endorsed by Himka (Bahriany is not a RS, only Himka is). So it doesn't belong here (it would, of course, belong in an article of Bahriany or his movement's as a description of their attitude towards the OUN), any more than does the OUN's critique of Bahriany's movement as being a materialist and denationalized.Faustian (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

may be OUN-B? So Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute faked documents - it's a not a conclusion endorsed by Himka ? So what about present time:

In his final report on "The Solution of the Jewish Question in Galicia," SS- Gruppenfьhrer and General Lieutenant of the Police Fritz Katzmann singled out those who aided him in the difficult job of making the District of Galicia judenfrei. They were "the forces of the Security and Order Police, the Gendarmerie, the Special Service and the Ukrainian Police." Kaztmann, SS- Gruppenfьhrer und Generalleutnant der Polizei, "Lцsung der Judenfrage in Galizien," 30 Juni 1943, International Military Tribunal, Nьrnberg, German, USA Exhibit 277, L-18, p. 18 (consulted in YVA, O6/28-1). Katzmann's authoritative report is quoted here because, in spite of the evidence of numerous German documents as well as eyewitness testimonies, the involvement of the Ukrainian police in the destruction process is often passed over in silence or denied in Ukrainian circles. At the Conference on Jewish-Ukrainian Relations in Historical Perspective (McMaster University, 1983) a man who claimed to have served as a Ukrainian policeman under the Nazi occupation challenged statements made by Aharon Weiss and denied that the Ukrainian police took part in anti-Jewish actions. When, as co-editor for history of Encyclopedia of Ukraine, I added a sentence about participation in the murder of Jews to the article on "Ukrainian Auxiliary Police," the sentence was stricken from the final version

So per WP policy - what about censored (doctored) sources RS?Jo0doe (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you admit that the Institute of History removed information after 2004? Is it also a "censored" and "doctored" source?Faustian (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Luckily - published books still exist. So online version also http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/ - choose Монографія link Jo0doe (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A marginal note

Not being a historian, I decide not to participate in this article, which at the moment reads like Soviet history book and is full of lies. People who know testimonies of Jews (or Poles and Lithuanians for that matter) who survived Ukrainian nationalist activity during the WWII, will by surprised to read in this article, that antisemitism did not play a central role in Ukrainian nationalist ideology. Well, I do not know what was the theory, what was for Ukrainians central and what was not and to what extend it matters. The reality meant years of bloody massacres of everybody non-Ukrainian, Jews first of all, Poles, Lithuanians, Belarus people, sometimes even local Germans. The evil bestiality of this movement, especially against the Jews, who were slaughtered in the most cruel, mad way, has very few comparable in the entire human history. Did they do it with or without ideology? Was it central or not? Have mercy people, have mercy. There is not much place for science here - better note the testimonies of the survivors. Shame on people who write these lies today. Shame on Ukrainians who feel no guilt after how they behaved during the WWII. --213.10.189.238 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a fan of Karol Świerczewski: [97]. Thank you for sharing your opinion.Faustian (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Intresting, but Faustian, what about IMT documents and own OUN-R documents - let me remind you something from Rovno - Bandera Police action

• Exhibit USA-494 (Document 2992-PS) Anti-Jewish action at the town of Rovno, Ukraine July 13 1942. During the night of 13 July 1942 all inhabitants of the Rovno ghetto, there were still about 5,000 Jews, were liquidated… ghetto was encircled by a large SS detachment and three times as many members of the Ukrainian militia.

SS and militia broke the windows, forced the doors with beams and crowbars and entered the houses… Women carried their dead children in their arms, children pulled and dragged their dead parents by their arms and legs down to the road… Again and again the cries “Open the door! Open the door! Echoed through ghetto.”

So - can I expect your - [98] - you also call this "German officials” and “recalled four years after the conversation” ?

Testimony or reports by Nazi officials are not truth. Faustian (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

When they report about "similar objectives - namely Poles and Jews" and highly reliable when they spoken about something which can be allegedly posed as resistance? -

Bandera movement had virtually taken over a police academy in Rivne, where the Banderites Faustian (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So very interesting approach Jo0doe (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody claims that Ukrainian police never killed Jews. You are mixing that fact with your personal assertions (i.e., that Nazis and Ukrainian nationalists had the same objectives). Sorry, Himka stated [99]: "Ukrainian nationalism incorporated little modern anti- Semitic ideology. The main thrust of the Ukrainian struggle was directed against Russians and Poles; the Jews were merely adjunct. Ukrainian nationalism never developed the fully articulated anti-Semitism that existed in Polish, Russian, Hungarian or Romanian nationalisms. Ukrainians and Ukrainian nationalists may have disliked Jews, but they did so on traditional or on real-political grounds; rarely would they demonize Jews or place them at the center of some conspiracy." and " The impression created by the German documentation is that the extreme Ukrainian nationalists were so indifferent to the fate of the Jews (44) that they would either kill them or help them, whichever was more appropriate to their political goals." So your personal assertions about Ukrainian nationalists and Nazis having the same goals do not match the conclusions of RS.Faustian (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So - what about

Testimony or reports by Nazi officials are not truth. Faustian (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can comprehend you English - you claim what Ukrainian police never killed Jews? So my name is not Lahausen nor Ribbentron nor Keitel. I just noted fatcs

• As far as I can see you can't see difference between OUN and OUN-R, OUN-SD, OUN(B) - which military formation we spoken about.

So - you object the existance of OUN(B} General Instruction and Himka [100] Jo0doe (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nazi officials also claimed Jews persecuted people and committed many crimes. Is that also truth? We base our edits on what historians conclude or agree is true, not on cherry picked quotes from Nazi testimony. Himka's conclusions are RS. Random quotes by Nazis are not, even though they may serve your purposes. Understand?Faustian (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But your

Testimony or reports by Nazi officials are not truth. Faustian (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

plcced directly under similar to info Women carried their dead children in their arms, children pulled and dragged their dead parents by their arms and legs down to the road… Again and again the cries “Open the door! Open the door! Echoed through ghetto.” while you highly appreciated like (juxt one instance) A captured German document of November 25, 1941 (Nuremberg Trial O14-USSR) orderedJo0doe (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I wrote "Testimony or reports by Nazi officials are not truth " directly under:

"Written on the heels of the invading German Army, numerous reports describe the local Jews becoming responsible for such things as major robberies (e. g., p. 66, 79, 100), prostitution (e. g., p. 68), sabotage (e. g., p. 181), arsons (e. g., p. 59), and killings of locals (p. 30). It is impossible for the reader to ascertain which of these accounts is propaganda or hearsay and which are factual."

Look it up here: [101]. It's the last paragraph.

Oh oh, you've been caught lying again.Faustian (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your civility - but as far as I can see - you mostly target the documents which I noted about

Question: were the above quotes the conclusions of historians are the testimony of individuals? Faustian (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jo0doe (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility? You just lied about me, I suspect to make me look like some sort of Holocaust denier. If you lie, expect your lie to be shown and expect to be called a liar. You lied, I demonstrated your lie, and I accurately described what you did. And it wasn't some typo like 1973 instead of 1972, which was enough for you to accuse me of hoaxing.Faustian (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually your play with facts and removal of info look very in-line. So - let's we return to [102] - you placed your words "Testimony or reports by Nazi officials are not truth " under my words

Women carried their dead children in their arms, children pulled and dragged their dead parents by their arms and legs down to the road… Again and again the cries “Open the door! Open the door! Echoed through ghetto.” - and many time repeatedly concern the reliablity of IMT documents and facts what UPA at lage extend (4-6 K) composed from Ukrainian Militia which exterminated the Jews Jo0doe (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

it wasn't some typo like 1973 instead of 1972, which was enough for you to accuse me of hoaxing.Faustian (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Intresting - may I remind your words from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents You did not use word mistake. Jo0doe (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have chutzpah, I'll give you that - repeating your lie over and over again. "Testimony or reports by Nazi officials are not truth " was placed underneath "Written on the heels of the invading German Army, numerous reports describe the local Jews becoming responsible for such things as major robberies (e. g., p. 66, 79, 100), prostitution (e. g., p. 68), sabotage (e. g., p. 181), arsons (e. g., p. 59), and killings of locals (p. 30). It is impossible for the reader to ascertain which of these accounts is propaganda or hearsay and which are factual." The latter was placed underneath your quotes. Everything is here: [103]. I am curious why you have a problem with my words " "Testimony or reports by Nazi officials are not truth ". Do you consider Nazis to be honest people who tell the truth in general? Of maybe, according to you, they only tell the truth when they have something bad to say about UPA? The bottom line, as I have already written, is that cherry-picked quotes from primary sources (such as testomony/claims by Nazis) have no place here. Edits should be based on secondary sources. Faustian (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So you deny what your sentence placed under my citation from secondary sources? Sad...Jo0doe (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You believe that "Selections from the Dispatches of the Nazi Death Squads' Campaign Against the Jews July 1941-January 1943" is a secondary source? Sad...Faustian (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Magoscy, R. (1996). A History of Ukraine. Toronto: University of Toronto Press

Does such book exist - namelly A History of Ukraine. published in Toronto: University of Toronto Press in 1996? Thank youJo0doe (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it a hoax?Faustian (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Solved [104] - while I've Publisher: Seattle : University of Washington Press, 1998 edition and could not find 100K - please note a page number. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Page 635.Faustian (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

UPA tank divisions

Intresing forum with images - disabled in 1941 T-35 tank with Bandera slogan and plane without wings - all are UPA military power - as also "Volynian UPA tank" image -:))Jo0doe (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Subtelny367" :
  • [[Orest Subtelny]], ''[http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0802083900&id=HNIs9O3EmtQC&dq=0802083900 Ukraine: a history]'', p. 474, [[University of Toronto Press]], 2000, ISBN 0-8020-8390-0
  • [[Orest Subtelny]], ''[http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0802083900&id=HNIs9O3EmtQC&dq=0802083900 Ukraine: a history]'', University of Toronto Press, 2000, ISBN 0-8020-8390-0
  • [[Orest Subtelny]], ''[http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0802083900&id=HNIs9O3EmtQC&dq=0802083900 Ukraine: a history]'', pp. 489, University of Toronto Press, 2000, ISBN 0-8020-8390-0
• "Zhukov" :
  • [http://yurizhukov.com/doc/070900_Zhukov_UPA_Final.pdf Yuri Zhukov, "Examining the Authoritarian Model of Counter-insurgency: The Soviet Campaign Against the Ukrainian Insurgent Army", ''Small Wars and Insurgencies'', v.18, no. 3, pp.439-466]
  • {{cite journal | first = Yuri | last = Zhukov | authorlink = Y. Zhukov | year = 2007| month = | title = Examining the Authoritarian Model of Counterinsurgency: The Soviet Campaign Against the Ukrainian Insurgent Army | journal = Small Wars and Insurgencies | volume = 18 | issue = 3 | pages = 439-466 | id = | url= http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785924288~db=all~order=page }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just another German official opinion

As far as I can remember the habit of source citation [105]cited below statement can be presented as

• One Bavarian officer recalls after 7 years what he agreed that recall Austrian officer after 6 years regarding meeting of German officials in passed-away train.

Dr.Exner: Do you remember the meeting in the Fuhrer’s special train on 9 September 1939, described here by General Lahausen? Jodl: Yes, I remember that meeting perfectly. … Jodl: I met the Fuhrer in the so called command car, in the chartroom, where Field Marshal Keitel, Canaris and Lahausen were. …. Jodl: As far as I am concerned I have not a word of objection to raise against Lahausen’s statement. Absolutely correct. IMT Vol.XV p.374

Jo0doe (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting sources about UPA-OUN(B) activities

• Amtsblatt des Gebietskomissars in Rowno – Rowno, 1942 (Nr. 1-3, 5-17), 1943 (Nr. 1-9)
• Amtsblatt des Generalkomissars fьr Wolhynien und Podolien in Luzk – Luzk, 1943
• Amtsblatt des Generalkomissars in Shitomir – Shitomir, 1941/1942, 1943
• Verordnungsblatt des Reichskommissars fьr die Ukraine – Rowno, 1942-1943
• Zentralblatt des Reichskommissars fьr die Ukraine – Rowno, 1942, 1943 (Nr. 1-42, 44-46, 49-52)

Jo0doe (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

End of short break

As far as passed more then two months for improving the quality of article [106] for sole editor which continuously protect and reinstate hoaxes in en:WP (list available on demand and noted many time at this talk page). I assume it’s a good time to return to WP reliability obligations and WP:cite good practice. So, as far as we can get a citation from Subtelny, p. 474 Subtelny, Orest (1988). Ukraine: A History (in English). Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 800. ISBN 0802083900. – thank you Faustian

The lead will be as follows:

According to Subtelny, Orest among the anti-Nazi resistance movements it was unique, in that it had no significant foreign support. Its growth and strength was a reflection of the popularity it enjoyed among the people of Ukraine. While, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences conclude what outside of Western Ukraine, UPA support was minimal, and core majority of the Ukrainian population considered the OUN/UPA to have been collaborators with the German oppressors and supplied by them with arms and ammunitions from the beginning of the 1944.

• As regards to Magoci work would be glad to hear from editor which include it – how many pages in it deserved to UPA? How detailed he describe this formation. Does he distinct UPA-OUN-B and other OUN and UNR military formation. Does he note the UPA/OUN(B) collaboration.

• As far as Yuriy Tys-Krokhmaluk, UPA Warfare in Ukraine categorized as vanity press – so info referenced through it it’s not WP:RS. So – we’ll stick with WP policy regarding vanity press and Society of Veterans of Ukrainian Insurgent Army publishing

Jo0doe (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually your disruptions have been reverted by many editors, I have just been the most active one. If you choose to resume being disruptive the reaction will be the same. No need to editorialize Subtelny's work and your issue with Magocsi is groundless - he is a RS, after all. As for Krokhmaliuk, when I first cited him I was careful to limit it to info corroborated by RS such as Subtleny or Magosci, who cited him. You actually added quite a bit from Krokhmaliuk's work. Since you don't like it, apparently you chose to (from your perspective) make the article worse for the sake of trying to debunk Korkhmaliuk. Perhaps you can remove the information from Krokhmaliuk's work which you, yourself, added.Faustian (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A list please. Disruptions like UPA appeal poster[107]? So - you actually refuse to provide info about Macosi work. So actually what about Black Forest and Makivka battle groups - and p.242 issue? Jo0doe (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already posted, numerous times, links to Magosci's biography (his past and current links to world's foremost univeristies, such as Harvard, Toronto, etc.) and the link to amazon which shows his history book as one of the first to come up. If you believe that what he includes in his book is "dubious", that's your personal problem. Please keep personal problems off wikipedia edits. Faustian (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Pl:WP provide more info about his Rusins presidency. As far as you refuse to provide replay on my simple questions - so WP is not amazom. Not mine- not mine - as far as I remember Subtelny also not noted about 100K of UPA while Ukrainian Academy of Sciences clear noted 80-90K of Nazi's UPA as hoaxJo0doe (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will be able to provide me more info about how many pages deserved at Magoci work to UPA-OUN-B. Which date he uses as UPA formation? Does he mentioned D.Klyachkivskyy as UPA commander? UPA-SD, SS and SIPO cooperation? Ethnic cleaning of Poles? Thank you. I note assume your actions as stonewall Jo0doe (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC) So actually I've found an interesting review of Magoci Ukraine's History

Universities in the United States of America and Canada like Harvard, Toronto, and Edmonton have been for many years--thanks to a well-to-do North-American-based Ukrainian diaspora--the centers of historical Ukrainian studies. Up to now, many historians with Ukrainian roots have enriched the historical research on the Ukrainian territories with countless contributions. In many aspects they are more influential than their colleagues from the "old homeland," Ukraine. Chief among these is Paul Robert Magocsi, professor of history and political science at the University of Toronto

Because in some respects his enthusiasm for the "Rusyn case"--one can like it or not--prevents the author from the very typical nationalistic pattern of a Ukrainian master narrative so often found in historical research, especially from Ukraine itself. This master narrative ignores the profound non-Ukrainian impact on the Ukrainian nation, first and foremost the Russian and Polish. It stresses the tragic sides of the Ukrainian history (and there are many!), emphasizes the role of the Ukrainians as eternal victims, and dates the development of a distinct Ukrainian nation at least back to the early Middle Ages. ' Not much of this is found in most of Magocsi's books. Maybe this is due to the rather popular character of this publication, addressing not so much an academic readership as a broad public (often, it seems, with a Ukrainian background and its specific requirements),'

but this book differs from his older ones. On the one hand, as usual, Magocsi emphasizes the multicultural nature of Ukraine throughout its history; on the other hand, he is closer to cherished collective Ukrainian mythologies.

There is an ongoing and fierce debate about the Ukrainian anti-Semitism in general but especially about the Ukrainian collaboration with the German occupying forces in World War II. John-Paul Himka, a historian also with Ukrainian roots, has called this "a blank spot in the collective memory of the Ukrainian Diaspora."[5] He states that this group does not so much ignore the Holocaust of the Ukrainian Jews, but denies the participation of Ukrainians in this crime against humanity. Obviously with Magocsi this historical fact is a "blank spot," too. In the chapters about the Ukrainian lands in World War II the atrocities against "all undesirable groups, which in Ukrainian lands meant communists, the Polish intelligentsia, eventually Ukrainian nationalists, and, especially, Jews" (p. 281) were exclusively committed by the German military and so-called Einsatzgruppen (special extermination forces). The shooting of more than 30,000 Jews in September 1941 in the ravine of Babyi Iar near Kiev is mentioned (pp. 281-282); the "help" of Ukrainians in organizing this crime is not. Not in every aspect does Magocsi follow the uncritical veneration--at least in the Western territories of Ukraine, the former East Galicia--of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), fighting sometimes with, sometimes against the Germans. He mentions, for example, the crimes of Ukrainian nationalists against Polish villages in Volhynia in 1943-44: "The victims were more often than not innocent civilians, as entire villages inhabited by Poles were destroyed by the UPA" (p. 287). At the same time, he diminishes the extent of collaboration of the political arm of the UPA, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), with the German occupation forces. It is definitely not true that after the failed proclamation of a sovereign Ukrainian state in June 1941 in Lviv the Germans were unwilling to work with these Ukrainian groups, as Magocsi claims. OUN troops, for example, followed the Wehrmacht in the summer and autumn of 1941 into the Soviet Union. For the German side it was clear that without the collaboration with nationalistic organizations such as the OUN the intended war of destruction (Vernichtungskrieg) in the East would not have been possible. Jo0doe (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the name and affiliation of the reviewer. But I found it: Kerstin Jobst of the University of Salzburg. You also forgot to include the last paragraph of the review [108]: "So my impressions of this book are very mixed. But despite the above-mentioned objections most chapters are clearly not written from a Ukrainian nationalistic perspective. And undoubtedly with its splendid presentation and huge number of pictures, maps, illustrations, and tables it will be valuable also to an academic readership."

Unfortunately for you, a reliable source isn't one that does not have mixed or even negative reviews. Nor is a reliable source one that meets the unmixed approval of a specific Austrian scholar. Rather, Wikipedia:Reliable sources "material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available...". Paul Robert Magocsi's book is published by the University of Toronto Press, he himself is a professor at that university (one of the top 50 in the world, btw [109]), graduate of Princeton, studied at Harvard, etc. In terms of "fringe", his is among the top-selling Ukrainian history books according to Amazon.

Your other concerns are just as irrelevent - for the reasons outlined above it's a RS no matter what your personal problems with it are. So the "Which date he uses as UPA formation? Does he mentioned D.Klyachkivskyy as UPA commander? UPA-SD, SS and SIPO cooperation?" only matter insofar as they Magosci is referenced regarding those facts, which he is not.Faustian (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I really glad to see what you’ve not experienced any difficulties with Google – it’s great. But sad what you are limited in most cases only to that source. So I kindly ask you to read pages V-VII at book with ISBN 0-7727-5108-0 regarding scholar community opinion about Magoci.

I hope you also noted what Magocsi work is not targeted specifically UPA (as, for instance Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) and even not specifically several decade of XX century (as other scholar work) . I also hope you’ve noted scholar comment

• Not much of this is found in most of Magocsi's books. Maybe this is due to the rather popular character of this publication, addressing not so much an academic readership as a broad public.

And

• Obviously with Magocsi this historical fact is a "blank spot," too.

So here we’ve an article which deal with mentioned “blank spot”- chapter in Magocsi’s History . So – per WP:UNDUE please do not rewrite majority view strictly in minority view. Thank you I hope you able to comprehend the difference between “academic readership” and” popular publication”, as also between “Chapter” and “book” for proposes of WP:science (history) article .Jo0doe (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of irrelevent info and original research, as usual. Judgment of whether or not a source is RS doesn't depend on the opinion of book reviewers concernign whether or not it is reliable or has blank spots. Sorry, book published by University of Toronto Press written by University of Toronto professor, graduate of Princeton and Harvard etc. is RS even if some other scholar from a university with less important reputatiopn gives it a mixed review. And it is RS even if Jo0doe doesn't like it.Faustian (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read pages V-VII at book with ISBN 0-7727-5108-0? Scholar reviews appointed by user:Faustian as OR and irrelevant info – charming novelty – remind me Makivka &Black Forest case. So – sorry per scholars RS sources concern on reliability of related to article book chapter - given undue weight by “Amazon – reason” it’s not an argumentJo0doe (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having the decency to post the book's name and author. But in any case, it's irrelevent. You are trying to build a case against MAgocsi using original research. OSrry, book chapters of other books don't change the fact that Magocsi's book is published by one of the world's top universities, that Magocsi himself is a very respected scholar, and that in terms of "fringe theories" his work is one of the most popular histories of Ukraine (according to amazon). Indeed, I suspec that MAgocsi's stature is far greater than that of his detractors. It certainly is greater than that of Kerstin Jobst whose mixed review you included.Faustian (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal belief what Toronto one of the world's top universities. I'm not oppose what Magoci's works about Rusins is uniq. But that is UPA article - not Rusins.It's really sad what you prejudge scholars without even knowing them. While, your personal believe worth nothing for WP RS. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

University of Toronto is ranked #18 in the world (see the wikipedia article Top 100 Global Universities, higher than any university in the former Soviet Union, and much higher than any university in Ukraine. Sorry if that upsets you. But this is a good example of you falsley ascruibing what others write to "personal belief" when it is not.Faustian (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aother ranking of world universities on this article: Academic Ranking of World Universities. In 2008, Toronto is #24, Moscow State (the best in the former Soviet Union) is #70. Noone from Ukraine there. So don't compare unknowns with people from very respectable universitiesFaustian (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's really sad what one of the top and #24 and #18 is a same things for you. Ranking is a very treacky thing - if you will be more familiar with statistics - it will be no surprise for you. It's rather intresting what University of Toronto and Magoci is a similar to youJo0doe (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You may feel sad, but if you feel that #18 or #24 in the world out of thousands of universities is not "one of the top", it is your problem. I wonder if you also feel sad that no university in Ukraine even made it into the top 500. This may be particularly tragic for you because you base your edits on sources written by people who were products of those minor-league (by world standards) universities. So sad.

And you still refuse to provide biographies of your sources, as I did mine. Why are you stonewalling? Are you ashamed? Or just sad?Faustian (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

An article on infoboxes states "An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject. (An infobox is a generalization of a taxobox (from taxonomy) which summarizes information for an organism or group of organisms.)" It summarizes information from the article in a very brief way; for this reason clutter or excessive information which ought not be present within the article anyways, are especially not appropriate for the infobox. References within the infobox are redundant; they are already in the body of the article. Details and various nuances don't belong either, as their inclusion runs contrary to the purpose of the infobox. Instead, a quick generalization ought to be provided. I have looked at multiple infoboxes; they are actually not common in articles. Neither Armia Krajowa nor Soviet partisans articles have infoboxes, for example. But where they do appear, they are brief and with none or minimal references (such as Provisional Irish Republican Army, Irish Republican Army, Military of Hungary, Polish Armed Forces, or even this article on motorcycles . Let's keep it consistent, pleaseFaustian (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't see what infobox designed to mislead editor and OR per WP:SYN- Actually did you find RS what UPA was fighting untill 1955? Did you comprehend the difference between UPA and OUN undeground?Jo0doe (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no synthesis in the infobox. As for RS of fighting until 1955, see this entire section of the article: [110].Faustian (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So I conclude what you;ve unable to comprehend the difference between UPA and OUN undeground. Sad Could you provide RS what UPA was fighting untill 1955? Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your conclusions are sadly typical (remember your Britannica late 1920 and late 1920's confusion?). Reread the section I provided the link to for fighting until 1955.Faustian (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please copy a link from mentioned by you section to RS which state that “UPA fighting until 1956” Thank you. I not assume your actions as stonewall Jo0doe (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will be able to provide link to WP:RS source were mentioned what “Estimates of armed personnel at various times ranged from 15,000 - 100,000” Thank you. I not assume your actions as stonewall I hope you read first chapter of WP:FringeJo0doe (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The info is referenced in the article.Faustian (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

5s attempt - Please provide ref’s below . ThanksJo0doe (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence here: [111]

I apologies for splitting: I ask for specific RS source(s) which listed entire sentence ““Estimates of armed personnel at various times ranged from 15,000 - 100,000” but not your WP:OR per WP:SYN. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

and this entire section of the article here: [112], including "An assessment of UPA's manpower by Soviet authorities in April 17, 1952 indicated that UPA/OUN had only 84 fighting units consisting of 252 persons. UPA's last commander, Vasyl Kuk, was captured on May, 24 1954. Despite the existence of some insurgent groups, according to a report by the MGB of the Ukrainian SSR 'liquidation of armed units and OUN underground was accomplished by the beginning of 1956'".[94]Faustian (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually in ref source I’ve found following sentence (I hope you familiar with this strange Cyrillic symbols) - На 17 квітня 1952 року продовжував вести роботу 71 провід ОУН (160 осіб), 84 бойові групи ОУН (252 особи), а також окремі бойовики (647 осіб) (ЦДАГОУ, ф. 1, оп. 16, спр. 72, арк. 46-47). На 21 листопада 1953 року у західних областях України продовжували діяти 15 проводів ОУН (40 осіб), 32 підпільні організації і групи (164 особи), 106 окремих бойовиків, всього 310 осіб. Крім того, на обліку перебували 794 нелегали, з яких 372 були колишніми членами ОУН і УПА (Там само, спр. 73, арк. 60-61). На 17 березня 1955 року в західних областях України нараховувалось 11 розрізнених бойових груп чисельністю 32 особи, 17 окремих бойовиків, здійснювався пошук 500 нелегалів (там само, спр. 75, арк. 31-32 – OUN and Former member of OUN and UPA – can’t see UPA fighting until 1955. While see - 30 травня Роман Шухевич видав інструкцію, яка повністю зрівняла членів ОУН і УПА в підпільній системі. Відтоді ОУН і УПА почали називатися збройним підпіллям. – So – it’s actual end of UPA as separate formation for OUN (B). Similar info mentioned in National Academy of Scence work. So. please provide link to RS which claimed what UPA fighting until 1955 - it’s a 6s my please - not OUN underground was accomplished by the beginning of 1956'. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't state "UPA fighting until 1956" so this search is unnecessary. The infobox that you complain about states "1943-1949 (official); fighting until 1956". Thanks for showing that according to RS fighting by UPA members (reorganized after 1949) continued until 1956. Naturally, it would be odd for the infobox to on the one hand claim that UPA lasted until 1949 while on the other hand including a section that lasted until 1956 and also including data on UPA. Unless, of course, the goal was to make compromise the article by making it as confusing as possible for readers.Faustian (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

????. What is the reason to include fighting until 1956? So - as far as someone (You at least ) include irrelevent section name -would be logical to fix last figure from 1956 to 1949 as it was beforeJo0doe (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The infobox summarizes what is in the article. The article describes fighting until 1956. The article includes info about UPA's last commander Vasyl Kuk who assumed command in 1950 (after 1949). So something very brief needs to be said about this in the infobox, otherwise it makes the article contradictory and confusing. Clarity is one of the most important attributes of wikipedia articles.Faustian (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as you know summarizes requared equal arguments. Here you summarize appleas and oranges while avoid to mention it. It's sad what you not familiar with actual Kuk posision in 1950. - While were is the info in article what UPA fighting until 1956? Clarity is one of the most important attributes of wikipedia articles. Actually - as far as you mention above - no info-box is nessesary - especially in such cntroversial topic.Jo0doe (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is it claimed in the infobox that UPA was fighting until 1956?Faustian (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Charming novelty. Anything else?Jo0doe (talk)

Glaring example of original research or incidental mistake

You are the one who had a problem with "Ukrainian people." Subtelny, I believe, was writing about Western Ukraine and so within that context "western Ukrainian people" seems appropriate. .Faustian (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Subtelny's 1988 edition, page 474, first paragraph: "Compared to other underground movements in Nazi-occupied Europe, the UPA was unique in that it had practically no foreign support. Its growth and strength were, therefore, an indication of the very considerable popular support it enjoyed among most Ukrainians." The quote you provided is on page 476.Faustian (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So does here we’ve in article deliberately “believe” instead of WP:Cite and WP:NOR requirements or it’s just an incident . Also strange why not used 2000 Subtelny work – which actually has not above mentioned sentence????

Any comments for this staff?Jo0doe (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? What difference is it what editiopn is used?Faustian (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed very similar story with Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Chapter 4, p. 180 citation – strange but no “Soviet Ukraine” found while core majority given in quite specific way.

"Core majority" is a poor translation and sounds awkward in the English language.Faustian (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So as far as I knw suppose to translate Вересень as June and Propaganda as Appeal - so, your version for переважна більшість as far as major translated as simply більшістьJo0doe (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't change the factthat "core majority" is awkweard in the English language.Faustian (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So what about "Soviet" - can't detect Радянська in ref. textJo0doe (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A summary. Were they non-Soviet population according to you?Faustian (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope sole editor made such edits incidentally and will be more careful in the future while citing a source – as it listed at header of talk page. As also remove other similar stily incidental mistakes in citations Jo0doe (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I hope you accidentally return OR and non sourced statement in the lead of aticleJo0doe (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Glaring examples of OR per WP:SYN or may be an incidental mistake - 2

In article: UPA's membership is estimated to have consisted of 60% peasants of low to moderate means, 20-25% workers (primarily from the 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. In source by Director of Bering Ltd Yuriy Zhukov "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."

While in referenced source were no “low to moderate means” – However incidentally (I expect) were removed facts presented by of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences were appeared what

according to one of UPA commander data referred to spring 1944, UPA predominantly composed from peasants (poor and moderate in wealth) from western Ukraine (60% from Galicia and 30% from in Volhynia and Podolia).

So correct per WP:Cite wording would be : According to Director of Bering Ltd Yuriy Zhukov, peasants constituted as much as 60 per cent of UPA’s overall personnel strength . 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. A force strength. This was the most educated and capable demographic within the organisation, providing a substantial portion of the officer corps and military instructors. While Ukrainian Academy of Sciences data referred to spring 1944, mentioned what UPA predominantly composed from peasants (poor and moderate in wealth) from western Ukraine (60% from Galicia and 30% from in Volhynia and Podolia). Jo0doe (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning the biography of every source is unwarrented and ought to be removed (as is your editorializing of sources you don't like). Otherwise your version is different than the current version only in the way that it is somewhat more difficult for English-speaking people to understand. Here is the current version:

UPA's membership is estimated to have consisted of 60% peasants of low to moderate means, 20-25% workers (primarily from the 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.[6] Sixty percent of UPA's membership was from Galicia and 30% from Volyn and Polesia[9]

There is nothing innacurate above in terms of the sources.Faustian (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OR per WP:SYN and clear WP:UNDUEJo0doe (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• What a great comclusion - somewhat more difficult for English-speaking people to understand - could you prove suchJo0doe (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently in article

• In 1951 CIA covert operations chief Frank Wisner estimated that some 35,000

• Władysław Filar from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance

• by the German General-Kommissar Leyser to be in control of 80% of the forests and 60% of the farmland

• according to German Eastern Front General Ernst Kostring

• According to a 1946 report by Khrushchenv's deputy for West Ukrainian affairs A.A. Stoiantsev

• According to Columbia University professor John Armstrong

• according to former head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation at the USIA

Mentioning the biography of every source is unwarrented Or quod liced Jovi non liced bovi?Jo0doe (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mentioning the biography of every source is unwarranted. There is something significant about someone being an East Front General, Khrushchev's deputy, etc. Nothing significant about "Director of Bering Ltd." If you continue to try to clutter the article with irrelevant information, or awkward English, you will continue to be reverted by me or by someone else.Faustian (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So great, you agreed what if we’ve a Academy of Sciences of Ukraine view it’s not necessary to rewrite WP inline with the opinion of Director of Bering Ltd. I kindly ask you to avoid a personal attack on me.Jo0doe (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you try to rewrite your comment so it's easier to understand? Thanks.Faustian (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe for more detailed explanations of issueJo0doe (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain relevence of those sections to your point, please.Faustian (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia; all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence.

The article must neither attempt to rewrite majority-view positions strictly from the perspective of the minority view, nor to rewrite minority view positions from the perspective of the majority.

So here significant about "Director of Bering Ltd." really novelty claims like

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

but Academy of Sciences of Ukraine positions rewritedstrictly from the perspective of the minority view "Director of Bering Ltd."Jo0doe (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your judgment of "minority view" is, however, based on your personal feelings rather than facts.Faustian (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing significant about "Director of Bering Ltd." - it's your words. I suppose you agree with Zhukovs -

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

- ???Jo0doe (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2008

(UTC)

I don't disagree with it. But you state that this is a "novelty claim." Yet, despite feeling that it is a "novelty claim" you tried to put it into the article: [113]. Do you often place info that you consider a "novelty claim" into articles you edit? Isn't it editting in bad faith - deliberately putting info into articles that you consider "novelty"?Faustian (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I simply provide for user whole info and avoid selective citing - it will help them (users) to be more familiar the way how figures obtained,Jo0doe (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually you have a history of selectively citing when it suits you. Remember Koch? The purpose of the artcile is to give info about a subject, not about authors. Putting info into the article that you feel is "novelty" for the purpose of discreditting a particular author is editing in bad faith.Faustian (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I really appreciate your critic of themselves, but as we return to your personal believe - Koch citation was added as far as it given by National Academy of Science which provide all party involved (Nazi’s, War time UPA, OUN(M) , Soviet Partizans and official) visions on events (see WP policy regarding this) while your numerous attempt limited to preserve in article only UPA allegedly claims. While I’m tried to make a balance of it. Actually – see RU version of UPA – all visions are presented – not only

postwar Ukrainian emigration began to downplayed as much as possible the cooperation between the Ukrainian nationalist parties and the Germans and emphasized instead how Ukrainian nationalists fought both the Germans and the Soviets and how the Ukrainian nation suffered enormously at the hands of both.

.Thanks. While I propose to give following text–

Peasantry constituted a bulk fighting force of UPA. Ukrainian Academy of Sciences data referred to spring 1944, mentioned what UPA predominantly composed from peasants (poor and moderate in wealth) from western Ukraine (60% from Galicia and 30% from in Volhynia and Podolia). Jo0doe (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The section is fine as it is now. Most editors seem to agree. It's unfortunate that you don't, but we go by consensus.

Great but your statememt self contradict itself - above you agree what Zhukov is not imortant, his argument is novelty but you allegedly claim that Most editors agree. You so confident here - but does not provide any argumentsJo0doe (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As for Koch, remember that you you quoted selectively from the work by the Ukrainian Academy of Science. As I observed earlier:

The source which you provided [114] - an excellent one btw, your misuse of it notwithstanding - described heavy fighting between UPA. You took one quote from that chapter, from page 189, in which Koch stated in November 13th that there was little activity from UPA. From the same source, page 187, mentioned that the Germans were heavily attacking UPA with planes and tanks. On 188, it stated that in fall 1943 UPA had 47 battles with the Hitlerites and 125 incidents with self-defence bush groups. During these conflcits in Fall 1943, UPA lost 414 men while the Germans lost 1500 soldiers. Page 188 also stated that the Germans failed to destroy UPA and that indeed its numbers continued to grow. However, they did succeed in bringing down UPA's activity level vs. the Germans. Last paragraph of page 188 stated that both Germans and UPA saw no need to continue the fight against each other, and UPA's actions against the Germans largely ceased. That's the full story. You just pulled a quote out of context, that in November 1943 the Ukrainians were quiet. It's a rather dishonest use of a source, don't you think?Faustian (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argument was that the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences used sources that you don't like (such as Shankowsky) for the info that you left out so therefore you did nothing wrong. But sorry, you can't decide what is and is not legitimate info from a particular source. Doing so is OR. If the work by the Institute of History is a RS, then we assume that the Institute knew what it was doing when it chose sources for its work, including UPA sources. We don't decide that, say, only primary sources from the Germans or Soviet partisans are credible, those from UPA are not, and thus any info sourced from UPA by a RS can be ignored or editorialized.Faustian (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's realy sad what you've expirinced difficulties with academic source - while I suppose becouse you first time do so - as far as rather popular character of this publication, addressing not so much an academic readership as a broad public (often, it seems, with a Ukrainian background and its specific requirements) I'll provide an explanation belowJo0doe (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Glaring examples of OR per WP:SYN or may be an incidental mistake - 3

In article The number of UPA fighters varied. A German Abwehr report from November 1943 estimated that UPA had 20,000 soldiers;[10] other estimates at that time placed the number at 40,000.[11] By the summer of 1944, estimates of UPA membership varied from 25-30 thousand fighters[12] up to 100,000 soldiers.[11]

So I hope what here will be provided page Number for 40,000. While, using the WP:Guidelines such sentence should be presented as follows:

The number of UPA fighters varied by source and time of estimation. A German Abwehr report from November 1943 estimated that UPA had 20,000 soldiers;[10] Magoci, Paul in his 1996 work estimates at that time placed the number at 40,000.[11] By the mid of 1944 -time of OUN/UPA maximum strength- , Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and other scholars estimates of OUN/UPA membership not higher then 30 thousand fighters[12] and mentioned what Nazi’s info about 80-90 thousand fighters as fantasy ;[ Magoci, Paul in his 1996 work estimated such as high as 100,000 soldiers.[11] , similar to Macosi figure also appeared at 1952 OUN propaganda statement. Jo0doe (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like this -

The number of school students varied by source and time of estimation. A Media report from 8.00 in the morning estimated that the school had 200 students;[10] Magoci, Paul in his 1996 work estimates at that time placed the number at 400.[11] By the mid of 9.00 - time of school maximum strength - , Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and other scholars estimates that the number of students in the School membership not higher than 300 [12] and mentioned what the Board of Education info about 800-900 students as fantasy ;[ Magoci, Paul in his 1996 work estimated such as high as 100,0 students.[11], similar to Macosi figure also appeared at 1952 School propaganda statement.

What you are suggesting does not make good Wikipedia material. It is written in a very cumbersome manner and with a loaded POV. Bandurist (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OR about sources one doesn't like does not belong in wikipedia articles. If a source is bad, it shouldn't be in the article. Magocsi is a RS by all standards so his work belongs. A wikipedia article is not the place to try to debunk him through Original Research.Faustian (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR about source - nice - see scolar comments about Magocsi "History's of Ukraine" aboveJo0doe (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We have already discussed this. Scholars did not mention Magosci specifically, so your claims are just Original Research as usual.Faustian (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Honest – never discussed , scholars mentioned specifically Magoci [115]] Jo0doe (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently in article

• In 1951 CIA covert operations chief Frank Wisner estimated that some 35,000

• Władysław Filar from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance

• by the German General-Kommissar Leyser to be in control of 80% of the forests and 60% of the farmland

• according to German Eastern Front General Ernst Kostring

• According to a 1946 report by Khrushchenv's deputy for West Ukrainian affairs A.A. Stoiantsev

• According to Columbia University professor John Armstrong

• according to former head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation at the USIA

Mentioning the biography of every source is unwarrented Or quod liced Jovi non liced bovi?Jo0doe (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you are just repeating yourself. Comments don't improve with repetition.Faustian (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Glaring examples of selectively citing and OR or incidental difficulties with academic source

When I propose last year a sole academic source in the world [[116]] regarding UPA/OUN(B) and UPA/UNR I really not expected what it will be initially omitted and not used and later (when I try to include info from it) will selectively used or misquoted (clear OR) by sole editor. So if we carefully read the Chapter 3 “Strategy of 2 front warfare by OUN and UPA” p.176 we can find what proposals of wide and mass appraisal were continually rejected by OUN(B)/UPA leaders. P.178 noted more – no simultaneously fighting on two front – actions against Germans should be limited to “self defense of people” and p.180 –

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

[ 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. [ About self defense we can read also at p.183. Also p.189 and further – German comments on UPA activity and note about reproaching between OUN and Nazi’s from beginning of October 1943.

See p.191 about Fall of 1943 UPA intent, as also UPA-Zagrava October report – interesting no “fierce fighting» at Volhinia Polissya. Indeed – from 191 chapter “Anti-German front of OUN and UPA” describe the cooperation between UPA and Nazi’s – very interesting long lasted early Spring 1944discussion between SIPO and SD and former chaplain of Nachtigall_Battalion. - Grynyokh – and that is in time when any similar “bandits” should be executed immediately. P. 199 – once again “self defense of people” Inresting would be p.204 from Antisoviet front of UPA and OUN – by end of September (at the time of “fierce fighting» commander of UPA planned the actions against partisans. P.209 January – March 1944 reports about UPA/Nazi’s cooperative actions. While most interesting is Chapter 5 – Anti-Polish action of OUN and UPA (p.222-295) – 74 pages as compared to 10 pages of “anti-german” front. P.248 – warfare mostly against Poles and Soviet Partisans by UPA Commander till end of 1943. p.274 – from Fall 1943 some UPA detachment moved to west. In actions against Poles also participated detachments of SS-Galizien. – Indeed very interesting bulk of facts and conclusion. While – it not match the effort of editor – namely

postwar Ukrainian emigration began to downplayed as much as possible the cooperation between the Ukrainian nationalist parties and the Germans and emphasized instead how Ukrainian nationalists fought both the Germans and the Soviets and how the Ukrainian nation suffered enormously at the hands of both.

So it’s actually explain why Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (despite a quite clear conclusions) were misquoted and misinterpreted - a glaring example:

Despite the stated opinions of Dmytro Klyachkivsky and Roman Shukhevych that the Germans were a secondary threat compared to their main enemies; the Soviet partisans and Poles, the Third Conference of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists held near Lviv 17-21 February 1943, adopted the decision to commence open warfare against the Germans

Jo0doe (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing inaccurate in the article, and you are the one who engaged in selectively quoting and cherry-picking from that source. It's already been exhaustively documented in the archives over many months; no need to wate time rewriting it. Your claim that the work by the Instittue of History is the "sole academic source in the world" is rather funny, I guess you forgot about Burds' work. Briefly, Burds' CV [117] and his article about UPA [118]. But we've gone over that already. Your above comments about me are just empty claims as usual; don't worry, if you try disrupting the article again you'll just be reverted again.Faustian (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So, it’s sad to aknowlage but – OR -

Despite the stated opinions of Dmytro Klyachkivsky and Roman Shukhevych that the Germans were a secondary threat compared to their main enemies; the Soviet partisans and Poles, the Third Conference of Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists held near Lviv 17-21 February 1943, adopted the decision to commence open warfare against the Germans

was not mistake but well acknowledged hoaxing of WP. So – as far as I can see – your WP effort limited to documenting of talk page but not improve the reliability of WP article. So as many and for a long time you claim for “documentation” – but failed to provide at least one instance. I’ve count Burds+Burds+Burds+Burds…. = but still as a results is sole Burds - Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University [119] – which work about UPA still not ready (expected 2009). However it still will be work of sole person - Associate Professor of History. Article about UPA- really – can’t trace it in the name – may be it’s a dialect of English Dominions– AGENTURA – translated as UPA – Thank you. I’ll note such in my vocabulary.Jo0doe (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While I try to count number of pages [120] – I’ve did such several times and even print it twice – but can’t count more then 42 pages. May be something wrong with my printer. May be 1(one) Burds pages count for 10 (ten) by National Academy of Science - - but pity – it has more then 450…While may be somewhere it can be called “a work of similar caliber”….16:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, number of authors doesn't equal reliability. Number of pages also doesn't equal reliability, either. But Burds obtained his Ph.D. in History from one of the top univeristies in the world (Yale) and is currently involved with the number one university (Harvard). The guys at the Institute of History are from unknown universities and working at a place with an international reputation far worse than that of Yale and Harvard. I don't know al their backgrounds, altrhough one (Kulchitsky) was a former ideologue for the Ukrainian Communist party. As I've already taught you, the Universiy of Toronto (Magocsi) is also a top world university (#18 or #24, depending on the ranking). The Institute of History's authors aren't affiliated with any university in the top 500. While number of pages and number of authors might impress you, this quantity over quality approach doesn't seem to impress anyone else.Faustian (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Se WP:RS for more details. Thank you for your OR - could you provide RS which claim the same. WP does not deal with affilation or CV. As far as I can understood - you are not familar with European and Ukrainian scientifical structure and history - so you can use WP (rather then Google) to improve your knowlage. Also you can find about Kulchitsky - Kulchytsky is deputy director of the Institute of History at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv. His degrees include a doctorate in history from Odessa University. He has written more than 40 books and hundreds of articles. (as compared to 25 Magoci publication 99% of which about Rusins) So - you again stonewalling regarding above mentioned issue Jo0doe (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

However - what an academic work [121] - 44. World War II: The Military Struggle for Ukrainian Lands 283

45. Soviet Ukraine after World War II 289 almost 6 pages for WWII period at Ukraine - unbeatable details an reliabilityJo0doe (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops - the University of Odessa is not even in the top 500 universities in the world. MAgoscis's Toronto is number 18 or 24, depending on the rankings, and his Harvard background is number 1. As for number of books and articles - again, quantity does not equal quality, sorry.Faustian (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your belive - again - I highly recommend to be more familiar with European Educational practice. - Anyway it's sad what such notable editor enagaged in OR.Jo0doe (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your excuses are not very impressive. You try to comapre the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences with Yale, Harvard or even the University of Toronto? Sorry, the researchers at the Institute are mostly graduates of universities, such as the University of Odessa, that are not even close in reputation to the universities from which Magosci or Burds emerged from. So they are handicapped from the start. And this handicap continues. Do you truly believe that the Institute of History is even close to the history departments of Yale, Harvard, or the University of Toronot in terms of reputation? Sorry, but you are comparing minor league players to star athletes.

Please don't confuse quantity for quality and don't compare University of Odessa or Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences to Yale, Harvard or even University of Toronto. It just makes you look silly. Keep in mind that the staff in the Institute of History were trained in places such as University of Odessa, whose international reputation ranks below, for example, New Mexico State University of Las Cruces or the University of Memphis, Tennessee in Elvis Presley's hometown. The fact that this unknown around the word Institute self-publishes hundreds of articles that go unread or cannot be found outsiode that institute (yet, rather few articles in international journals) doesn't mean much, because quantity does not equal quality. Really - trying to compare the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences with Yale or Harvard. Funny, indeed. So next time that the Institue of History contradicts, say, Magosci's or Burds' work, the first thing you ought to do is ask yourself what the historians at the Institute got wrong. Okay?Faustian (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Did you read pages V-VII at book with ISBN 0-7727-5108-0? It’s really sad what you unable to distinct Yale and Harvard vs Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University and University of Odessa vs Ukrainian Academy of Science. As far I can see – you agree what you distort the academic text to serve your “believe” and use talk page for spam proposesJo0doe (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, more empty claims and "convenient" us of ISBN number rather than author and title of work you are referring to. Also "conveniently" forgot that Burds is currently affiliated with Harvard (#1 in the world) and obtained his Ph.D. in History at Yale. But it's part of a pattern of cherry-picking facts. Remember your funny claim that Toronto wasn't one of the top world universities, for which I had to teach you that it is ranked #18 or #24 in the world? Well BTW even Northeastern University is listed as one of the top 500 [122], placing it above every university in Ukraine. BTW, out of curiosity, I've sared the background of the American scholars I've used as a source. Why are you afraid to do so with the people from the Institute of History. So far we only know about the background of one scholar, the graduate of the internationally unknown University of Odessa and former ideologue of the communist party of Ukraine Kulchytsky. What about the others? Also graduates of unknown schools, foprmer communists, current nationalists, etc.?

So, to remind you, quantity of pages written and number of articles self-published by an institution of unknown reputation doesn't equal quality. If the work of the Institute of History contradicts what is written and/or published by someone from Harvard or Toronto, reflect upon what the Institute did wrong.Faustian (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your belive. As far as I can conclude from above - you deliberetely stonewalling and refuse to provide any ref on your claims in article.It's realy sad what you unable to distinct differncies between education and scientific institution. As far it's clear bad faith Jo0doe (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You like to throw around the word "stonewalling" despite consistantly refusing to provide names of authors and titles. Moreover, you have also failed to provide a background about the authors of your sources (I have doen so for the authors I have used). Ashamed of them? Your claims about me not providing references are simply lies - my additions to the article are well-referenced. You just don't like the references.Faustian (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Which one in article related? See topic from 28 and after. Use Toronto Univercity Library online search. As regards background about the authors -they work at National Academy of Science of Ukraine -Jo0doe (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So you are stonewalling about providing author backgrounds beyond current affiliation and refuse to provide author and title info of works you refer to.Faustian (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Which one? Which relation it has to work by National Academy of Science of Ukraine. Were in article I've done so?Jo0doe (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You forgot your statement "Did you read pages V-VII at book with ISBN 0-7727-5108-0?"Faustian (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't see my replay? - Use Toronto Univercity Library online search17:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC) - ISBN 0-7727-5108-0Jo0doe (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you include a source you ought to include the author and title, and not have other editors play your little games by hunting for it. But I suppose that is your point.Faustian (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Glaring examples of OR or incidental difficulties with academic source – part 4

In article: Another group also often popularly entitled UPA also existed in Volyn. It was nominally formed earlier in late November 1941 before the formal formation of UPA and was initially known as the Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army. This group had no direct connections with the OUN(B), and allied itself politically with OUN(M) and OUN(UNR).

• Indeed in source given for ref - http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/ Організація українських націоналістів і Українська повстанська армія Chapter 3 p.118-153 no such conclusion

In the region of Zhytomyr the insurgents were estimated by the German General-Kommissar Leyser to be in control of 80% of the forests and 60% of the farmland – farmland. Cited through Toynbee, T.R.V. | title=Survey of International Affairs: Hitler's Europe 1939-1945| location= Oxford | publisher= Oxford University Press | year = 1954 | pages = (page # missing)

Have a doubt – does author specifically noted UPA-OUN(B) units – well known what area was a soviet and Bulba areas – but never UPA-OUN(B).Jo0doe (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Fringe or incidental difficulties with academic source

In article

In June 1943 German SS and police forces under the command of General von dem Bach-Zelewski, seen as an expert in anti-guerilla warfare, attempted to destroy UPA-North in Volyn during Operation "BB" (Bandenbekampfung). He was chosen by Himmler to destroy the UPA in this operation. Cited through . cited trough =Anderson James K. Anderson, Unknown Soldiers of an Unknown Army, Army Magazine, May 1968, p. 63

Indeed in German document published by V.Kosyk in 2 Volumes “Ukraine in WWII in Documents” Vol I – there no such German data appeared, nor in OUN Group report of mentioned area appeared at http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/ Організація українських націоналістів і Українська повстанська армія Chapter 5 Jo0doe (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Publish your findings somewhere and we can make edits in the article based on what you have found. Otherwise, until you publish the results of your research, it's just OR.Faustian (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your replay - it's clear stonewalling and I assume your silence as agreed what it's WP:Fringe. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assumptions don't mean much - you assumed that late 1920 and late 1920's meant the same thing in your brilliant attack on the Encyclopedia Britannica, remember? But thanks for sharing what you assume. I'm still waiting for you to publish your findings so that we can include them in the article. Until then, sorry, any OR you try to put into article or any edits that you base on OR will just be reveted.Faustian (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's realy sad that you omit WP to be more familiar with Ukraine in 1920. It's really sad that, instead of providing any source (Anderson James K. Anderson, Unknown Soldiers of an Unknown Army, Army Magazine, May 1968, p. 63 - more than questionable source in terms of WP:V and WP:RS for history}. It's realy sad what you assume http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/ Організація українських націоналістів і Українська повстанська армія as OR. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits explanations

1. Remove OR per listed [123]

[124] [125] [126][127]

1. Clarify citations per source, provide in text origin of source
2. Remove information referenced through non RS = namely 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
3. Same source data repeated many time in different way - L.Shankovskyy 1956

Jo0doe (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors who are very weak in English

Question: Is there a Wikipedia policy regarding literacy levels of English. It is extremely difficult to collaborate with editors who do not have a good grasp of English. This leads to misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and methodology. This is very disruptive and impacts the development of articles.

If there is no guidance on this subject - maybe a new policy is required in this area.

Bobanni (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See - WP civility regarding such - while exist quite clear WP:ISNOT regarding propaganda - but due the luck of historians someone overrun this strict policyJo0doe (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As for instance - you return in article hoax

• With the occupation of Ukraine by the Red Army

While you remove what

During its existence, from end of 1943 till end of World War II in Europe, the UPA occasionally cooperated with the Nazi’s Wehrmacht, Waffen SS, SIPO and SD

and

UPA together with Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists- Bandera wing were responsible for the killing and ethnic cleansing of much of western Ukraine's Polish population. [3]

see WP:policy about No:censoring. Thank you for your attempt to make WP better Jo0doe (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The first part isn't removed and I've added the second part, minus some POV, to the lead.Faustian (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:HONEST

removed

• SIPO and SD

So you return hoax to WP

With the occupation of Ukraine by the Red Army

no refs on

Some of its members, however, would continue to fight until 1956.

• What means sentence The UPA played an important role in the killing and ethnic cleansing of much of western Ukraine's Polish population.[2]

??? Why avoid Polish Ukrainian historians conclusions? Again OR with Subtenyy in lead. Sad example of bad faith edits and OR per WP:SYN

Areas of UPA activity were depopulated, the estimates on numbers vary, officially Soviet archives state that between 1944 and 1952 a total of 182,543 people [79][80] while other sources indicate the number may have been as high as to 500,000

Jo0doe (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Liberation or Occupation

The use of one over the other is problematic when discussing Occupation or Liberation of Ukraine by the Red Army. To some it is occupation, to others it is occupation.

In this case, the territories being discussed were populated primarily by ethic Ukrainians, primarily Ukrainian speaking, the UIA was Ukrainian speaking and the territory had only briefly been a part of the USSR after a secret and quite nasty and in the eyes of some historians an illegal non-aggression pact between Stalin and Hitler.

The UIA was a military group that represented the aspirations of most of the titular ethnic population of Ukraine.

The Red army was a foreign speaking army from a neighbouring state, whose continuation is that of a neighbouring state.

My contention is that the Soviet Army occupied Ukraine, and in particular Western Ukraine.

Bandurist (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please no POV, we've discussed this at length at Talk:Battle of the Dnieper, and all mainstream western media regard the Soviet actions given wrt its pre-1941 territories (including western Ukraine) as liberation. Also the territories are presently populated by ethnic Ukrainians, however during the Second World War, Poles and Jews had a very large fraction in the population. Finally let's not forget that Ukrainians also made a huge fraction of the Red Army, from Privates right up to Marshals, so the Red army was a foreign speaking army from a neighbouring state is downright wrong since Ukraine was integral part of the USSR. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 11:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we use nuetral terms that everyone can agree on - neither liberation nor occupation? There certainly weren't many western Ukrainians in the Soviet army.Faustian (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the drafts of 1940 and early 1941 would mean that a larger portion of western Ukrainian men born in 1923, 1922 and possibly earlier would be in the RKKA upon June 1941. Furthermore terminology wise the Red Army was renamed Soviet Army in 1946, so wrt to your last sentence, I can state that UNA-UNSO was formed out of whom? Western Ukrainian veterans of Afganistan where they served in what? The Soviet Army. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.peremoga.gov.ua/, government web-site on the war. --Tavrian 16:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

RS

Dear editors – I hope 3 months it’s quite enough time to find a WP:RS for huge part of text in the article. I hope most of you agreed what “Українська Повстанська Армія - Історія нескорених - Львів, 2007” nor 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, Ukrainian Quarterly Spring 1964 etc does not pass the WP:RS and WP:NPOV criteria. I hope you also will be able to find more mainstream historians data then Bering ltd Director – as far as most of his data used there in fact are fringe – as relation to his “rejection of Marxism-Leninism” and “while UPA units trained based on a modified Red Army field unit manual”. Thank you. I hope you also will follow the WP:UNDUE policy in regards to fairness of citation and sources usage. Thank you. I also hope you agreed what soviet archival figures (losses, deported, captured etc) does not specifically state what it were an exclusively UPA OUN-B members proponents – as far as you know (I hope) there was also 10-20 K of Borovets, 8-15K of Melnik, OUN underground, SKV and simply bandits which claimed to be a part of one above (see Burds work’s name). So – please avoid OR in this matter – thank you. Jo0doe (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sam ukr.jpg

The image Image:Sam ukr.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe

[128] As a RS for history article - fun and sad 213.159.245.50 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Belorussian-Polish reporter Maksimiuk [129] is a liar or incompetant? Or warning us of future disruptions by you? Which will be reverted as always btw.Faustian (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I just would like a point an issue what in article given an undue weight to non historical sources – even more a anti-soviet propagandists and institution – like “head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation”, Radio Free Europe (which actually part of above) and CIA covert operations chief Frank Wisner – such sources should be used in related to propaganda article per WP policy. A thank you for your

In November 1943, UPA battle groups "Black Forest" and "Makivka" defeated 12 German battalions supported by the [[Luftwaffe|German air force

.Jo0doe (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And for

Maksymiuk graduated in 1983 from Warsaw University where he specialized in structural studies in solid state physics.

Jo0doe (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue with WP proposes

It’s very sad to see how WP used to cheat a visitors. By using WP:SPS WP: Questionable sources and WP:OR per WP:SYN and even clear OR. Despite the recommendation [130] it’s preferred to put users in misconception – so in this case

• Yuriy Tys-Krokhmaluk – presented in article as OUN/UPA

while

• For 1988 publication of Subtelny, 1996 publication of Magoci and a dozen pages sole work about article topic originated from Bering Ltd and Associate Professor of History, Northeastern University presented in article as an Universally recognized conclusions.

Main argument in one sided discussions remains a “personal believe”. Putting others in misconceptions by distorting facts and omitting details. Historians conclusions claimed as OR etc. It’s clear bad faith editingJo0doe (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. And like junk mail in the inbox, disruptions will continue to be removed.Faustian (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for reinstating hoax - namelly German document of November 25, 1941 (Nuremberg Trial O14-USSR. Thank you for your repeated vandalism in article which you are assumed as your own and thus protect from other editors attempts to make WP as a reliable source.Jo0doe (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what the troll says. The only disruptor routinely reverted (not only be me) is you, and only when your edits are disruptive. So disrupt away - and your disruptions will be promptly removed as usual.Faustian (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DE

• A very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for viewpoints that constitute original research. [131] [132] [133] [134] [135]

• sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view. [136]

• Disruptive editing already violates site policy, yet certain editors have succeeded in disrupting articles and evading disciplinary action for extended periods [137] because their actions remain limited to a small number of pages and they do not commit gross violations of Wikipedia:Civility.

• Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity.

• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. [138]

• 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.
• here in archive talk page we can find a long list of editors which droved away by sole editor efforts. Jo0doe (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal confession. Many archived pages attest to your constant disruptive editing on this article, misuse of sources, etc. No need to waste more of my time addressing your usual trolling, sorry, I've indulged you much more than had been necessary. As long as you continue to be disruptive, your edits will be reverted, by me or by someone else. Or, whatever of worth is in your disruptions, will be retained (in the past, you misued some good sources, whose info was then worked into the article). That's how it works. If you will not be disruptive, I will work with you, just as I work with anyone no matter what their POV as long as they approach the project in good faith. The choice is yours.Faustian (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A short thanks for linkless personal attack and clarifing the approach to other (not own) edits Jo0doe (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There are probably hundreds of links in our pages of archived conversations. I may just write a boilerplate (with links!) in response to any nonsense you decide to repeat; until then, I will not feed the troll.Faustian (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like you thank for your anothe discruptive edit (see above for details). While I would like to remind you again

Germany had been ignominiously defeated and its great crimes against humanity exposed to the public. The Soviet Union had emerged victorious, but all the Ukrainians who chose not to return there, but to remain in Western Europe, were vehemently anti-Soviet. The Cold War was beginning, and the concept of totalitarianism, which identified common features in Nazism and Communism, was becoming popular. This was the context in which the postwar Ukrainian emigration began to redefine its politics. It downplayed as much as possible the cooperation between the Ukrainian nationalist parties and the Germans and emphasized instead how Ukrainian nationalists fought both the Germans and the Soviets and how the Ukrainian nation suffered enormously at the hands of both.

Please remember WP it's a wrong place to apply this politics. Therefore I kindly ask you to avoid your further discrupting activities which listed above -namellly please avoid "Germans battles" hoaxes, please do not put visitors in misconception by play with WP:SYN, please list names of authors please do not remove "unwanted" info from RS, please do not modify data from Souce to suit "policitcs". Thank you for your Makivka and Black forest inventionJo0doe (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All of this has been discussed. And your empty claims about me are just the claims of a troll.Faustian (talk)

Thank you for your civillity. You always claim about discussed - but still duscussion means arguments and resolving - still mentioned on link above are not resolved - despite your claim. Thank you once again for 242 page invention - realy nice solutions to follow "politics"Jo0doe (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't engage in discussion, you repeat things that were already discussed and claims that were already debunked. As for "resolved" - seems like just about every editor but you is generally comfortable with the way the article is. This is why you are engaging in the revert war against virtually every other editor on this article. Nothing new to your comments and false accusations, you simply want to waste editors' time.Faustian (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding a Kbites of text does not mean already discussed - as far as OUN(B) undeground and UPA is two different institution while personal belive it's not arguments for WP. While Thank you - I first time see in WP article how Major Nazi criminals called a "German officials" while Abwehr General Called Austrian officer and IMT trials debunked by sole WP editor Jo0doe (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing.Faustian (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jew in UPA

check http://www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian/indepth/story/2008/10/081014_fishbein_ie_ak.shtml

Скажіть мені, як УПА могла винищувати євреїв, коли євреї були в УПА, служили в УПА? І я був знайомий з євреями, які служили в УПА. Наприклад, я був знайомий з доктором Абрагамом Штерцером , він по війні жив в Ізраїлі. Був Самуель Нойман , його псевдо було Максимович, був Шай Варма (псевдо Скрипаль), був Роман Винницький , його псевдо було Сам. Була видатна постать в УПА, жінка, яку звали Стелла Кренцбах , вона написала спогади потім. Вона народилася в Болехові на Львівщині, вона була донька рабина, сіоністка, і вона товаришувала там, у Болехові, з донькою греко-католицького священика, яку звали Оля. 1939 року Стелла Кренцбах закінчила філософський факультет Львівського університету. Від 1943 року вона була в УПА медсестрою і розвідницею. Навесні 1945 року її схопили енкаведисти на зустрічі зі зв’язковим у Рожнятові. Потім там була тюрма, катування і смертний вирок, і її визволили вояки УПА, Стеллу Кренцбах, єврейку. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.204.204.79 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What a perfect trolling with propagandistic hoaxes. DYK that from approx 0.5 million Jews at Lemberg and surrounding county (as of May 1941) soviets in 1944 found only 600 alive – thanks also to OUN(B) created Ukrainian militia – basing of UPA.

So his claim – “if I live at that time I’ll join the UPA” seems sad – since he will be not be alive at time of UPA formation from those whom were active perpetrators of Holocaust at Ukraine, Poland and Belarus. While claim about what UPA at large scale exterminate Jews is historically incorrect – because those who joined and formed the UPA at spring 1943-fall 1944 exterminate them in mass in 1941- end of 1943. Jo0doe (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a lost time to discuss with you, but I have to react to your stupid comment : Could you explain to us two things :

* if UPA members were the perpetrators of the Holocaust, how and why did some Jews join them???? Why didn't they join other resitance group???? Why did they write positiv books about UPA????

*And if UPA members were the perpetrators of the Holocaust and such antisemitic, why did they accept them as whole members of UPA, and why didn't they kill them after????? (As, as you said that they exterminate them in mass : did they change in one night????) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.105.7 (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

An anserw to your stupid comment is to be fnid in the article

Я вам скажу: те, що ви щойно сказали про антиєврейські акції УПА – то є провокації , які запускаються з Москви. Це провокації . Це брехня , буцімто УПА винищувала євреїв. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.105.7 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe - you don't know what you are talking about Bandurist (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bandurist, please. No need to state the blindingly obvious. Ostap 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A Himka's replay :

Bandera nationalists were engaging in "political mimicry, masking themselves under democracy, but not changing their reactionary essence [політичної мімікрії, маскуючись під демократію, але не змінивши своєї реакційної суті]."[28] A year earlier he had noted that the nationalist camp was trying to repudiate its heritage of xenophobia, antisemitism, voluntarism, leaderism [вождизм], and antidemocratism, but "not by overcoming these things, but by assuring us that they had not existed [не переборюючи їх, а запевняючи, що їх і не було]."[29] Similar statements were made also by Rebet.[30] Perhaps the most successful practitioner of political mimicry and rewriting history to suit the new democractic mood was Lebed. Lebed had been working with American intelligence since at least 1947,[31] and the democratic rhetoric of his group seemed to have more to do with the politics of their patrons than with any deep-seated change of convictions.[32] Lebed's group published document collections that doctored historical texts to eliminate pro-German and antisemitic statements.[33] Lebed left his papers to the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute.

Some doctored history for WP? Some Ukrainian Quarterly or American intelligence new findigsJo0doe (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

While – as regards to questions of uncivil unanimous :

• Only OUN-B claims about what “ Jews join them” – and all of them after 1947-49 (see Himka info). Interesting – no other sources claim about the same. Again – how many Jews join then? Again and again see only allegedly claim for 3-5 names. You know that there were a “Jewish police” at Lemberg ghetto – that does not mean what someone can claim “Jews are perpetrators of the Holocaust”Jo0doe (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually Jews themselves claimed that they joined UPA, and were proud of their service. See Leo Heiman, "We Fought for Ukraine - The Story of Jews Within UPA", Ukrainian Quarterly Spring 1964, pp.33-44. Lest you believe this to be some sort of Ukrainian diaspora fabrication, this article by the way can be found in Jewish archives also: [139].Faustian (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Quarterly Spring 1964 - what a RS. Could you provide a WP:V source - Google can't find similar - Makivka and Black Forest again?--Jo0doe (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

All editions of the Ukrainian Quarterly are available in the Korolenko library in Kharkiv and also in the Vernadsky library in Kyiv. Bandurist (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide ref to respective library online catalog--Jo0doe (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

http://korolenko.kharkov.com/ Bandurist (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

http://korolenko.kharkov.com/a/dict.pl?what=ti&start=J - can't find --Jo0doe (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a reliable source. The opinion of disruptive editors obsessed with Makivka and Black forest isn't worth much.Faustian (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Academic source - while so expected as an "Austrian officer" - it's not WP:RS nor WP:V - moreover - it's WP:QS. While - could you clarify the year of publishing once more? --Jo0doe (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Category for Ukrainian Insurgent Army?

I think we could use Category:Ukrainian Insurgent Army, and a category for UIA and OUN members. Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

UPA – the End

Not known or deliberately rejected works or misused (Makivka and Black Forest) about UPA by group of editors:

• Ukrainska Povstanska Armiya by Mykola Lebed Munich 1946

Book with actual time of creation – spring 1943

• Ukrainian Insurgent Army . P.Sodol New York 1995

Two periods of activity. End of existence -1949

• Tys-Krokhmaliuk Yu. UPA Warfare in Ukraine:. New-York, 1972.

End of UPA story in 1947 with retreating of last UPA’s last detachments from Poland to West occupational Zone- slightly more then a hundred persons.

P.Mirchuk also noted 1947 as turn-over point for UPA. And at least “Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army” by Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine – similar info and dates – May 1947 UPA merged with OUN-B underground, September 1949 – UPA “temporary” dissolved. Despite above again and again cooperative of editors reinstate 1956 as end of UPA – simply because they believe what it date to be such. It’s remind me issue with UPA propaganda poster – it takes more then year to fix itJo0doe (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as you are disruptive, your disruptions will be deleted, it's just like emptying junk mail.Faustian (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It’s really sad to see incivility while if you can’t distinct difference between boyivka OUN and UPA detachment – it’s expected replay same issues as with an Austrian Officer. May be would be better to choose other type of WP artilce before library visitJo0doe (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• When some person has no arguments - they choose "ad hominem" but not "ad rem" arguments--Jo0doe (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So Faustians versus Encyclopedia of Ukraine. [140] from Toronto. In WP Faustians still wins - but a Q for how long--Jo0doe (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, arguments lasted for pages and years. Now, I will only minimally feed you, troll. As for ad hominem, that term describes your first line in this heading's comment. As I said, as long as you are disruptive you will be reverted. If you choose to behave appropriately, you will not be. But your choice tends to be the former, unfortunately.Faustian (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting info

I ask Faustian or maybe Horlo or Ukrainian – folk band musicians for assistance for some correct translation a book called

• Постанови ІІ. Великого Збору квітня 1941 року

Slogan on cover

• «Україна-для українців»

p.23/24 – Політичні постанови

• 17. Жиди в СССР є найвідданішою підпорою пануючого большевицького режиму та авангардом московського імперіялізму в Україні ...Організація Українських Націоналістів поборює жидів як підпору московсько-більшовицького режіму.

• 18. Організація Українських Націоналістів поборює всі опортуністичні партії та емігрантські групи, зокрема дрібно-міщанську групу попутчиків націоналізму А.Мельника, гетьманців,УНР, есерів, есдеків, ундистів, ФНЄ, радикалів, клерікалів і всіх інших....

• p.38

IV Окремі постанови 2.ОУН уживає свойого окремого організаціного прапору червоної та чорної краски.

• 3.Організаційний привіт має форму піднесення випростованої правої в право-скіс вище висоти вершка голови. Обовязуючи слова повного привіту: «Слава Україні» - відповідь –«Героям слава». Допускається скороченн привіту – «Слава»- «Слава».

Last one is really intresting to note the WP power --

Hitler salute the right arm is raised at an angle of about 45 degrees above the horizontal and slightly sideways to the right, and is almost always accompanied by the exclamation of the words Heil Hitler! said in a firm and usually loud voice. If standing in front of a superior the heels might be clicked simultaneously. At rallies and meetings the arms of the crowd may also be raised while rhythmically shouting sieg Heil.

Also

DYK

HSSPF RuЯland-Mitte, Standort Mogilew
Stand 29.10.43: mit Wirtschafter, Nachschubkommandantur d.W SS Bobruisk, Leichtkrankenhaus d. W SS, TWL d.W SS bobruisk, Bauinspektion d.W SS u.Pol.RuЯland-Mitte, Mogilew
SS-Ogruf.u.Gen.d.Pol. Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski 21.06.41 – 22.11.43 (vgs. fьr Moskau)

DYK

HSSPF RuЯland-Sьd, Standort Kiew
Ab 19.10.43 unter dem Hцchsten SSPF Ukraine. Ihm sind unterstellt: die SSPF Wolhynien/Podolien, Shitomir und Kiew, Zuge-hцrig sind die Wirtschafter in Kiew und Rowno, die SSPF Shitomir, Stalino, Dnjepropetrowsk, Tschernogow, Charkow, Simfero-pol, Kiew. Das Remon-teamt in Rasdolje, die TWL in Kiew und Dnjepropetrowsk, die Bauinspektion d.W SS u.Pol.RuЯland-Sьd in Kiew, das SS-Lazarett Kiew und Dnjepropetrowsk, sowie die Nachschubkommandantur d.W SS in Dnjepropetrowsk. Die Dienststelle SS-Wirtschafter wurde am 10.2. 44 aufgelцst
SS-Ogruf.u.Gen.d.Pol. Friedrich Jeckeln 23.06.41 – 11.12.41
SS-Ogruf.u.Gen.d.Pol. Hans-Adolf Prьtzmann 11.12.41 – (01.07.44)
(ab 29.10.43 zugl. Hцchster SSPF Ukraine)
SS-Wirtschafter: SS-Ostuf. Josef Spacil 01.08.42 – 10.02.44

--Jo0doe (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hitler salute is based on an early 20th century American one. Anyways, this stuff belongs in the OUN article, not here.Faustian (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hitler salute is based on Roman legionaires' one from even pre-Imperial Rome methinks. AS to the rest- Faustian is correct.Galassi (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So – great – you only llimited your translation to a funny explanaion about Hitler salute. Use WP power first.While – could you please advice me a correct terms for “поборює жидів”. In light Військові постанови 1.Для здійснення своїх цілей ОУН організує і вишколює власну військову силу 2.Завданням військової сили ОУН є... б) бути пробоєвою силою й опорою у цілій її боротьбі. в)Бути ядром Української Армії в українській державі.

So the issues is follow –

• Can we expect to see above mentioned details in OUN-B article
• could you please actually found a source which noted what the flag of OUN under dictatorship of Bandera is actually flag of military detachments of this fascist organization (see above all clearly noted details) which adopt name of UPA in end of May 1943.
• Could you find an RS prove about sole Tys-Krochmalyuk claim about
• SS-Ogruf.u.Gen.d.Pol. Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski which mythically was “trageted by Himler for UPA” at time when UPA does not exist as such and about
• SS-Ogruf.u.Gen.d.Pol. Hans-Adolf Prьtzmann 11.12.41 – (01.07.44) which ruled the Ukraine

Also about reprinted Shankovskyy 1953 claim about German large scale operation against UPA-OUN(B) – as far as hundreds of different scholars which described in tiny details about German operations in rear. Every operation of every German police unit [141]

in tiny details – 

• Alexander Dallin German Rule in Russia: 1941-1945 A study of occupational Policies (London Macmillan, 1957)

• Die Wehrmacht:Mythos and Realitat ed. Rolf-Dieter Muller and Hans-Erich Volkmann (Munich Oldenburg Verlag, 1999)

• Ben Shepherd, War in the Wild East German Army and Soviet Partisans (Cambridge and London Harvard University press 2004)
• Hannes Heer and Klaus Naumann eds, War of Extermination: The German military in the World War II 1941-44 (New York Berghahn Books 2000).
• Die faschistiche Okkupationspolitik in den zeituweilig besetzen Gebeiten der Sowijetunon (1941-1944) (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissrnschafen, 1991

• Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001)

• Karel Berkhoff. Harvest of the Despair: Life and Death in the Ukraine under Nazi Rule. Cambridge / London: Harvard University Press, 2004.

• Timothy Patrick Mulligan, The Politics of Illusion and Empire: German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union (New York: Praeger, 1998);
• Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde: Die deutsche Wirtschaft- und Vernichtungspolitik in Weisrussland 1941-1944 (Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 1999);
• Wendy Lower, Nazi Empire-Building and the Holocaust in Ukraine (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005).

Etc. etc. etc

And interesting amongst this hundreds of works only stories about “OUN activists launched a brutal cleansing campaign against the Polish minority in Volhynia (and later in East Galicia, a part of Ukraine integrated into the General Government), killing thousands of people and forcing many more to leave their homeland for the west. But any trace about what actually you repeatedly reinstate in article. So the issue is – does the WP allow to produce hoaxes of tiny community. Thank you in advance for your assistance in asked above translations. Jo0doe (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you read before revert warring, you would know that this article already contains plenty of information about UPA's ethnic cleansing of Poles and about the OUN's antisemitisism. Indeed, although UPA killed fewer Poles than, say, Croatian Ustashe killed Serbs and Jews, this article contains more grisly details of UPA's atrocities than even the one on the Ustashe includes about its activities. Apparently, that is not enough for sole editor Jo0doe, and hense the one-man constant revert war. Jo0doe is, of course, welcome to find new info from the sources he outlined above. Hopefully he will use them in constructiove, collaborative editting rather than revert warring. I am not optimistic though - he has shown along pattern of quoting selectively from sources - perfect example is here: [142] and similar mischief.Faustian (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I really appriciate with your self critics about how you misuse variety of sources and feed with it other. But I'm not spoken about grisly details of UPA's atrocities as you are usually tend to misrepresent. I spoke about general doctrine of OUN-B- UPA - not a versions of doctored history from Hrvards URI. I again spoke about "German battles" which cannot be found anywere excluding books by former UPA (or cited trough it). As regards to Jews - see the difference - not Western Ukraine Jews but all Jews in USSR. As far as quoted by you Ukr Quot pubished in 1964 while at online ref it cited as 1969 - which one date is correct - as far as I remember your p.242 I expect very similar story. Again - see WP:Undue policy and User:Warofdreams reccomendations at your talk page. Thank you for your refuse to help with translation--Jo0doe (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

UPA battles with Germans cited from Institute of History and numerous other sources in the article. If you don't like the fact that Institute of History, or other soruces cite "UPA books" then that's your personal problem. As has been told to you dozens of times, as wikipedia editors we don't second-guess what RS sources do, we just cite them. And not selectively, based on our personal preferences regarding the RS's sources. Again, continue being disruptive and your "edits" will continue to be disgarded. Oh, and your reference to Harvard's "doctored history" is pretty symptomatic of your usual approach to this and other articles. Harvard URI - "doctored history". Yale is "Sovietology". Encyclopedia Britannica is also bad according to you. But the corupt politician's web page is a good source as this hilarious conversation with you demonstrates: [143]. Sorry clown, I guess you'd better start mumbling about Black FOrest, Makivka, Canadian woodcutters' manga, and Austrian officersFaustian (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• May be you would like to say cited trough Shankovskyy, Shankovskyy, Krochmalyuk. Etc. If you don’t like facts from Institute of History and other WWII history works (only few mentioned above) – please do not include in WP your personal “Believe” – “do you or do you not believe” Faustian (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC) – May be you don’t read Himka’s –“UPA veteran and military historian Lev Shankovsky, for example, asserted at a round-table discussion that organized anti-Semitism “never existed in Ukraine. But there exists a myth about Ukrainian anti-Semitism” promoted by

Moscow.” At the same round-table discussion in 1960 where he denied the existence of Ukrainian anti-Semitism, Lev Shankovsky said: “The Jews should be an example for us of how to illuminate our recent tragic history.” …

One was the late Ivan L. Rudnytsky, a scholar possessed of great civil

courage. He questioned the view commonly accepted in diaspora historiography that the Bandera movement underwent a democratic transformation in the second half of 1943 and in 1944. He specifically criticized the xeonophobia of OUN, in particular its attitude toward the Jews during World War II and its “conscious campaign of ‘cleansing the land’ of Polish population.

And again you forgot about Lebed doctored document placed at URI – quoted by Himka. Again you forgot Yale “Lithuanian names issue”. Again you forgot WP:NPOV good research notice. It’s really sad what other editors which makes WP not a mirror of Ukrainian House at Peep-Ckreek display-board but a WP as a reliable source is clowns for you. I hope you’ll not actively oppose to a better wording of WP suggested by neutral person. Thank you for refuse to assist in translation.

See below another citation from “Instruction” were "Jews assimilation is impossible"

а) Наша влада мусить бути страшна для її противників. Терор для чужинців-ворогів і своїх-зрадників - творча свобода, подих нових ідей українця-володаря власної землі мусить з кожного чину, в його кожному кроці пробиватися..."

-- Jo0doe (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So many lies about me from our clown Jo0doe (talk). I never denied OUN's antisemitic statements nor did I ever deny UPA's role in the massacre and ethnic cleansing of Poles - indeed, in addition to reverting your disruptive edits I have reverted attempts to remove info about OUN and UPA crimes (just one example: [144]). So you are just being dishonest as usual.

As for Shankovsky and antisemitism - thanks for the quotes from Himka. Unfortunately for you, you are disputing the Institute of History's use of Shankovsky, specifically, as a reference for UPA battles, not their use of him as an authority on Jewish relations. You are assuming that because according to Himka's account Shankovsky isn't reliable with respect to discussion of Ukrainian antisemitism, then his description of UPA battles is also unreliable. This is original research - your personal conclusion second-guessing the Institute of History's work on UPA. Nowhere have you provided any RS that specifically states or provides an example of Shankovsky not being reliable when describing some UPA battle. Until you do, no reason to exclude or editorialize information just because you personally find it controversial. WP isn't Jo0doe (talk)'s personal project or blog. Nor should it be a playground for your trolling.Faustian (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually if we carefully exam “Austrian officer” issue – It’s easily to conclude what you’ve stressed the IMT witness affidavit reliability – and thus concern the Fascist nature of OUN-B.

Editor, which as far as I can see very familiar with psychology, always use half-truth in his sentences. So attempt to pose strategy as “statements” – i.e. pose actions as words. It’s easy can be seen from how editor distort the OUN -B General Instruction adopted in 1941 etc. etc. Look like professional “playing with text”. So editor “do not deny” – it actually called manipulation. As regards to Poles – yes – “not deny – but distort” – “played a significant role” – so here assumed what somebody else exterminate Poles because they were not Ukrainians. So how many emphasis given to unknown Pole words – so readers can be easily imagine what there was a similarity in scale of both side actions and absence of OUN-B/UPA well prepared plan – which in fact is not -

No assumption. The sources indicate that Poles were killed not only by UPA but also by non-UPA affiliated bandits, by regular villagers, and even by UPA's rival Taras Bulba's guerrillas. This is what the article states [145]: In addition to the UPA, Ukrainian peasants also participated in the violence,[51] and large groups of armed "bandit" marauders unaffiliated with UPA brutalized civilians.[52] so the exact number of Poles killed specifically by UPA is unknown. You just can't help yourself, can you, and continue to quote selectively. Telling half the truth is a lie, you know.Faustian (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

UPA's actions were matched by similar actions by the Polish Armia Krajowa and by Polish police forces working for the Germans. The brutal conflict escalated out of control with many thousands of civilians being murdered by both Ukrainian and Polish forces.

As regards Shankovsky – editor again and again forgot to cite facts provided on other pages an in general conclusion about UPA activities and strategy on “german front” by Institute of History's.

A lie as usual. I added this to the article []: UPA, fighting a two-front war against both the Germans and approaching Soviets (as well as Soviet partisans), did not focus all of its efforts against the Germans. Indeed, it considered the Soviets to be a greater threat. Adopting a strategy analogous to that of the Chetnik leader General Draža Mihailović, UPA held back against the Germans in order to better prepare itself for and engage in the struggle against the Communists. Because of this, although UPA managed to limit German activities to a certain extent, it failed to prevent the Germans from deporting approximately 500,000 people from Western Ukrainian regions and from economically exploiting Western Ukraine., a translation of the summary, which you removed in your vandalism.Faustian (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention Shankovskyy. So – great you call German map located at ushmm.org

• National Archives and Records Administration RG 242 — http://www.ushmm.org/research/collections/search/ph_catalog.php pictures 59462 −59481, p.184 HSSPF RuЯland-Sьd June 30 report about “heavy fighting’s»

While – it’s funny to see how author illiteral in WWII history (as also a EB online article on this matter) – so again “strategy analogous to that of the Chetnik” reflect the fact that specific editor not familiar with WWII anti-Nazi movement. Please visit WP – if you don’t want to go to the library (as it recommended many times before – and see that the Chetniks were Nazi collaborationists and similar as UPA acted against partizans together with Nazi and conduct ethnical cleaning – al also they recognized a war criminals – as UPA. While as regards to habit with your citing – you simply misuse a source –as always – see conclusion – it’s academic work – not “historical fiction” were described as “lines” and “cubes”.Jo0doe (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So again confirming Shankovskyy through Shankovskyy – assuming what he write about different time and place then other scholars prepared work about WWII – Eastern front and ant-partizan activities of Nazi. And again misleading claim about that is an other editor conclusion – not a scholar recognized works. So again we traced a bad faith editing (as from the beginning) to reflect in WP Ukrainian Diaspora adopted version of history – with blank spots – using an notable psychology knowledge Jo0doe (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about "confirming Shankovsky through Shankovsky". Rather, accurately stating what the source actually says.Faustian (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See ref and article text - and also See p.182 – "no full documented evidence about number of UPA battles with Germans". Conclusion described what UPA activity against Nazi’s was minimal and general strategy of OUN/UPA oriented to avoid of clashes with Nazis – and act predominantly against poles and soviet - see specifically devoted to this “strategy” sub-chapter 3. P174-180 Jo0doe (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

More cherry-picking. Page 182 [146] states that there is no full documentary evidence of UPA battles against the Germans. Not that such battles didn't exist but that we don't know how many there were. So, you dishonestly presented the infromation in the page based on part of a sentence taken out of context. The the rest of the page then describes several of those battles. Thanks for demonstrating how dishonestly you use the source. Third paragraph fromt he bottom states that the German administrtion reporte dlosing control to nationalism and communist partisans north of Zhitomir. Page 183, second paragraph, states that the Communist partisans themselves admitted that the nationalists enagegd against "German robbery and terror" of the Ukrainian population.Faustian (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You again experienced difficulties in comprehend difficulties between “battle” and “action”/”activity” (remember “Austrian officer”). As far as you again forgot about conclusion located at end of chapter text. Again you forgot about UPA which was active at north of Zhytomyrska oblast from spring 1942 and what there no UPA-OUN-B until mid of May – see date of Klyachkibsky order. Again look at p.184 and found sentence at the very beginning of the page under ref 83. As regards text after it – see p.186 – about origin of above – L.Shankovskyy.

If you like to know the real name of SSPF Wolhynien und Podolien – see [147] - Wilhelm Günther (1899-1945): SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Polizei (1943) - SSPF Wolhynien und Podolien (Mitte 1942 - Anfang 1944) –so please no Shankovksyy evywere.Jo0doe (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)